The junk science of the abortion lobby

RR, thank you for expert input with deep experience behind it. Your description of the evident pain awareness of newborn children and of the child back to the 22nd of 40 weeks speaks to consciousness. This parallels evidence that suggests that the child in the womb is learning through hearing, through things like responsiveness to familiar voices and the old trick of using a wrapped ticking clock to mimic maternal heartbeat and calm a baby. We really need to take off ideological blinkers and pay heed to evidence that the unborn child is clearly a functioning member of our race. That will require that we face our collective, global guilt of being part of the mass slaughter of the unborn over the past 40+ years, currently advancing at about a million more victims per week. The cumulative toll is in excess of 800 millions, making this by far the worst holocaust in history. This alone is more than enough to warrant the concern that our civilisation has gone horribly wrong. I also hold that this is the central cancer, busily sending out deadly metastases across our institutions and culture. KF PS: What are your specific points of concern? Have you looked at the weak argument correctives linked from the resources tab? I note, the core ID contention is [a] it is a legitimate scientific question to explore whether various phenomena of interest provide empirically reliable signs of design as key cause, and [b] that such signs are present in the world of life and that of the structure and fine tuning of the cosmos. I now add [c] that some aspects of the embedding of structure and quantity in the fabric of the world point to mind as best explanation. kairosfocus

I am new to UD as a commentator, but have been reading most of the blogs with internet for some time. I claim no expertise in biology, physics, information technology, social sciences, and philosophy, so I don’t always understand everything that is being discussed. However, where I do have expertise is that I have been a pediatric anesthesiologist in an academic institution for 31 years. I work with atheists, agnostics, theists, etc, individuals of varying beliefs. I felt that it was time I wrote something. No one that I work with and none of my patients or their families believe that consciousness is an illusion. My job is to render patients unconscious so that they do not feel pain. In the dark days of pediatric anesthesia, newborn infants were thought not to have pain, so all they received was a drug to prevent them from moving so facilitate surgery. Today that would be considered outright barbaric and malpractice. Even though we do not know if newborns perceive pain the way older infants and children do, we do know that they have a heart rate, blood pressure, behavioural, and stress hormone release response to pain. We do know that this response, if not adequately treated, results in greater morbidity and mortality for infants. This is true even of premature infants. In our institution, premature infants of greater than 22 weeks gestation and 500 gms or heavier are considered potential candidates for saving with aggressive treatment. They receive narcotics for discomfort in the neonatal intensive care. I give them real anesthesia and pain medication when they require surgery (my personal smallest is 600 gms), as much as their frail bodies can tolerate. No competent and informed practitioner in any pediatric medical or surgical specialty denies that infants experience pain. You can draw your own conclusions here about I would feel about late trimester abortions. The other myth is that infants do not remember pain. We do not know if they have a conscious memory of pain like older children and adults. What studies have shown is that if an infant has had a surgical procedure (for example, circumcism) without adequate anesthesia or painful procedures (like frequent needle pokes) without some form of analgesia, they object more vigorously when they receive immunization compared to other infants who have not had these procedures. To suggest that one does not experience pain if one is asleep is completely absurd. If you are naturally asleep and someone does something painful to you, you will wake up. The anesthetic dosage requirements are much greater to tolerate a painful procedure than simply to induce sleep or for a non painful procedure. Awareness under anesthesia, though uncommon, can occur under certain circumstances. Patients with this experience are usually quite emotionally traumatized, especially if they are having a painful procedure. I would challenge those who believe that consciousness is an illusion to have their surgery done without an anesthetic. None of my atheistic surgical colleagues or atheistic patients and their parents feel that I am imposing my views on consciousness on the children I look after. BTW, I am a theist and have a strong interest in the ID movement even though I don’t understand or agree with everything. redridley

EG, I await your refutation, starting with E = Error exists, so ~E implies it is an error to assert E; thus E is undeniably true. Persuasion, in short, is not warrant as there is a choice involved. When we can sort out this case and its devastating implications for subjectivism and relativism, we can get back to structure and quantity embedded in the fabric of reality, to degrees of warranted certainty and to the questions of scientific knowledge and (the far more warranted case of) moral knowledge and truth. KF kairosfocus

SM, that is -- sadly -- what seems to be going on. Selective hyperskepticism without warrant, substituted for serious discussion on the merits. When we reach a point where the force of the logic on merits tracing to self-evident first principles can be brushed aside freely, that is a very bad sign of where we are. KF PS: And if that happens with things that are much more warranted than science can be, we are seeing that the issue with the design inference is not the inference or its warrant, but the breakdown in how we think. kairosfocus

F/N: News has a telling clip from Hossenfelder:

How often can you hold up four fingers, hear a thousand people shout “five”, and not agree with them? How often can you repeat an argument, see it ignored, and still believe in reason? How often can you tell a thousand scientists the blatantly obvious, hear them laugh, and not think you are the one who is insane?

The answer is, the self-evident logic is right and the crowd wrong. KF kairosfocus

"but that your opinion and belief do not necessarily constitute warrant" IF that is Hazel's position then Hazel ought to be able to show the flaw(s) in KF's argument that led him to conclude he had warrant. After all, KF has laid his arguments out in plain view, repeatedly, and in very detailed and rigorously structured manner. IF Hazel is unable to do that then Hazel is proposing that Hazel's opinion and belief are sufficient in and of themselves to refute a credible argument. This strikes me as both convenient and implausible. ScuzzaMan

EG, warrant is on the table with a very specific test case. Kindly answer it on the merits, without implying that I have made an error . . . which illustrates just how undeniable it is. Likewise, your arguments imply known duties to truth, right reason and much more, while trying to subjectivise same. They are self-referentially incoherent. KF kairosfocus

Hazel claims,,,

There is no empirical proof of any of these speculations about what mind is, where it comes from, and what its role is in the overall nature of reality.

Do you really believe that??? It is often pointed out in “the hard problem” of consciousness that the specific mental attribute of qualia will forever be beyond any possible materialistic explanation and/or to any physical examination. That is to say that qualia will never be reducible to physical ‘brain states’.

“what it is like to taste a specific apple, this particular apple now”. Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky.,, – pre wikipedia David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

And whereas qualia will never lend itself to physical examination, on the other hand we find that the mental attributes of ‘free will’ and “the experience of the now”, although being outside space-time, do lend themselves to physical examination.

Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4 (December 2018) Neuroscientific and quantum validation of free will https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/three-knockdown-proofs-of-the-immateriality-of-mind-and-why-computers-compute-not-think/#comment-670445

In fact, besides empirical validation for the mental attributes of 'the experience of the now' and of free will, there are numerous other lines of evidence in quantum mechanics that the Theist can appeal to in order support his claim the the Mind of God precedes all of material reality

,,,Thus to summarize, putting all the lines of evidence together from the Double Slit experiment, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, and the Quantum Zeno effect, the argument for God from consciousness can now be formulated like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even a central position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - 5 Experiments - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5qphmi8gYE

Thus in conclusion, and in direct contradiction to what Hazel claimed,

There is no empirical proof of any of these speculations about what mind is, where it comes from, and what its role is in the overall nature of reality.

,,, in direct contradiction to that claim, the Christian Theist has multiple lines of evidence from quantum mechanics backing up his claim that Mind of God is primary and material is derivative, whereas the Atheist has zero evidence that mind is somehow magically emergent from a material basis: Here are a few supplemental quotes:

"Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness." - Jerry Fodor - Rutgers University philosopher [2] Fodor, J. A., Can there be a science of mind? Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992, pp5-7. "Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature." Roger Wolcott Sperry - Nobel neurophysiologist As quoted in Genius Talk : Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries (1995) by Denis Brian ISBN 0306450895 "No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians' hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it." - Larry Dossey - Physician and author "We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists who often confuse their religion with their science." - John C. Eccles, The Wonder of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind - 1984 “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” - Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” - Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334. “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists." – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177. "In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place." - William J. Murray

Verse and Music:

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Touch The Sky (lyric video) - Hillsong UNITED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RQciil7B0

bornagain77

KF@107, I think that what Hazel is saying is that what you consider to be warrant is your opinion and belief, but that your opinion and belief do not necessarily constitute warrant. In short, you have convinced yourself but you haven’t convinced her and others. Ed George

H, if you doubt that warrant can be had towards truth, that is an even bigger problem. KF PS: Consider, Error exists, E. Consider its denial, ~E. The latter in effect asserts it is an error to assert that error exists, undermining itself instantly. E is an undeniable, self evident truth. It is a case of certain truth, warranted beyond rational doubt. It is hard form knowledge. It is also empirically accessible (think about red X's for elementary school sums). This single truth, sweeps away a vast array of worldviews that directly or implicitly deny objective, knowable truth or that we may empirically reliably detect truth. kairosfocus

kf writes, "H, pardon but the issue is not my subjective certainty but warrant towards credible truth." I know you believe that. hazel

ba writes, "May I point out that you, ‘correctly’, believing that you have a immaterial mind, while it may not make you a Christian, certainly makes you a Theist of some sort. " No, it doesn't, assuming theism implies a personal, conscious, willful, purposeful divine entity. That is certainly not the only alternative to materialism. You write,

If you have proof for any of these these other possibilities, (other than Atheistic physicalism or Theism),,, empirical proof somewhere other than in the shadows of your imagination, please present the empirical proof of these ‘other possibilities’ that you somehow see in your imagination.

There is no empirical proof of any of these speculations about what mind is, where it comes from, and what its role is in the overall nature of reality. hazel

H, pardon but the issue is not my subjective certainty but warrant towards credible truth. In the context of alternative worldviews cores, inference to best explanation i/l/o comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. the focal question that attaches to moral government is that given that it governs thought life, on pain of grand delusion, it must be real. Nor can it be merely subjective, that reduces to being a grand delusion. That is, there is a core of moral knowledge which inter alia governs our thought life through duties to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness etc. That is inescapable, on pain of reducing thought and communication to grand delusion that utterly undermines rational discussion, learning etc. The onward issue is to address the IS-OUGHT gap, noting that the two are inextricably intertwined in our reasoning. This is why I pointed to the root of reality, or else we are looking at ungrounded ought. We therefore need a world root IS, being, capable of causing a world with morally governed creatures, so also of grounding ought. That leads to a comparative difficulties challenge across candidates, and what I have pointed out is that after centuries, there is but one serious candidate. To sustain another, the same difficulties have to be addressed, where for instance IS-OUGHT as a gap is a manifestation of the problem of the ONE AND THE MANY, how do we get to a coherent world given diversity, or else how do we have diversity if we posit a grand ONE. The result of such exercises is as I pointed out, and the comparative difficulties challenge is the reason why I say such so freely. KF kairosfocus

Hazel, I appreciate you honestly laying out and/or working out your worldview in post 95. as to

The fact that I might have an opinion that might be held by a materialist doesn’t make me a materialist, any more than agreeing with a Christian position makes me a Christian.

and

* I accept the reality of my mind as something separate from my body, and thus from the material world

May I point out that you, 'correctly', believing that you have a immaterial mind, while it may not make you a Christian, certainly makes you a Theist of some sort. The reality of immaterial mind separate from matter and energy, and that is capable of somehow interacting with matter and energy, is completely antithetical to materialism (and pantheism for that matter). You disfavor dichotomies, but alas, there are, in reality, only two options in the end. There is no "However, I see other possibilities." If you have proof for any of these these other possibilities, (other than Atheistic physicalism or Theism),,, empirical proof somewhere other than in the shadows of your imagination, please present the empirical proof of these 'other possibilities' that you somehow see in your imagination. Might I further suggest that your moral basis, with what I perceive to be your heavy emphasis on compassion and grace, is far more compatible with Christianity, than it is with either Islam or Judaism, than you seem to personally realize right now? As the ancient historian I quoted in the other thread stated, “In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian.”

Tom Holland: Why I was wrong about Christianity – 2016 It took me a long time to realise my morals are not Greek or Roman, but thoroughly, and proudly, Christian. Excerpt: Today, even as belief in God fades across the West, the countries that were once collectively known as Christendom continue to bear the stamp of the two-millennia-old revolution that Christianity represents. It is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity?fbclid=IwAR0QqBmBxdpkHh_iiXlJX-UbwShtej-wnB721Z1eULApM6fuxSUzSjnBJA8

bornagain77

kf writes, " Pardon, you have mentioned a world root in very general terms, but have not engaged the comparative difficulties challenge" True. First I'm aware that my thoughts are very general because they are almost entirely speculative. Second, I have no interest in engaging in a "comparative difficulties challenge." I know how certain you are about your beliefs, I know how I think your sense of certainty is unjustified, and I know how much I think we can't really know what the world is at the root-level. I accept our differences, but we've gone over a lot of that and there is no sense in repeating it all. hazel

H, Pardon, you have mentioned a world root in very general terms, but have not engaged the comparative difficulties challenge. Adequate to cause reality, including morally governed creatures. Minded creatures where as you acknowledged from the outset, mind and matter are distinct but interacting. Thus, you imply immaterial, morally governed reality as mind acts are morally governed. Where moral choice and moral goodness imply mindedness, the heart of personhood. Where in fact the pantheistic view* runs into serious challenges at exactly this point, it can get to one but not adequately to the one and the many, including on moral matters where moral diversity has to be dealt with: good vs evil. _____ * I here reckon Panentheism as a variant form. Note, again, my comment on the candidate to beat:

Or is it, given a known alternative on the table, in the context of being the only serious, successful candidate, that there is implicit refusal to admit that? Let’s summarise: from our thought life on up, we are inescapably morally governed, as witnessed by conscience and known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice, neighbourliness etc. Likewise, it is self evidently wrong and wicked to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young child for one’s pleasure. These and many other considerations in today’s age force us to ponder whether moral government and knowledge are delusional, artifacts of the evolved brain or some other kind of delusion. But if that is so, our whole inner life would fall under the taint, grand delusion. We are forced to accept that we are morally governed so that the IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged at world-root. This requires a being independent of others for its existence and moral framework, being also inherently good and causally adequate to account for a world involving us as morally governed creatures. There being (after many centuries of debate) just one serious candidate. If you doubt, just provide an alternative: _____ and address comparative difficulties: _______ . The candidate to beat: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. That is, ethical theism, being here prior to any particular philosophical or religious tradition or teacher.

Okay, more later, gotta run, KF kairosfocus

Thanks, BA. I am getting something out of writing my posts, or, for the most part, I wouldn't be doing it. Other's posts aimed at me serve as a foil and a stimulus to think about things. hazel

kf, I have mentioned a possible "world root": what I have speculatively called a oneness underlying quantum reality, giving rise to both mind and matter. It doesn't meet all your criteria for a world root, but I haven't side-stepped the issue. hazel

H: I note your remarks at 95:

I am certain that many of the positions ED, BB, and I have argued for in this thread, and in the Killing Babies thread, are held by many religious people, including Christians, as well as non-religious people of different sorts. The fact that I might have an opinion that might be held by a materialist doesn’t make me a materialist, any more than agreeing with a Christian position makes me a Christian.

You will note how frequently I have spoken to evolutionary materialistic scientism (with its institutional, deleterious dominance) [= "naturalism"] AND fellow travellers. The point, being, that when we face an ideological juggernaut -- never mind its inherent self-falsification through self referential incoherence and the import of its implicit amorality -- it distorts the institutional and policy space, strongly pulling people to "moderate" [= acceptable] positions. And where agit prop stunts, media amplification, media lyinchings and lawfare abound, there will be a tendency to undue dominance of the ideology. So, there will be a pattern where many who have varying views are pulled into orbit. The further factor is that it is plain that the ideological dominance is leading our civilisation on a locked-in voyage of ruinous folly. Blind, ruinous folly. That is background. Let's note on your worldview outline with ethical aspects, clipping and annotating particularly interesting points:

* I accept the reality of my mind as something separate from my body, and thus from the material world * I believe that my mind and my body are very entangled, constantly interacting with each other. * However, I do not know how my mind interfaces with my body, nor the details of how the two interact with and influence each other. I don’t believe anyone know these things. * My philosophical speculation, which is nothing more than that, is that there is some unified oneness beyond the quantum level that gives rise to both mind and matter. [--> a unified root of reality, which also needs to reckon with diversity including moral diversity] * I believe that my mind has rational capabilities, which includes the ability *** to understand abstract concepts, *** to embody those concepts in verbal and written symbols that can be shared with others, and can be used by me to increase my understanding via internal reflection *** to manipulate those symbols logically * I believe that my consciousness is just part of my mind, and that at one one time it is aware of just a small part of what is in my mind * I believe that our mind has the ability to make freely determined choices, *** although that ability is very entangled with our bodily self: learning how to exercise the will is one of the primary tasks of being a human being, I think . . . . My sense that I am obligated to live morally, and that there is a fundamental moral foundation, is just as real to me as my consciousness or my rationality. [--> echoing, that the IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged at world-root] It seems to me that that foundation starts with some basic principles about how to treat our fellow human beings: * Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor.” That’s a good place to start. [--> but who is my neighbour and why must s/he be viewed as of equal moral worth?] * Be compassionate to all. My yoga teacher ends each class with a precept from the Eastern religions, “Bow the head to the heart, and surrender the ego to compassion”. [--> a pointer to pantheistic/ panentheistic influences and the new age movement] * All human beings are created equal, and have an inherent human worth. This is a foundational principle of our country * Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule, and the basic social contract Principles such as these are where morality start. [--> nope, we are not at the root of reality, we cannot ground morality, though we have in us a witness, conscience, which even regulates our reasoning] Applying them to everyday situations, from the momentous to the mundane, is where we have to apply our rationality. [--> which is itself inescapably morally governed] Yes we draw on our culture, and as we become educated we draw on the spiritual wisdom of the ages. We also have to draw on our ability to gather facts, think logically about consequences, and ultimately we have to make [--> morally governed] choices, because moral situations often present us with conflicting perspectives. [--> thus we have to weigh relative values and must regulate the weights we apply, hence the Golden Rule] But some fundamental moral principles underlie it all. Now, where do there underlying principles lie, and from whence do they come. I don’t know.

[--> there is on the table a discussion on inference to best, worldview-level explanation, with open invitation to provide an alternative on comparative difficulties; it is asserted that there is but one serious candidate, you have just implicitly conceded that you cannot supply another]

I know that some of you see this uncertainty on my part in a negative light, but I am confident and comfortable with the idea that it is important to know what I know and what I don’t know.

[--> Or is it, given a known alternative on the table, in the context of being the only serious, successful candidate, that there is implicit refusal to admit that? Let's summarise: from our thought life on up, we are inescapably morally governed, as witnessed by conscience and known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice, neighbourliness etc. Likewise, it is self evidently wrong and wicked to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young child for one's pleasure. These and many other considerations in today's age force us to ponder whether moral government and knowledge are delusional, artifacts of the evolved brain or some other kind of delusion. But if that is so, our whole inner life would fall under the taint, grand delusion. We are forced to accept that we are morally governed so that the IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged at world-root. This requires a being independent of others for its existence and moral framework, being also inherently good and causally adequate to account for a world involving us as morally governed creatures. There being (after many centuries of debate) just one serious candidate. If you doubt, just provide an alternative: _____ and address comparative difficulties: _______ . The candidate to beat: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. That is, ethical theism, being here prior to any particular philosophical or religious tradition or teacher.]

But here is my speculation: Whatever source gives rise to my mind (I mentioned an underlying oneness that is the source of both mind and matter) also gives me this fundamental moral foundation in the same way that it gives me the ability to use logic to manipulate concepts.[--> in short, we are made in God's image, reasonable and responsible, though that word is avoided] In this view, all human beings have the same very basic foundation to draw on: one of love, compassion, and care for other human beings as fundamentally all the same in worth.

[--> All men are created equal, are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights . . . to secure such rights Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed]

These principles are part of my core being, as well as everyone else’s --> conscience as witness and regulator of reason], and once mine, they grow with me as I develop from childhood to adulthood. Some people believe that this moral core is somehow in contact with some external source of morality: for instance, ba thinks it comes from God. [--> you have so far studiously avoided the ethical theism challenge that was repeatedly put on the table] I don’t experience morality that way. [--> denial that conscience holds us accountable to law and duties, bearing witness to something beyond figments of our fever-dreams] I don’t feel my mind is in contact with any larger mind. [--> the issue is not active relationship with God, but the implications of inescapable moral government and the is-ought gap] The moral foundation is in me, and it’s my job to draw on it in the best way I can. One way to look at it (this is an anthropomorphic metaphor) is that once given the moral foundation, the rationality to assess moral situations in the world, and the ability to choose my actions, the giver goes away.[--> a somewhat deistic suggestion] It’s up to me as a human being to make use of these gifts. Note: this moral foundation goes beyond culture. [--> is transcendent] I do not believe, as Barry said in his OP, that ““good” means what the people of a society collectively deem to be good.” [--> rejects cultural relativism, but that then extends to the society of one, subjectivism; we are not adequate in ourselves to ground moral government] I believe in conscientious objection. I believe we have a civic duty to question accepted morals and other norms when our conscience and rationality [--> which is morally regulated] deem that appropriate.

I of course find in this some interesting intersections with my current OP on ethical aspects of logic and first principles of right reason. It is also significant to see how the pivotal challenge, to bridge the IS-OUGHT gap at the only place this is feasible -- on pain of ungrounded ought -- is side-stepped. Namely, the world root. In short, we see yet again how sound the observation is, that after centuries of debates, there is just one serious candidate. One, that is obviously hard to swallow in today's ideological climate. Okay, as this is implicitly responsive to the parallel OP, I will cross post there. KF kairosfocus

F/N: I find the Harvard article interesting in its lead examples:

In June 2018, Serena Williams told Vanity Fair about her journey to motherhood, including the story of how she nearly died a few days after giving birth. In September, Beyoncé punctuated her Vogue cover with the story of how she developed a life-threatening pregnancy condition called preeclampsia, which can lead to seizures and stroke.

Both of these are wealthy, celebrity women; one a very robustly framed internationally prominent athlete. And while they may well simply be lending profile to a cause of concern, it is instantly obvious that such women will have the best of the best health care. In the case of the first, she will also unquestionably be in the top 1% of general health for the population. Indeed, there is no economically feasible socialised medicine system that would deliver to the median or 75th percentile woman, the level of care these would access. (And, we must also remember that a high innovation relatively free market strongly tends to move price points down so that across time what was once skimming the cream becomes much less costly and far more widely available at acceptable quality. Where, too, medical techniques pioneered in the military and based on the level of practice due to dealing with casualties will also feed into the general system. Where, inherently, Economics is about scarcity and choice thus rationing mechanism. Thus, there is never going to be a free lunch and the simple fact of large governmental overheads causes a trend to reduced growth, innovation and investment so that beyond a certain point even tax revenues fall with increasing rates. Long before that, growth is crippled. So, we need a long-run optimisation, very difficult in a culture that sharply discounts the future.) So, what is going on beneath the celebrity tip of the iceberg? The article offers an analysis that is suggestive by what it says and even moreso by what it does not say:

In 1990, about 17 maternal deaths were recorded for every 100,000 pregnant women in the United States. [--> Wiki citing WHO lists as current: 14 for the US, also for Puerto Rico, with the lowest being 3 (a 4-way tie) and about 3 dozen states ranging 4 - 11] While relatively rare, this number has risen steadily over the last 25 years, indicating a worsening safety problem. In 2015, more than 26 deaths were recorded per 100,000 pregnant women. This means that compared with their own mothers, American women today are 50% more likely to die in childbirth. And the risk is consistently three to four times higher for black women than white women, irrespective of income or education . . . . four out of five of these deaths happen in the weeks and months before or after birth. So, they occur not in the hospital, but in our communities. And they represent many failures — not just unsafe medical care, but also eroding social support necessary for women to recognize medical warning signs, like abnormal bleeding or hopelessness about the future, and to seek timely care . . . . During long gaps between checkups, mothers experience deep worry for their infants. They struggle with rapidly accelerated responsibilities, extreme sleep deprivation, and relentless pressure to return to work. And all while recovering from pregnancy and adjusting to parenthood — a transition that marks one of life’s greatest physiological endurance tests. Too often, this experience is isolating, disempowering, and mortally dangerous. And over time, these risks are getting increasingly severe . . . . In some cases, moms can do more to take care of themselves, including by eating well and exercising to stay healthy. The challenge, of course, is that most new moms are exhausted because motherhood is exhausting. And in general, society expects moms to put themselves last in order to put their families first. So, I would say a major responsibility to address the well-being of mothers actually lies with the rest of us. If rising maternal mortality is fundamentally a failure of social support, we all need to step up: birth partners, grandparents, friends, neighbors, professional colleagues — all of us.

This strongly points to family breakdown (especially on the extended side) leading to isolation and overloading of the individual, and it only hints at dangerous lifestyle trends and habits. These trends are directly tied to the sort of accelerated family and societal disintegration that has occurred across the last generation or two. That is then amplified by the contrast of a vast technological improvement in the health sector, obviously rising capabilities linked thereto, and the reported oppositely directed trend of maternal mortality. Where also, we must reckon with another suspect: prior abortions as a part of the pattern. In this generation, women are far more likely to have had a prior abortion than those of forty to seventy years ago, where it is also known that a disproportionate fraction of african american women have had abortions. Where such abortions patently will add to underlying stress due to what being involved in the death of one's own living posterity in one's own womb must imply, even at subconscious level. The further factor of all sorts of drugs, legal and illegal, over the counter, prescription and otherwise multiplied by a food industry with all sorts of additives and traces should not be neglected. The obvious lag of European cultures on social disintegration is then another relevant consideration. In short, we need to be cautious in assigning or assuming causal factors in a politically correct era where the infamous spiral of silence is known to be at work, leading to self-censorship in defence of one's career. This implies that statistics will often be twisted away from the material truth, sometimes through deliberate advocacy, sometimes through blindness imposed by prevailing paradigms, sometimes in anticipatory self-defence. Thus, statistics can become a dangerous source of half-truths, in a context where once the complexities of markets and the far deeper ones of societal interactions and personal psychology and lifestyle are involved there is no effective means of centralised, responsive planning. That is a hard lesson from the exercises in governmental domination of societies and their economies over the past several generations. We must be aware that statistics without adequate dynamical models can be misleading, Also, that seemingly empirically reliable scientific theories are at best provisional. Where also, we must remember that there is a longstanding peer review and replicability crisis on published research. One, with particular relevance to medicine and to social and psychological research. So, yes, statistical monitoring is relevant, and willingness to act at appropriate community level. So is willingness to face the signs of long term social disintegration and its entropic consequences. The issue is not simplistic. But it does suggest, on strongly, plausibly connected macro-trends, that societal breakdown is having seriously damaging consequences. KF kairosfocus

Hazel@95, excellent post. I have been amused by Barry’s interactions with you and Ed over on the killing babies thread. In that thread BA appears to be more interested in attempting to belittle and ridicule than he is to have a constructive conversation. I don’t know why Ed continues to try. Maybe he is just more forgiving than I am. Brother Brian

On the Was Killing Babies Good thread, BB wrote at 25,

Is she not entitled to discuss the subjects she is interested in without being forced to get into a theological cat fight?

I appreciated this comment. I worked in a school in a fairly conservative community for many years. Most of the staff were Christians, some were Jewish, some were atheists, some were Unitarians, and many were I know-not-what. We worked together for the good of kids and their education: our theological or philosophical beliefs were irrelevant. What was important was what we believed, not why we believed it. But here, it seems, “worldviews” is the key issue overriding all other issues. For instance, Barry starts the Killing Babies thread with, “I have a question for our materialist interlocutors.” Neither Ed nor I are materialists, but Barry says of Ed,

You toe the materialist time every single time. If you are not a materialist, you will do until one gets here. And I will treat you as such.

And ba says of me,

Hazel, although she often claims she is not an atheist, has consistently argued for atheistic positions.

And Barry says of me,

You don’t participate in threads where the horrifying consequences of your worldview are exposed for all to see.

I am certain that many of the positions ED, BB, and I have argued for in this thread, and in the Killing Babies thread, are held by many religious people, including Christians, as well as non-religious people of different sorts. The fact that I might have an opinion that might be held by a materialist doesn’t make me a materialist, any more than agreeing with a Christian position makes me a Christian. But with all that said, let me repeat some things about my “worldview”, and then address morality specifically. I’ve done this before, and it hasn’t done much good, but I’ll try again, in abbreviated form. * I accept the reality of my mind as something separate from my body, and thus from the material world * I believe that my mind and my body are very entangled, constantly interacting with each other. * However, I do not know how my mind interfaces with my body, nor the details of how the two interact with and influence each other. I don’t believe anyone know these things. * My philosophical speculation, which is nothing more than that, is that there is some unified oneness beyond the quantum level that gives rise to both mind and matter. * I believe that my mind has rational capabilities, which includes the ability *** to understand abstract concepts, *** to embody those concepts in verbal and written symbols that can be shared with others, and can be used by me to increase my understanding via internal reflection *** to manipulate those symbols logically * I believe that my consciousness is just part of my mind, and that at one one time it is aware of just a small part of what is in my mind * I believe that our mind has the ability to make freely determined choices, *** although that ability is very entangled with our bodily self: learning how to exercise the will is one of the primary tasks of being a human being, I think. As for morals, here’s what I said on the Killing Babies thread.

It seems to me, in part from my own internal experience and in part from my empirical knowledge of people and societies, that people draw on an inward source of moral judgment in addition to the cultural views which embody the moral judgments of their society.

The “inward” part was interpreted by ba thusly:

It tells us that she is basically drawing upon her own moral intuition, and apparently compromising her own moral intuition, when need be, to conform to the society around her, and is not looking to God so as to form the basis of her moral judgments. … That Hazel does not look directly to God as the basis of her morality but looks to her own moral intuition, as well as the morality of the society around her to form the basis of her morality, is a very slippery slope for her to base her moral foundation upon.

Note: I said an “inward source”, not “my own moral intuition”. No, I am not a Christian, but I am not a materialist either. However, ba sees things as a strict dichotomy:

Unlike man’s morality, which is fallible, and which is often subject to whatever the prevailing, i.e. ‘progressive’, cultural whims of the day are, God’s morality is absolutely perfect and certainly never subject to change according to prevailing cultural whims.

However, I see other possibilities. Also, in Barry’s OP in the Killing Babies thread, he wrote,

I have a question for our materialist interlocutors. You say that morality is a social construct; which means that “good” means what the people of a society collectively deem to be good. If that is so, was it an affirmatively good thing when an ancient pagan killed a baby girl because she was a baby girl instead of a baby boy?

Well, I am not one of the “materialist interlocutors” and I’ve never said that “morality is a social construct; which means that “good” means what the people of a society collectively deem to be good.” Yes, societies build moral systems (and broader normative systems about non-moral behaviour) that provide a structure for people to learn and abide by. Societies couldn’t exist without them, and children couldn’t grow up without such structures to learn. But as I agreed with kf recently, people also have the ability to question their society’s norms, and to apply their conscience to making judgments that reject society’s morals. Otherwise, among things, moral reform would not be possible. So let me say more about an “inward source of moral judgment”. My sense that I am obligated to live morally, and that there is a fundamental moral foundation, is just as real to me as my consciousness or my rationality. It seems to me that that foundation starts with some basic principles about how to treat our fellow human beings: * Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor.” That’s a good place to start. * Be compassionate to all. My yoga teacher ends each class with a precept from the Eastern religions, “Bow the head to the heart, and surrender the ego to compassion”. * All human beings are created equal, and have an inherent human worth. This is a foundational principle of our country * Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule, and the basic social contract Principles such as these are where morality start. Applying them to everyday situations, from the momentous to the mundane, is where we have to apply our rationality. Yes we draw on our culture, and as we become educated we draw on the spiritual wisdom of the ages. We also have to draw on our ability to gather facts, think logically about consequences, and ultimately we have to make choices, because moral situations often present us with conflicting perspectives. But some fundamental moral principles underlie it all. Now, where do there underlying principles lie, and from whence do they come. I don’t know. I know that some of you see this uncertainty on my part in a negative light, but I am confident and comfortable with the idea that it is important to know what I know and what I don’t know. But here is my speculation: Whatever source gives rise to my mind (I mentioned an underlying oneness that is the source of both mind and matter) also gives me this fundamental moral foundation in the same way that it gives me the ability to use logic to manipulate concepts. In this view, all human beings have the same very basic foundation to draw on: one of love, compassion, and care for other human beings as fundamentally all the same in worth. These principles are part of my core being, as well as everyone else’s, and once mine, they grow with me as I develop from childhood to adulthood. Some people believe that this moral core is somehow in contact with some external source of morality: for instance, ba thinks it comes from God. I don’t experience morality that way. I don’t feel my mind is in contact with any larger mind. The moral foundation is in me, and it’s my job to draw on it in the best way I can. One way to look at it (this is an anthropomorphic metaphor) is that once given the moral foundation, the rationality to assess moral situations in the world, and the ability to choose my actions, the giver goes away. It’s up to me as a human being to make use of these gifts. Note: this moral foundation goes beyond culture. I do not believe, as Barry said in his OP, that ““good” means what the people of a society collectively deem to be good.” I believe in conscientious objection. I believe we have a civic duty to question accepted morals and other norms when our conscience and rationality deem that appropriate. That’s enough. I have an airplane to catch early in the morning to go to help my 92 year old father with coping with the realization that he and his wife need to give up living independently and move into an assisted living facility. One last story. My adult daughter is very involved in her profession, and some legal issues at the state level have come up. Because she is skilled with that kind of thing, even though she has three young children and is very busy with her business, she has undertaken the work for her professional organization. I emailed her and said that I was sorry that she had to take on more work, but I knew she was the best person for the job. I ended my email to her with “Moral obligation is such a bummer! :)” She replied, “LOL, and thanks. I feel so so understood.” hazel

It would be interesting to see those statistics broken down into at least three different categories- before, during birth and after. And yes, health care in the USA needs a major reformation. ET

ET@92, nobody is suggesting that this is not a complex issue, but it is interesting to look at the countries that have lower maternal mortality rates than we do. They share many of the socio-economic and poverty problems as we do, many experiencing serious immigration challenges. But the obvious difference is that the majority of them have some form of single payer health care. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_maternal_mortality_rate Ed George

A soaring maternal mortality rate: What does it mean for you?:

Are the statistics misleading? The root cause of these startling statistics is often misunderstood. The public image of maternal death is a woman who has a medical emergency like a hemorrhage while in labor. However, very few deaths counted in maternal mortality statistics occur during childbirth. Rather, four out of five of these deaths happen in the weeks and months before or after birth. So, they occur not in the hospital, but in our communities. And they represent many failures — not just unsafe medical care, but also eroding social support necessary for women to recognize medical warning signs, like abnormal bleeding or hopelessness about the future, and to seek timely care.

ET

I agree, Ed. Every woman should have adequate healthcare for pregnancy and childbirth, as well as contraceptives so that pregnancy and childbirth can be in her, and her partner's control. Furthermore, to pile on, widespread early childhood education would be good also. hazel

Hazel@89, further support for single payer health care. I did a quick wiki search. It is interesting that our maternal mortality rates are double those of our northern neighbor, the country often used by those opposed to a single payer system as an example of a health care disaster. Ed George

I just googled, as I forget where I got the stats I posted, but here are two links to articles: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world and https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-shocking-number-of-us-women-still-die-from-childbirth-california-is-doing-something-about-that/2018/11/02/11042036-d7af-11e8-a10f-b51546b10756_story.html?utm_term=.24796066db60 From the second article,

Experts in maternal health blame the high U.S. rate on poverty, untreated chronic conditions and a lack of access to health care, especially in rural areas where hospitals and maternity units have closed in the past few years.

hazel

Hazel@84, being a pending grandfather, those statistics are terrifying. Did they suggest any possible causes of the increased mortality rates? Ed George

LoL! @ hazel- LIVING is a health risk ET

BB, you were the one who brought up the suicide and pregnancy matter not me, I only exposed it as being a fraudulent claim since it is more effectively used as a argument against abortion,,,. Call it what you will but it certainly was not 'goalpost shifting'. But then again when you don't have a argument, bang the table,, eh BB??? As to contraceptives, I am prolife and firmly believe that human life begins at conception and thus do not support Abortifacients/contraceptives, especially being handed out for free in high schools and such as that, and especially against it being on the taxpayers dime.

Birth Control Methods that Cause Abortions 1. The Pill – Progesterone only, low dose combination pills The Physician’s Desk Reference lists the above hormonal contraceptives as having three mechanisms of action: 1) Prevent ovulation, 2) Thicken the cervical mucus to prevent sperm from entering the uterus and fallopian tube, and 3) Alter the lining of the uterus so implantation cannot take place. The third action, if and when it occurs, is abortifacient since in this case a new human being has been created but this human being is killed because she is prevented from receiving the nourishment provided by her mother’s uterine wall). Although pro-life physicians continue to debate if and how often hormonal contraceptives interfere with the implantation of an embryo, it is important to educate ourselves and our clients about this potential action of the Pill. Those who seek to protect the sanctity of human life from the point of fertilization should be cautious about taking any drug that could end the developing child’s life. For more information: Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? The Pill: Contraceptive or Abortifacient? 2. Morning after pill Large doses of existing birth control pills (or another drug levonorgestrel, known as Plan B) are given up to 72 hours after intercourse to attempt to prevent the implantation of the embryo. A second dose is given 12 hours after the first one. The action of these large doses of hormonal birth control pills works to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization. 3. Norplant This implant is placed under the skin of the arm for up to a 5 year period. The progesterone hormone’s effect is to suppress ovulation, but after 2 years, there is a greater chance of break-through ovulation and fertilization. The hormone may then prevent implantation of the embryo. 4. Depo-Provera This Progesterone (hormone) derivative is injected every 3 months to prevent a woman from ovulating, but it also alters the uterine lining. Break-through ovulation and fertilization may occur, though less frequently than with Norplant. The drug may then prevent implantation of the embryo. 5. RU-486 When a woman is given RU-486 (also called mifepristone), it kills her baby by interfering with progesterone, the hormone that keeps the baby implanted in the wall of the mother’s uterus. Two days later, the woman returns to the clinic to receive a prostaglandin drug that induces labor and expels the dead embryo. (RU-486 is used until 7 weeks after the first day of a mother’s last menstrual period.) If the baby hasn’t been expelled by the time the woman makes her third visit to the doctor, she will require a surgical abortion procedure (5-8% likelihood). Raymond, Klein & Dumble, the pro-abortion authors of RU486 Misconceptions, Myths and Morals (IWT Pub, 1991) stress that RU-486 is not safe for women and list the following contraindications (reasons a person should not take RU-486): under age 18 or over age 35; menstrual irregularities; history of fibroids, abnormal menstrual bleeding or endometriosis, cervical incompetence, previous abortion, or abnormal pregnancies; pelvic inflammatory disease; recent use of IUD or the pill (3 months). 6. Methotrexate & Misoprostol Two drugs that were developed for cancer treatment (methotrexate) and ulcer treatment (misoprostol) are now being used in combination to kill babies. Methotrexate is used to poison the baby and then misoprostol empties the uterus of the baby. Keep in mind that methotrexate is a chemotherapy drug with the potential for serious toxicity, which can result in the death of the mother as well as the baby. (“Methotrexate & Misoprostol to Terminate Early Pregnancy,” R. Hausknecht, New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 333, no. 9, Aug 31, 1995, p. 537; “Methotrexate & Misoprostol,” M. Creinin et al., JAMA, Oct 19, 1994) https://www.abortionno.org/birth-control/

bornagain77

And again, the mortality of unborn babies in abortion is virtually 100%, and again, abortion is the leading cause of 'preventable' death in the America,

Based on the latest state-level data available, approximately 882,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2017—down from approximately 885,000 abortions in 2016 and 913,000 abortions in 2015. According to the Guttmacher Institute, an estimated 926,240 abortions took place in the United States in 2014—down from 1.06 million in 2011, 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.2 million in 2005, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S (AGI). In 2014, approximately 19% of U.S. pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion.1 According to the United Nations' 2013 report, only nine countries in the world have a higher reported abortion rate than the United States. They are: Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Sweden, and Ukraine.* https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

bornagain77

ET writes, " And the health risks are absolutely zero." Pregnancy is, among other things, a health risk.

The US has the "highest rate of maternal mortality in the industrialized world." In the United States, the maternal death rate averaged 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births during the years 1979–1986, but then rose rapidly to 14 per 100,000 in 2000 and 17.8 per 100,000 in 2009.

hazel

BA77 Only in your imagination is my pointing out that the suicide risks, that you yourself ‘facetiously’ referred to in pregnancy, can be more forcefully used as a serious argument against abortion, to be construed as ‘goal-post shifting. Given that our discussion has been about the legal access to hormone based contraceptives, bringing up abortion is definitely goalpost shifting.

For crying out loud, I was the one who pointed out that there are significant risks to taking the most widely prescribed hormone based contraceptives. Risks that you and Hazel did not even bother to mention in your arguments for the supposed ‘sexual liberation’ of young women by allowing contraceptives to be more widely available than they already are, (and given how widely available they already are, I guess you guys just basically want them handed out for free, courtesy of tax payers of course, to teen age girls on street corners now),,,, Some would call such a judicious omission of facts of risks involved simply an oversight or ignorance in the arguments you presented. I have a more cynical view of it, and hold that you guys are being purposely dishonest with the presentation of facts.

Hazel and I have never denied potential risks to hormonal contraceptives. I have repeatedly talked about weighing the risks to make an informed decision. You don't weigh the risks when there are no risks. Every package of the pill includes an insert that describes possible side effects and what to do if you experience them. The internet is full of the possible side effects of the pill, as well as with all other drugs. All I have been advocating for is to make the pill readily available and to allow women to make informed decisions for themselves. The same thing that we do with every other drug, over the counter and prescription, that people have access to. But maybe I am putting words in your mouth with respect to the legal access to hormone based contraceptives. If I have, I apologize. Maybe if you are willing to answer a simple question, we can clear this up. Do you support access to hormonal contraceptives to women? I am not asking if you recommend that women use them, just whether or not they should be available. Brother Brian

Hazel- They are by far more effective than nothing at all. And for many people they have been 100% effective. And the health risks are absolutely zero. Again, it all depends on the intelligence of the people involved. And that has obvious fitness implications. ET

Only in your imagination is my pointing out that the suicide risks, that you yourself 'facetiously' referred to in pregnancy, can be more forcefully used as a serious argument against abortion, to be construed as 'goal-post shifting. In fact, if I would have left your supposedly 'facetious' comment hanging, some may have thought your argument may have had some merit to it. But once again, your arguments have no merit. Moreover, I am not arguing against education as you have implied several times now. For crying out loud, I was the one who pointed out that there are significant risks to taking the most widely prescribed hormone based contraceptives. Risks that you and Hazel did not even bother to mention in your arguments for the supposed 'sexual liberation' of young women by allowing contraceptives to be more widely available than they already are, (and given how widely available they already are, I guess you guys just basically want them handed out for free, courtesy of tax payers of course, to teen age girls on street corners now),,,, Some would call such a judicious omission of facts of risks involved simply an oversight or ignorance in the arguments you presented. I have a more cynical view of it, and hold that you guys are being purposely dishonest with the presentation of facts. As mentioned previously, apparently deceptive education and the abortion industry go hand in hand,

Stonewalled on Abortion – 2018 Excerpt: Abortion & Breast Cancer Gill interviewed several medical doctors. Is there evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer? she asked. Yes, said Dr. Ian Gentles, coauthor of Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women (2013); there have been “many dozens of studies [that] show a real, statistically significant link.” Yes, said Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon who has seen it in a textbook and in her practice. No, said Dr. David Grimes, an ob-gyn and abortionist for more than four decades, “there are no long-term consequences from abortion.” This issue is settled, he said. Doing continued studies would not only be inappropriate, but unethical. Thus, right off the bat, Gill and Martin encountered the deep divide between medical professionals. But Grimes had underscored his point by adding that his opinion was the same as that of all the major medical organizations. This did seem to add credibility to the “no consequences” side, so that’s where they went next. One after another, Gill contacted them: The American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society. The National Cancer Institute. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London. The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. And finally, the World Health Organization. But to her surprise, not only would none of them consent to an interview, they would not even speak to her. Not one. The case was closed, they all said. Anything she needed to know could be found on their website. It was as if they were all working off the same script. With no other option, and now starting to feel suspicious of those denying any link, Gill went to their websites. Each one referred to a 2003 conference held by the NIH cancer division, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where it had been concluded once and for all that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. Upon this discovery, she tried again to speak with someone at the NCI, going so far as to visit in person. But when she arrived, she was swiftly escorted off the grounds by security. What was going on here? A thoroughgoing journalist, Gill was not one to be intimidated into silence. She continued to dig and question until, eventually, she located a recording of the 2003 conference online and got to the bottom of the “no abortion-breast cancer link” conclusion. She explains her findings in some detail in the film, but suffice it here to say that a careful look raises serious questions about who or what dictated the outcome of this seminal conference. Was it honest medical science? Or was it abortion politics? Abortion & Pre-term Birth Pre-term birth rates have doubled in the U.S. since Roe. Every year, more than 11,000 newborns die on the day of their birth in America due to prematurity, and those that survive exact untold emotional and financial costs on health care resources and families before ever leaving the hospital. After discharge, they face heightened risks of such lifelong disabilities as cerebral palsy, autism, chronic lung disease, and other vital organ maladies. “It seems there’s a real clear unwillingness to deal with the science on this,” said Dr. Martin McCaffrey, a neonatologist who has frontline experience in caring for preemies and their families. He was invited in 2008 to serve as an expert panel member at the Surgeon General’s Conference on Preventing Preterm Birth, held by the NIH. He brought up the abortion-prematurity link and presented 122 articles as supportive evidence, but the co-chairs would not allow discussion, even though the link has been demonstrated in more than 80 studies. McCaffrey estimates that abortion accounts for 18 percent of very preterm births (earlier than 32 weeks’ gestation), yet in all the material published to raise awareness of prematurity, there is no mention of prior abortion as a possible risk factor. None. The question is, why not? Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects This has been covered in Salvo before. Gill cites the alarmingly high rates of such maladies as PTSD, eating disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicide in post-abortive women, but the most moving evidence of post-abortion trauma come from the post-abortive women she interviews, many of whom suffer heart-wrenching grief and regret decades later. Shouldn’t women considering abortion be provided with this information? Gill asks. No, insists Dr. Grimes, the abortionist. That would be “a very overt attempt to dissuade or discourage women from exercising their right to have an abortion.” Apparently this is what passes in his world for medical ethics. The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent For people of conscience, though, informed consent matters, and women considering abortion deserve factual information. Since neither the abortion industry nor the bureaus of medical apparatchiks will so much as countenance the data, Gill and Martin have brought it to the public themselves. Meanwhile, they continue to press the NIH and NCI to address the questions Hush raises, but so far they have received no response beyond the same scripted suggestions to visit the NCI website, which in turn still cites the 2003 conference. Hush is top-notch work. In many ways, you, the viewer, feel like you’re along on their quest. And where appropriate, well-crafted graphics depict the medical explanations, making the breast cancer and pre-term birth connections understandable. “Over time,” said Dr. Patrick Fagan, who coauthored a 2014 paper on the abortion-breast cancer link, “the 2003 NCI conference is going to become an embarrassment in the history of the NCI itself.” Indeed, it may. It took Dr. Omalu four years to awaken the conscience of the NFL. The consciences of the NIH and NCI have already been slumbering for over thirteen years. One can hope that Hush will, paradoxically, finally wake them up. • https://salvomag.com/article/salvo39/stonewalled-on-abortion

bornagain77

ET, according tothis site, condoms and the rhythm method are the least effective forms of birth control, other than sex that doesn't involve intercourse. hazel

BA77

Brother Brian, if that were true, which it isn’t,...

I'm sorry, but it is most certainly shifting the goal posts. We were discussing hormone based contraceptives and you brought up the claim that they increase suicide rates. Here is your exact quote:

Another recent study out of Denmark showed taking hormonal contraception can triple the risk of suicide.

I then responded that the hormonal changes caused by pregnancy also increase the risk of suicide and then said, facetiously, that maybe we should ban pregnancies. You then responded with:

Thus, by BB’s using own criteria of ‘Maybe we should ban pregnancy’ because of increased suicide risks, we should then ban abortion because of dramatically increased suicide risks.

What does this have to do with banning hormone based contraceptives. Goalpost, meet BA77. You still have not come up with a valid reason why hormone based contraceptives should not be made available. Even Hazel has said that, given what she knows about them, she probably would decide not to use them. That is how informed decisions are made. You trust to the intelligence of people to weigh the risks and pick the choice that is best for them. For example, I am on statins to control my cholesterol. One of the potential side-effects is depression and suicide ideation. I examined the risks and concluded that given my family history of heart problems, and no known family history of depression issues, that I would accept the risks. If I am allowed to make that choice, why shouldn't a woman be allowed to make a choice with respect to hormone based contraceptives? Presumably she would know whether breast cancer is common in her family, or if their is a strong history of depression in her family. Why am I permitted to make a choice even though there are risks but that a woman can't? Brother Brian

Brother Brian, if that were true, which it isn't, it would be a compliment coming from the current reigning king on UD for 'goalpost shifting', i.e. of someone who absolutely refuses to be consistent in the foundational premises of his argumentation. (Even Seversky, though his worldview is insane, at least tries to consistently see his atheistic materialism out to its bitter, insane, end) For prime example, as a Christian I can provide a scientifically robust and morally coherent foundation for Morality Meaning, Value, and Purpose in our Lives, whereas you have yet to provide any foundation that can be ascertained, save for a vague off hand comment that you may not be an amoral atheist after all since it undermines any and all Morality Meaning, Value, and Purpose in our Lives.

Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog

bornagain77

BA77@72, nice goalpost shifting. The Rams should have hired you last night. :) Brother Brian

:cool: ET

:( hazel

hazel- Are you saying that women don't understand their own bodies and they don't know when they are ovulating? Really? Women cannot have a conversation with their husbands and ask him to wear a condom? Or better yet, stay on schedule? ET

ET, women want to have sex, just as men do. Women in a marriage want to have sex and also control when to have children, and how many. Are they just supposed to say no to their husbands all the time, unless they're prepared to get pregnant? hazel

Brother Brian states,

And it has also been shown that pregnancy can increase the risk of suicide, as can post natal depression. In fact, one in five post natal deaths are caused by suicide. Maybe we should ban pregnancy.

And yet,

A List of Major Psychological Effects of Abortion - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD or PAS),,, Sexual Dysfunction,,, - Suicidal Ideation and Suicide Attempts Approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, of which half attempted suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland have identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records based study. They identified 73 suicides associated within one year to a pregnancy ending either naturally or by induced abortion. The mean annual suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000. The suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower at 5.9 per 100,000. Rates for pregnancy loss were significantly higher. For miscarriage, the rate was 18.1 per 100,000, and for abortion the rate was 34.7 per 100,000. The suicide rate within one year after an abortion was three times higher than for all women, seven times higher than for women who carried to term, and nearly twice as high as for women who suffered a miscarriage. Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among post-abortion teenagers.1,,, Increased Smoking with Corresponding Negative Health Effects,,, (Significantly increased) Alcohol and Drug Abuse,,, Eating Disorders,,, Child Abuse or Neglect,,, Divorce and Chronic Relationship Problems,,, Repeat Abortions,,, https://www.heartbeatinternational.org/pdf/Abortion-emotional_risks.pdf

Thus, by BB's using own criteria of 'Maybe we should ban pregnancy' because of increased suicide risks, we should then ban abortion because of dramatically increased suicide risks. ,,, But something tells me that BB will fail to apply his criteria consistently since it undermines his larger objective for unrestricted abortion on demand for 'convenience'.. Moreover virtually 100% of the unborn babies are killed during abortion. In fact, the rare few babies that are 'born alive' still are not completely safe as the Governor from Virginia recently made clear in his push for infanticide. In fact, abortion is, by far, the leading cause of death in the World and United States annually. ,, Sadly, the mother's womb, which should be the safest place, is literally the most deadly place to be in America.

Abortion is the world's leading cause of death by Ronnie Floyd January 22, 2019 If I asked you what the leading cause of death in the world is, I imagine the first answer to pop into your mind would be a disease such as cancer. It wouldn’t be a bad guess — cancer kills more than 8 million people every year. But it’s not the right answer. You might then consider AIDS or smoking or alcohol-related deaths — or perhaps even traffic accidents. Combined, the four are responsible for the deaths of over 11 million people around the world. But the leading cause of death in the world is none of the those. In fact, it kills more people than all of them combined. In 2018, 41.9 million pregnancies were prematurely terminated, making abortion the leading cause of death in the world. The staggering figure was tallied by Worldometers, a site which aggregates statistical data from sources such as the World Health Organization. Yet unlike most of the other leading causes of death in the world, abortion is almost 100 percent preventable. Case in point: In the U.S., 9 out of 10 abortions are elective. That is to say they are performed not for medical reasons but because the baby is not wanted. I wonder what would happen if we viewed abortion the same way we view smoking or cancer. Would it remain the leading cause of death in the world if we ran public service campaigns to dissuade women from seeking abortions, as we do for smoking? Or if we spent billions of dollars on research to save lives, as we do with cancer? The sad truth is our culture champions and celebrates abortion. One pro-choice group took it to the next level recently, releasing a video of its founder talking with children about why abortion is good. “They just suck the pregnancy out. It was like a really crappy dentist appointment or something … like a body thing that’s kind of uncomfortable,” she explains to two pre-teen girls in the video. Notice the choice of words: They suck the pregnancy out. But an abortion does not suck a pregnancy out; it forcefully removes, often through suction and cutting, a fetus — or in other words, a genetically unique human baby — from the womb. That’s the message our culture is communicating to our children today — that a baby is only valuable when it doesn’t interfere with your life plans and your personal fulfillment. Believe it or not, as outrageous as this may sound, many of our elected officials believe that. On its very first day in session, the 116th Congress — hailed for having a record number of women — voted on a spending bill. But beyond providing funds for the federal government, the bill would also restore taxpayer funding to organizations that provide abortions overseas. This Tuesday, Jan. 22, is the National Sanctity of Human Life Day. On this date, 46 years ago, the Supreme Court legalized abortion across all 50 states. That one fateful decision has led to the deaths of over 61 million babies in America. That’s roughly the combined populations of California and Florida. There is nothing in this world more valuable than a human life. The Bible tells us God made us in his image and likeness. This means that, regardless of race, gender, age, place of birth or socioeconomic status, every human life has intrinsic, unalienable value. From the womb, all the way to the tomb, life is precious. I pray America will choose life. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-the-worlds-leading-cause-of-death

Further on in his post, BB, (who had previously hinted that he might not be an amoral atheist after all since it was pointed out to him that the amorality at the basis of his worldview undermines any basis that he had for arguing for any supposed 'morality' of aborting babies), now waffles on his tenuous commitment to some type of objective morality, (for rhetorical purposes he refused to be specific as to exactly what system of objective morality he may subscribe to), and states, "Is it possible that your motives are religiously based and not scientific?" And yet human dignity and morality, although they can be informed by science, can't possibly be based in science. In fact, as has been pointed out numerous times before to BB, science itself is dependent Theistic, even Christian. presuppositions. Thus for BB to pretend that science can, all by its lonesome, without any reference to Theology, develop a coherent and consistent system of morality and ethics is naive at best, and certainly demonstrates a profound lack of wisdom on BB's part. As Einstein stated, "science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be," necessarily excluding from its domain "value judgments of all kinds."

Einstein in His Own Words Einstein Thoughts from Albert Einstein: His collection of essays, Out of My Later Years, published in 1950, presents Einstein's statement that, "science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be," necessarily excluding from its domain "value judgments of all kinds." Thus science could not even prove that the Holocaust or the slave trade were wrong.,,, http://americanrtl.org/Einstein

Simply put, BB since he apparently, (for the time being, as long as it is rhetorically convenient for him to do so), relies solely on science to try to determine his morality, and yet morality can't possibly be based in science, BB finds himself once again in a self refuting position in regards to trying to determine exactly what is morally right and what is morally wrong in regards to abortion and contraception. His entire line of 'moral' argumentation would be absolutely comical for its repeated ineptness, save for the dire consequences involved for BB's soul in his rejection of Jesus Christ as THE true moral standard for the world.

John 3 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

bornagain77

Is saying "no" too difficult? Really? ET

ET, women should also be the ones that have the resources to have protected sex. That's the point I'm making. Contraceptives ought to be easily and inexpensively available to women, without a bunch of men making it difficult for them. hazel

hazel:

Women have a lot more concerns connected with reproduction than men do, obviously: the effect of menopause and various stages of breast cancer also involve hormone treatments; carrying and birthing a baby can lead to perineal tears, prolapsed pelvic floors, incontinence, and other things; and childbirth itself can be dangerous as well as being quite painful.

OK, then they should be more on-guard about having unprotected sex. Why do I seem to be the only one who thinks that women are smart enough to be able to choose BEFORE having sex? ET

hazel:

There is a picture on the internet of a bunch of old white guys standing around as Trump signs some bill about reproductive rights: it blows my mind that men are the ones making these decisions for women.

Men have reproductive rights, too, hazel. If you haven't noticed sexual reproduction requires both sexes. ET

Brother Brian:

I follow the evidence where it leads. What can I say?

You must not be an evolutionist, then. ET

Barry, "jamming liberal sexual mores down their throat" is an odd metaphor to be using. I have worked on health and human sexuality standards for the school I've worked, although that was quite a few years ago. At appropriate ages, and I know that's a judgment people will disagree about, health curricula in school, when addressing human sexuality, should discuss the fact that some people are sexually, and emotionally, attracted to people of the same sex. The curriculum should not be judgmental about this, neither encouraging nor condemning it. The human sexuality teachers I have known have strived to be as factual and dispassionate about the subject as they could. That's been my experience. Can you give me an example of a law that is doing what you are concerned about? hazel

Hazel

Barry, it is the job of school teachers to teach respect for differences. If I have a gay student in my class, and I have had, including some of my favorites, it is part of my job to teach others to treat them well.

Indeed. And you can teach all the children to respect each other without jamming liberal sexual mores down their throat. Don't you agree Hazel. Barry Arrington

PS: I clip from Havel:

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean? I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say. Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests? Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology . . .

Such points to disaffection and loss of legitimacy of the state that acts like this. And, frankly, I suspect that many cultural marxists WANT that disaffection, as it undermines the will to stand and fight for the heritage of a civilisation they despise: Christendom. I further suspect -- note Mr Silvermann's remarks on how the state holds nukes -- they think they would win a civil war. They have forgotten the lessons of scarce thirty years past, on where totalitarianism leads and even more, they have forgotten (and often despise) the roots of the blessings and fruit of liberty in our civilisation. A dark age crouches in the shadows, waiting to pounce. Woe to those who call good evil and evil good; who put darkness for light and call light darkness. kairosfocus

H, thy speech bewrayeth thee. So, I speak some hard, painful but needed words. First, we are addressing the central evil of our time, one that has sent out metastases all over our civilisation and its institutions. No, it is not mere reproductive issues (and claimed "rights" . . . which require being manifestly in the right). No, it is the holocaust of 800+ millions of our living posterity in the womb in 40+ years. Growing, at about another million victims per week -- the ultimate, silenced victim class. Silent because we have killed them. Killed them by the hundreds of millions. The cancerous, tainting bloodguilt in our souls. As for the linked notion that teachers are robots and indoctrinators paid to pretend that all is well with the latest politically correct partyline decision that 2 + 2 = 6, the answer is obvious: forcing teachers to teach lies and pretending that evil is good under penalty of losing livelihood, speaks for itself to its own condemnation. In reply, I say the educator has a particular professional duty to knowledge, thus to truth, right reason, prudence and justice. Therefore, to sound moral government of the soul. One can be a genuine educator with a sound conscience or a state funded agit prop operator, not both. And it is obvious that far too many want agit prop under false colour of education, especially when ethical matters and moral government are implicated. Where, it is patent that the underlying driving force is the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow-travellers. Our civilisation is treading a ruinous nihilistic road, imposing evils under false colour of being good and casting principled objection as dogmatic stubborn refusal to go along with the partyline. Pretending that any objection to the evils being imposed under false colour of law can only trace to irrational fears ("phobias") and/or hate. Which can then be stigmatised, censored, locked out, de-platformed, driven to the margins reserved for strawman caricature, stereotypical scapegoats: the turnabout, loaded projection agit prop technique. All of this points back to Havel's famous essay on the power of the powerless, especially the tale of the greengrocer: https://mrdivis.yolasite.com/resources/Vaclav%20Havel's%20Power%20of%20the%20Powerless.pdf . A chilling parallel. KF kairosfocus

BA77

and yet the fact remains

That the author’s conclude that the increased risk of breast cancer is small. Take it up with the author’s, not with me.

and “Another recent study out of Denmark showed taking hormonal contraception can triple the risk of suicide.”

And it has also been shown that pregnancy can increase the risk of suicide, as can post natal depression. In fact, one in five post natal deaths are caused by suicide. Maybe we should ban pregnancy. Hormones, like many drugs, have potential undesirable side-effects and should be monitored by doctors. But all sorts of medications that are available have a risk of causing depression and suicide ideation. These include beta blockers for blood pressure, corticosteroids for inflammation, benzodiazopenes for anxiety, parkinson’s Drugs, cholesterol drugs, anticonvulsants and many others. Should we ban all of these? For all of these drugs we allow people to weigh the risks and make informed decisions as to whether they will use them. The big question is why you are not advocating for restricting their access like you are for hormone based contraceptives? Is it possible that your motives are religiously based and not scientific? I don’t have a problem with you using your religious beliefs to not use hormone based contraceptives, but to attempt to use law-fare to deny access to those who don’t share your religious beliefs is as disengenuous as those that use it to impose their beliefs on you. Brother Brian

Moreover not only do individuals suffer, but society at large also suffers when governments impose secular thinking on society. First off, in establishing this fact, it is important to first note that Religious students are healthier and more 'moral' than atheists or agnostics,

Harvard Study Reveals Religious Upbringing Better for Kids’ Health, Well-Being - 2018 https://stream.org/new-study-reveals-religious-upbringing-better-kids-health-well/ Religious students more 'moral' than atheists or agnostics – study - March 2015 Excerpt: The study of 10,200 students and 250 teachers from 68 UK schools took place between February 2013 and June 2014 and is the largest of its kind. Researchers used surveys, moral dilemma tests and interviews. The religious students scored higher on the moral dilemma tests and within the religious group, those who practised their religion scored more highly than those who did not. Girls also scored higher than boys when faced with moral dilemmas.,,, The report takes as its starting point the growing consensus in Britain that virtues such as honesty, self-control, fairness, gratitude and respect, which contribute to good moral character, are part of the solution to many of the challenges facing society today. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/religious.students.more.moral.than.atheists.or.agnostics.study/49315.htm

Secondly, the following video goes over the devastating moral consequences for society at large when prayer was removed from public schools in America:

The Devastating Effects When Prayer Was Removed From School in America in 1962-63 - David Barton - video (excerpted from Barton’s “America’s Godly Heritage’ lecture) https://youtu.be/1No--GpdqCY

And here is a site highlighting the sobering statistics that David Barton highlighted,,,

AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growth http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html

The SAT scores which Barton mentioned are particularly interesting to look at, for instance:

2018 SAT Results Released The College Board recently released performance results from the SAT for the class of 2018. According to the College Board, the mean total scores for 2018 graduates who took the SAT was 1068, a slight increase over last year’s class average of 1060. For the Evidence-Based Reading and Writing section (ERW), the mean score was 536, whereas last year’s was 533. The Math section score was 531, just above 2017’s 527. Private School Data According to data provided to CAPE by the College Board, results varied significantly by the type of school students attended, with college-bound seniors in religious and independent schools scoring substantially higher than the national average. Specifically, the average combined score of students in independent schools was 1188, or 120 points above the national mean, while the average for religious school students was 1153, which was 85 points above the mean. Public school students scored 1049, 19 points below the mean. The scores make clear that students in private schools help lift the national average. https://www.lcs.education/4198-2/

As the preceding SAT results clearly indicate, (scores that have remained remarkably high for private Christian schools ever since prayer was removed from public schools and the public schools scores then dropped dramatically for 18 years straight), perhaps the government should, instead of pouring billions upon billions of dollars into our failing public school systems to no substantial effect, instead put prayer back in schools? Just a practical thought. (i.e. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results) Moreover, besides the devastating educational and moral impact on society at large when prayer was removed from public school, the secular mandate that only Darwinian Evolution can be taught in public schools has also had a significant detrimental moral impact for society at large. Richard Weikart, author of “From Darwin to Hitler', states that, "Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence."

How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm

And here are a few more videos documenting the detrimental moral impact that Darwinian thinking has had on society at large:

The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society - Dr. Phil Fernandes – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcQfwICe2Og The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution - John West, PhD - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU

Thus, the forsaking of objective morality in general and God in particular has had, and continues to have, devastating impacts on people individually as well as on society at large. Verse:

Deuteronomy 30:19-20 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Joshua 24:15 But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

bornagain77

Barry, it is the job of school teachers to teach respect for differences. If I have a gay student in my class, and I have had, including some of my favorites, it is part of my job to teach others to treat them well. Sure, a students can think negatively about anyone, for a multitude of reasons, but their actions need to be respectful of differences. They are not allowed to call a student a faggot or some other derogatory term, any more than they can use a racial or ethnic slur, or call someone fat, stupid, or ugly. We take serious that “all [people] are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, as kf reminded us in an OP recently. It is not our job to decide, or teach, that homosexuality is wrong. As BB said, homosexuals exist, and in appropriate venues, such as health classes, the facts about homosexuals should be taught without negative judgment. This is not “stuffing anything down anyone’s throats”. It is just fulfilling our responsibility to teach a balanced curriculum about human sexuality. hazel

and yet the fact remains

"Ingesting hormonal contraception for 10 years increases the risk of breast cancer by 38 percent, according to a new study in The New England Journal of Medicine."

and

"Another recent study out of Denmark showed taking hormonal contraception can triple the risk of suicide."

I guess you could call triple the number of suicides small as measured by an absolute increase in total population, but I bet you that the families of those 'extra' young women who committed suicide because of the pill would disagree very strongly. Moreover,

Women using contraceptives tend to be more sexually active and to have multiple sex partners than their counterparts and hence are at a greater risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12318983

But hey, what's a few more STD's? Depression cancer, suicide? its all risk that the young women must balance for more sex with more people, which is apparently a good thing on BBs view for the young women to consider. Let's not forget, since unguided Darwinian processes have never shown the origination of a even a single gene and/or protein, then it is very interesting to note that the gene expression of humans are designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic moral happiness and ‘noble’ moral happiness: The following paper states that there are hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.”

Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness - July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161952.htm

Moreover, and as would be expected if morality were objectively real as Christians hold, it is now found that atheists suffer physically and mentally as a result of forsaking the objective reality of morality in general and from forsaking God in particular. Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists states that 'The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.',,, lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction…

“I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

And the following meta-analysis of studies found that Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%, even 55% in one study.

Atheism and health A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes - June 1, 2017 Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the "Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults" study May 16. "For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year," Bruce said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/

bornagain77

Thanks for your reply, BB. Here are a few more short comments. First, there are types of birth control that don’t involve hormones: a good summary is here. Also, as you say, many things we do with our bodies, for medical or recreational purposes, have risks. It’s part of the freedom of the individual to assess those risks and make informed judgment for oneself. If I were a young woman, I probably would stay away from hormone types of birth control, but each woman has to balance a number of factors in decided what is best for her. Women have a lot more concerns connected with reproduction than men do, obviously: the effect of menopause and various stages of breast cancer also involve hormone treatments; carrying and birthing a baby can lead to perineal tears, prolapsed pelvic floors, incontinence, and other things; and childbirth itself can be dangerous as well as being quite painful. There is a picture on the internet of a bunch of old white guys standing around as Trump signs some bill about reproductive rights: it blows my mind that men are the ones making these decisions for women. Who are they to say what tradeoffs any woman might want to make about controlling her reproduction! :( hazel

BB

What I don’t respect is when they try to impose these restrictive mores on others.

Barry

I take it, then, that you oppose laws that require public school children to be taught that homosexual and lesbian sex is normal and healthy?

BB

Yes I do. But I support laws that force public schools to teach that homosexual and lesbian sex exist, teach of the risks and precautions, and teach that sexual orientation is no grounds for bullying, discrimination or judgment.

BB, you gave the store away with this: "or judgment" You are perfectly OK with the liberal government stuffing their sexual mores down our children's throats. Barry Arrington

BA77

Hazel, are you for skyrocketing breast cancer risks and triple the suicide risks for young women?

Of course, no sane person would approve the use of hormone based contraceptives that resulted in “skyrocketing breast cancer risks and triple the suicide risks for young women.” That would be criminally negligent and grossly irresponsible. But let us look at the actual conclusion published in the cited paper.

The risk of breast cancer was higher among women who currently or recently used contemporary hormonal contraceptives than among women who had never used hormonal contraceptives, and this risk increased with longer durations of use; however, absolute increases in risk were small.

Hmmm. Not quite the dire consequences that you claimed. This study also included women who used hormone therapy to slow the progression of osteoporosis. And, yes, that treatment comes with an increased risk of breast cancer, higher than those who only use it for a decade or so for birth control. But it reduces the risk of hip fractures. Throughout life we constantly balance risks. Should we ban all activities that pose a risk? Or should we provide accurate information, not hyperbolic scare tactics, to allow people to make informed decisions? Brother Brian

BA

I take it, then, that you oppose laws that require public school children to be taught that homosexual and lesbian sex is normal and healthy?

Yes I do. But I support laws that force public schools to teach that homosexual and lesbian sex exist, teach of the risks and precautions, and teach that sexual orientation is no grounds for bullying, discrimination or judgment. Brother Brian

Hazel, are you for skyrocketing breast cancer risks and triple the suicide risks for young women?

Breast cancer risk skyrockets with longtime hormonal contraception use: new study - 2017 Ingesting hormonal contraception for 10 years increases the risk of breast cancer by 38 percent, according to a new study in The New England Journal of Medicine. “This is the first study that had shown intrauterine devices with hormones having association with breast cancer in large numbers,” Dr. David Agus, a University of Southern California physician, explained on CBS News. “With the lower dose of oral contraceptives, we thought there wouldn’t be as much of a risk as the higher dose but it turns out to be the same – about a 20 percent increase in breast cancer overall,” said Agus. This study shows the risk increases by “nine percent if you’re on it for a year, and up to 38 percent if you’re on it for ten years or more,” he said. The oncologist who founded breastcancer.org, Dr. Marisa Weiss, told the New York Times the study’s results show “a significant public health concern.” The study, titled Contemporary Hormonal Contraception and the Risk of Breast Cancer, reveals that newer, lower-hormone dose forms of contraception still increase the risk of breast cancer. The New York Times called this risk created by birth control “a small but significant increase.” “While a link had been established between birth control pills and breast cancer years ago, this study is the first to examine the risks associated with current formulations of birth control pills and devices in a large population,” the New York Times wrote. Pro-lifers have long maintained that hormonal contraception increases the risk of breast cancer. Other side effects of contraception include weight gain, blood clots, and depression. This study examined Danish women who use contraception and compared them to those who don't. The country’s socialized healthcare system makes it easy for researchers to examine data like this. The study showed that intrauterine devices that release hormones into a woman’s body also increase her risk for breast cancer. Pro-life activist Africa Obianuju Ekeocha? tweeted that she hopes the Canadian government, which is conducting a “contraceptive dump” on Africa, is “ready to pay for cancer treatments for African women too.” Another recent study out of Denmark showed taking hormonal contraception can triple the risk of suicide. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-study-hormonal-contraception-increases-breast-cancer-risk-by-20

bornagain77

Brother Brian

What I don’t respect is when they try to impose these restrictive mores on others.

I take it, then, that you oppose laws that require public school children to be taught that homosexual and lesbian sex is normal and healthy? Barry Arrington

BA77

Brother Brian, you have defended Darwinian evolution against Intelligent Design right here on UD numerous times.

I follow the evidence where it leads. What can I say?

By default, that makes you Darwinian in your amorality.

We all have insupportable opinions, you are well within your rights to hold this one.

Yet now, when it is self evident that you cannot possibly ground morality of any sort within your Darwinian worldview, you hint that you might not be an atheist.

No, I am not hinting at anything. My religious beliefs are mine and mine alone. The fact that you choose to announce your religion to the world doesn’t mean that everybody must do the same.

That is pathetic. If you can’t be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself and admit that your atheistic worldview is completely bankrupt as to ever providing you a moral basis for your ‘sexual liberation’ arguments.

I am very honest with you and with myself. My worldview provides me with an ample moral basis for my “sexual liberation”. The fact that you disagree is because you have made no effort to understand the rationality of my world view. That is not something I can help you with As I mentioned above, I respect anyone who chooses to live their lives with very restrictive sexual mores. What I don’t respect is when they try to impose these restrictive mores on others. Brother Brian

ba, do you support easily available and inexpensive contraceptives? hazel

Brother Brian, you have defended Darwinian evolution against Intelligent Design right here on UD numerous times. By default, that makes you Darwinian in your amorality. Yet now, when it is self evident that you cannot possibly ground morality of any sort within your Darwinian worldview, you hint that you might not be an atheist. That is pathetic. If you can't be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself and admit that your atheistic worldview is completely bankrupt as to ever providing you a moral basis for your 'sexual liberation' arguments. The same goes for Hazel, she plays very sly about what her exact beliefs are, but she continually pushes for an atheistic position. It is a very disingenuous method of argumentation and I don't buy it from either of you in the least. For what its worth, your disingenuous method of argumentation is not new. Darwin himself, though he was arguing for an atheistic worldview, none-the-less, used inconsistent liberal theology throughout his book "Origin" in order to try to give force to his arguments for atheism. As stated before, this method of argumentation, which is constantly employed by atheists, is self refuting simply because the argument for atheism, in the end, is itself found to be resting on Theistic presuppositions. As Van Til put it, the atheist who tries to argue against God is like the brat who must sit in her father's lap to slap his face.

The Brat Who Slapped Her Father's Face Once while Van Til was a youth traveling on a train in Holland, he noticed a father with his young daughter sitting in his lap. Apparently, the father urged his daughter to do something when she suddenly slapped her father in the face. Van Til's application? The girl's behavior illustrates rebels who live in God's world and who are supported by God's common grace (Ps. 24:1). They sit, as it were, on the lap of God, and it is precisely because they sit on God's lap that they are able to deliver the slap of ingratitude. Thus unbelievers who toot their own independence and autonomy are only able to do so as they are supported by God Himself (Jn. 19:10 -11). https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/van-tils-illustrations

Speaking of which, here is you guys not too hidden atheistic worldview on full display:

“Comedian” Sarah Silverman Says Pro-Life Laws “Make Me Want to Eat an Aborted Fetus” - CORINNE WEAVER FEB 2, 2018 https://www.lifenews.com/2018/02/02/comedian-sarah-silverman-says-pro-life-laws-make-me-want-to-eat-an-aborted-fetus/

bornagain77

“For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.” “What is truth?” Pilate asked. -- John 18:37-38 OldArmy94

What "evident facts" are BB (or me) rejecting? hazel

BB, see how soon you resort to rejection of evident facts to try to skewer the man on that epithetical lance, belief? That in itself tells us that you have but little to say on the merits in the face of the worst holocaust in history and the things that enable same. I ask you to pause, take stock and reconsider. KF kairosfocus

re 44??? ba, you libel me! I have had no interest in sleeping with anyone other than my spouse for decades, and I don't support people just "sleeping with anyone they want to": that is part of what responsible sex education is about. And, as BB said, Christians don't have the corner on the morality market. hazel

BA77

see post 43 for an example of an atheist selectively stealing morality from Christianity

I don’t believe that Hazel has said anything about her theistic beliefs. And neither have I. Or do you simply conclude that anyone who disagrees with your flavor of Christianity is an atheist? Hazel@43, I agree with everything you have said. Given that stopping abortions from happening, even if they were legally banned, I would think that any rational person would support actions that would reduce them. If there is one self-evident fact it is that teens and unmarried people are going to have sex. It would be irresponsible of a just society not to avail itself of approaches known to minimize the risks and possible consequences of this activity. Brother Brian

"steals parts from Christian morality that he wants so as to provide faux moral support for his larger objective of sleeping with anyone (or perhaps anything) that he so desires to sleep with." see post 43 for an example of an atheist selectively stealing morality from Christianity bornagain77

BB at 41: agreed. But it seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (to use another violent metaphor today) to be against such things as easily available contraception for unmarried people, which would help reduce the rate of abortions, when surely the need to reduce abortions should be of considerably higher priority to those who are are firmly against it than their feelings of prohibition about other sexual behaviors, especially since people are going to have sex whether they have contraceptives or not. Moral outrage, in and of itself, is not effective: it's an indulgence that in my opinion comes across as considering the expression of the outrage as more important than doing something about the problem. A friend of mine explained that to me about politics long ago, and it was a valuable lesson. hazel

Brother Brian states that,

There are many people like myself who believe that there is nothing immoral or wrong with two consenting teens (or two consenting adults) being sexually intimate,,,

And yet, as an atheist, and as has been pointed out several times on this thread, BB atheistic Darwinian worldview is completely amoral and he has no objective moral basis whatsoever for determining whether anything is moral or not. As I have stated before, if eating aborted babies provided a survival advantage, then on the atheist's Darwinian view of morality, that abhorrent action would be considered a good thing for crying out loud.

“It may be well first to premise that I do not wish to maintain that any strictly social animal, if its intellectual faculties were to become as active and as highly developed as in man, would acquire exactly the same moral sense as ours. In the same manner as various animals have some sense of beauty, though they admire widely-different objects, so they might have a sense of right and wrong, though led by it to follow widely different lines of conduct. If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” -Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p 67

In short, BB steals parts from Christian morality that he wants so as to provide faux moral support for his larger objective of sleeping with anyone (or perhaps anything) that he so desires to sleep with. For example, what possible moral standard could BB, as an atheist, appeal to to morally object to the fairly recently banned fad of bestiality tourism in the Netherlands.

Dutch finally ban bestiality - 2 Feb 2010 "Sex with animals had been legal in the Netherlands, as long as it could be proven the animals were not injured" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-03/dutch-finally-ban-bestiality/319622

If BB still has an ounce of moral conscience left in his soul, and he publicly objected to such a abhorrent thing as legalized bestiality tourism, what could he possibly appeal to other than his own subjective illusory morals? BB has absolutely nothing within his atheistic Darwinian worldview to appeal to to stop such an abhorrent practice. In short, atheists have no moral guardrails whatsoever, and whenever they do argue for greater freedom to sleep with whomever, or whatever, they want, they selectively steal from Christian morality the parts they find appealing, i.e. fairness, tolerance, even love, in order to try to make their bigger case against the specific parts of Christian morality that they do not like, i.e. adultery, fornication, bestiality.

ATHEISTS STEAL (MORAL) RIGHTS FROM GOD - FEBRUARY 15, 2015 https://crossexamined.org/atheists-steal-rights-god/

BB also argued for greater education. I am 100% for that. Sex education in public schools and colleges is a joke. The risks, (as my first link in post 38 on depression in young women makes clear), to students are minimized if they are mentioned at all. Sexual freedom is stressed. Chasity is basically ridiculed. College is basically a 'hook up' culture with the supposed adult teachers minimizing the negative mental and physical impacts on the young students. The supposed education on abortion is even worse. In fact, it is deception not education that is being taught. Stonewalled on Abortion – 2018 Excerpt: Abortion & Breast Cancer Gill interviewed several medical doctors. Is there evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer? she asked. Yes, said Dr. Ian Gentles, coauthor of Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women (2013); there have been “many dozens of studies [that] show a real, statistically significant link.” Yes, said Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon who has seen it in a textbook and in her practice. No, said Dr. David Grimes, an ob-gyn and abortionist for more than four decades, “there are no long-term consequences from abortion.” This issue is settled, he said. Doing continued studies would not only be inappropriate, but unethical. Thus, right off the bat, Gill and Martin encountered the deep divide between medical professionals. But Grimes had underscored his point by adding that his opinion was the same as that of all the major medical organizations. This did seem to add credibility to the “no consequences” side, so that’s where they went next. One after another, Gill contacted them: The American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society. The National Cancer Institute. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London. The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. And finally, the World Health Organization. But to her surprise, not only would none of them consent to an interview, they would not even speak to her. Not one. The case was closed, they all said. Anything she needed to know could be found on their website. It was as if they were all working off the same script. With no other option, and now starting to feel suspicious of those denying any link, Gill went to their websites. Each one referred to a 2003 conference held by the NIH cancer division, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where it had been concluded once and for all that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. Upon this discovery, she tried again to speak with someone at the NCI, going so far as to visit in person. But when she arrived, she was swiftly escorted off the grounds by security. What was going on here? A thoroughgoing journalist, Gill was not one to be intimidated into silence. She continued to dig and question until, eventually, she located a recording of the 2003 conference online and got to the bottom of the “no abortion-breast cancer link” conclusion. She explains her findings in some detail in the film, but suffice it here to say that a careful look raises serious questions about who or what dictated the outcome of this seminal conference. Was it honest medical science? Or was it abortion politics? Abortion & Pre-term Birth Pre-term birth rates have doubled in the U.S. since Roe. Every year, more than 11,000 newborns die on the day of their birth in America due to prematurity, and those that survive exact untold emotional and financial costs on health care resources and families before ever leaving the hospital. After discharge, they face heightened risks of such lifelong disabilities as cerebral palsy, autism, chronic lung disease, and other vital organ maladies. “It seems there’s a real clear unwillingness to deal with the science on this,” said Dr. Martin McCaffrey, a neonatologist who has frontline experience in caring for preemies and their families. He was invited in 2008 to serve as an expert panel member at the Surgeon General’s Conference on Preventing Preterm Birth, held by the NIH. He brought up the abortion-prematurity link and presented 122 articles as supportive evidence, but the co-chairs would not allow discussion, even though the link has been demonstrated in more than 80 studies. McCaffrey estimates that abortion accounts for 18 percent of very preterm births (earlier than 32 weeks’ gestation), yet in all the material published to raise awareness of prematurity, there is no mention of prior abortion as a possible risk factor. None. The question is, why not? Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects This has been covered in Salvo before. Gill cites the alarmingly high rates of such maladies as PTSD, eating disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicide in post-abortive women, but the most moving evidence of post-abortion trauma come from the post-abortive women she interviews, many of whom suffer heart-wrenching grief and regret decades later. Shouldn’t women considering abortion be provided with this information? Gill asks. No, insists Dr. Grimes, the abortionist. That would be “a very overt attempt to dissuade or discourage women from exercising their right to have an abortion.” Apparently this is what passes in his world for medical ethics. The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent For people of conscience, though, informed consent matters, and women considering abortion deserve factual information. Since neither the abortion industry nor the bureaus of medical apparatchiks will so much as countenance the data, Gill and Martin have brought it to the public themselves. Meanwhile, they continue to press the NIH and NCI to address the questions Hush raises, but so far they have received no response beyond the same scripted suggestions to visit the NCI website, which in turn still cites the 2003 conference. Hush is top-notch work. In many ways, you, the viewer, feel like you’re along on their quest. And where appropriate, well-crafted graphics depict the medical explanations, making the breast cancer and pre-term birth connections understandable. “Over time,” said Dr. Patrick Fagan, who coauthored a 2014 paper on the abortion-breast cancer link, “the 2003 NCI conference is going to become an embarrassment in the history of the NCI itself.” Indeed, it may. It took Dr. Omalu four years to awaken the conscience of the NFL. The consciences of the NIH and NCI have already been slumbering for over thirteen years. One can hope that Hush will, paradoxically, finally wake them up. • https://salvomag.com/article/salvo39/stonewalled-on-abortion Bottom line, the Abortion industry of death is basically reliant on deception in their supposed 'education' of young people.,,, John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Personally, I passionately hate being lied to by anyone. That is part of the reason I hate Darwinian ideology so much. bornagain77

Hazel@40, there is no real mystery behind it. For the vast majority, those most strongly opposed to abortion for any reason are also very devoutly religious. This comes packaged with strict moral prohibitions if sex for anything other than procreation for married couples. Now, I have no problem with people living their lives with these moral restrictions. In fact, I respect them for doing this. Where I have a problem is when they try to alter laws and education policies to try to force others to abide by their moral restrictions. Brother Brian

Boggles my mind that those that are strongly against abortion aren't for realistic measures to reduce it. It is totally unrealistic to think that somehow the problem can be solved by getting people to restrict sex to mature married couples who know how to keep from having unwanted babies. (Is contraception OK for them, I wonder?) Another article: NBC News article hazel

KF@36, yes, you have made it very clear that you expect everyone on earth to share your moral beliefs with regard to sex and other behaviours, and claim that civilization is heading to ruin if they don’t. Thankfully, most people do not share your Scarlet Letter form of justified morality. There are many people like myself who believe that there is nothing immoral or wrong with two consenting teens (or two consenting adults) being sexually intimate as long as they are aware of the risks and take appropriate precautions. Our jobs as parents is not to make our kids avoid all risk, it is to teach them how to manage risk. In my sixty plus years I have seen significant changes in the maturity of teens as sex education has become more progressive and the puritanical attitudes have declined. The thing that has become most obvious to me is that teens today are far more emotionally mature than when I was a teen, with a far greater respect for others, especially the opposite sex Brother Brian

The hidden depression of young women behind the current 'hook-up' culture on college campuses:

What the Hook-up Culture Has Done to Women - ANNE MALONEY - JUNE 14, 2016 In thirty years of teaching, I have come to know thousands of women between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six. ,,, Women have never been more “sexually liberated” than these women are, or so they are told. No more are they shackled by ridiculous bonds like commandments, moral rules, words like “chastity.” They shout: “We’re free!” Yet they whisper: “Why are we so miserable?” It is no coincidence that the top two prescribed drugs at our state university’s health center are anti-depressants and the birth-control pill.,,, https://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/hook-culture-done-women

Hmmm, perhaps God, with his moral guidelines for us, wants to protect us, instead of preventing us from having a supposedly 'good time' with 'liberated sex'? Of semi-related note:

“Today's feminism has very little to do with dignity, respect, or even promoting what's best for women” -- Julie Roys Women's March Reveals Godless Nature of Feminism – February 3, 2017 Excerpt: Madonna dropping F-bombs and talking about blowing up the White House. Actress Ashley Judd proudly proclaiming, "Yeah, I'm a nasty woman — a loud vulgar, proud woman." And mothers marching with their daughters while wearing female genitalia on their heads. The recent Women's March was enough to make most anyone think twice about supporting women's causes, especially those who are Christians. In addition to the march's vulgarity and verbal violence, it also championed abortion and banned pro-life groups from officially participating. Those, like Students for Life, who dared to march anyway were spat upon, jeered, and had signs ripped from their hands. It's no wonder a young woman from the pro-life group remarked, "If this is what feminism is, I don't want any part of it." http://www.christianpost.com/news/womens-march-reveals-godless-nature-of-feminism-174083/ March for Life Art Contrasts with Vulgar Signs at Women’s March in 30 Photos The National Review Katie Yoder and Mairead McArdle - January 19, 2019 https://news.yahoo.com/march-life-art-contrasts-vulgar-210127317.html An open letter to the United States of America -- Where is the outrage? America, your silence is deafening! Yet we have a mental breakdown when a border wall is being considered. We protect LGBT rights but murder innocent babies in the womb. We encourage children to switch genders, but not to turn to God—the only true source of hope for our nation. Our schools resemble battlegrounds, and our families remain shattered while churches stay silent. It appears that pastors would rather cave in than fight, tickle the ear rather than challenge the heart.,,, https://www.christianpost.com/voice/an-open-letter-to-the-united-states-of-america.html

bornagain77

PS: Ask yourself, relative to 1941 - 45, whether reduction in the rate of holocaust was an acceptable answer to the problem of mass murder of the targetted. Similarly, ask yourself whether amelioration of conditions in the slave trade and/or on the plantations from the 1780's - 1830s was an adequate answer to the Atlantic slave trade. kairosfocus

BB Your reasoning that more information (often, in a context that specifically distances moral government of behaviour) answers the problem fails to recognise the issues of both moral government and the effect of significantly increased exposure to a risk factor relating to a cluster of hazards. We are morally governed creatures, as even your argument appeals to. You expect us to find claims persuasive because we sense duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice etc. Nor can such be delusional, as were that so, our whole rational life would evaporate in a fog of cynical manipulation and grand delusion. This in turn means that IS and OUGHT are inextricably intertwined in our reasoning and must be bridged at the only level where they are not subject to the challenge of ungrounded ought: the root of reality. We see, then that there credibly is a root of reality that is also adequate to bear the weight of oughtness, i.e. is inherently good. We are, in that context, morally governed creatures. Absent recognising that root reality, we will be ever so prone to set up crooked, inaccurate yardsticks that mislead us and tend to lock out what is really straight ("true"), accurate and upright. For, what is really such cannot pass the test of demanded conformity with the crooked. In this case, a decisive plumb line cross check is that our oh so sophisticated civilisation is busily carrying forward the worst holocaust in history, 800+ millions of our living posterity in the womb in 40+ years, and mounting up at about a million more per week. To enable and sustain that holocaust, just about every institution of influence has been warped, so we must expect crooked yardsticks leading to crooked thinking, deciding and doing. This includes on education about governing our sexual behaviour. First, teens simply are not mature enough to be managing active sex lives in a context of unstable, low commitment interactions and given economic and educational circumstances their proper disciplined focus needs to be on education, discipline, virtue, productivity. We simply do not need to be taken captive by the abortion lobby and the porn-perversion agendas. We do not need to be in utter confusion about maleness and femaleness under false colour of law and rights warped through agit prop media manipulation and lawfare as democratic institutions are increasingly taken captive by ill-advised mutineers leading our ships of state on voyages of folly. When it comes to abortion, the issue is simple: the unborn child is a member of the human family -- see the for reference vid here at UD: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/reference-pregnancy-week-by-week/ . Where, life is the first right. So, injecting dehumanisation of the unborn is destructive, as is implicating millions in blood guilt. Utterly corrosive and a gateway to everything else. Next, if one is not in a committed relationship of marriage with an adequate basis to sustain a family and the maturity to manage one's sexual conduct in a disciplined exact fashion, one -- s/he (the 112 genders follies refute themselves by absurdity) -- has no business fooling around with sex as though it were a contact sport. The emotional and spiritual damage being done, already, speaks volumes. The societal implications, speak to far more. And let us not get started on what is happening with messing around with body biochemistry and physiology, not to mention exposure to dozens of sexually transmissible diseases, which include varieties of cancer. Going further, sexual behaviours are potentially habituating, addictive and progressive, so bad habits and associated fantasies, emotions, guilt challenges, relationship breakdowns and more set up all sorts of serious personal and moral problems that are too often unacknowledged roots of serious damage to oneself and others. The psycho-social consequences are devastating, especially when unstable relationships are involved as well as destabilisation of marriages and families. So, already, we see grounds for serious reform of the sort of miseducation and manipulation that have spread far and wide. Up to and including the enabling of holocaust. Guilty, guilty, guilty are we. Coming back, the issue of exposure and how rapidly it degrades aggregate protection. When we deal with dangerous hazards, low probabilities of occurrence in any single exposure can rapidly accumulate into a dangerously high aggregate risk. Where, in the HIV context, it has been noted that if you sleep with person X, you are also sleeping with the network of people in the sexual chain going back a decade. Let us do a simple calculation. Activity A with safety protections has a 99% likelihood of being actually protected. What happens if we do A ten times, in terms of aggregate protection? The odds of being protected adequately all ten times are .99^10 = 0.90. At 20 times, this falls to 0.82, at 40 times, it is 0.67 and so forth. Where the inherent hazard is 10%, after ten exposures, the odds of aggregate successful protection fall to 0.35. With the sort of consequences on the line that we are dealing with, getting habitually involved in risky behaviours is ill-advised. Further, other behaviours that serve as gateways, are also ill advised as they undermine self-control and tend to desensitise conscience. In this case, that clearly includes being desensitised to supporting holocaust. Which is where the junk science highlighted in the OP becomes highly relevant. Wider consequences of ceding civilisational power to those who fail the character test are patent from the ongoing holocaust and how all sorts of institutions have become warped and corrupted to become enablers. Including science and education. The sort of out of control policies on the bridge of the various ships of state that are obviously heading for the rocks are direct consequences of the warping of institutions and associated putting in place of crooked yardsticks. Economic, demographic and strategic consequences follow and may well be geostrategically decisive. Decisive against our civilisation. A voyage of folly on the ship of state is a case of collective suicide. Just ask the ghosts of the Athenians who lived through the hubris, corruption, folly and suicide of their Democracy. Then, consult the ghosts of over 100 million victims of the various utopian regimes of the past century, socialistic and their kissing cousin fascistic ones alike. Then ponder where cultural marxism is taking us. Guilty, guilty, guilty. KF kairosfocus

Hazel@34, it just makes sense that sex education and contraceptives would lead to lower abortion rates. Knowledge is power. Sadly, however, those most vehemently opposed to abortion are also opposed to detailed sex education and contraceptives. What would drive these people right around the bend is that some countries even teach that masturbation is an acceptable way to release sexual tension. Brother Brian

I don't have a source for this data, but I'm guessing it's fairly accurate:

In the Netherlands, abortion is freely available on demand. Yet the Netherlands boasts the lowest abortion rate in the world, about 6 abortions per 1000 women per year, and the complication and death rates for abortion are miniscule. How do they do it? First of all, contraception is widely available and free — it's covered by the national health insurance plan. Holland also carries out extensive public education on contraception, family planning, and sexuality. An ethic of personal responsibility for one's sexual activity is strongly promoted. Of course, some people say that teaching kids about sex and contraception will only encourage them to have lots of sex. But Dutch teenagers tend to have less frequent sex, starting at an older age, than American teenagers, and the Dutch teenage pregnancy rate is 9 times lower than in the U.S.

hazel

Seversky, I actually agree with much of what you said, a lot more than usual,, (though we could argue nuances of Christian Theology. and the science behind the claims etc,, for hours or even days). My main grievance with your post is that you are still pretending that it is somehow rational for you to debate morality while your worldview is, in reality, completely amoral. i.e. 'pitiless indifference'. And since 'pitiless indifference' is your starting position, then to be consistent in your argumentation, pitiless indifference should be the position that you defend consistently throughout your argumentation. But this is not what you are doing. You are conceding that your starting position is 'pitilessly indifferent', then somehow magically, ending up in position arguing for morality of some sort. Whether you can see it or not, your argumentation is self-refuting. Moreover, to pretend that you can build a system of morality out of a atheistic worldview that is, in reality, (and by your own admission), pitilessly indifferent is an exercise in self-deceived futility. Such has been tried numerous times over the past century, and the result is always the same for the country and/or population. Misery, despair and death. The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government:

“169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes - Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology (Nov. 2018) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170

Moreover, the Atheist's attempt to create illusory morality, meaning and purposes for his life, minus belief in God and a afterlife, falls short in a rather dramatic fashion on both the mental and physical level. As Professor Andrew Sims, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, states, “The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.”,,, “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life;,,”

“I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

In fact, in the following study it was found that, “those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%.”

Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes – June 1, 2017 Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the “Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults” study May 16. “For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year,” Bruce said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/

Thus, it is readily apparent that the Atheist's attempt to create illusory morality, meaning and purposes for his life, minus belief in God and a afterlife, falls short in a rather dramatic fashion on both the mental and physical level. In short, the dramatic negative mental and physical consequences on the atheist's own life testify to the reality of objective morality. The following video goes over many more lines of evidence that strongly support the Christian's position as well as strongly refuting the atheist's position:

Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog

Verse:

Deuteronomy 30:15,, 19 and 20 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase,,,, This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

bornagain77

Bornagain77 @ 22

Seversky @ 20, you pretend that you, as a atheistic materialist, have a right to argue for the ‘objective’ morality of killing unborn babies (as long as you put them to sleep first)

I am as entitled to present my arguments, as are you, under right of freedom of thought and expression. I am not arguing for the objective morality of abortion. I deny the existence of objective morality but I also believe that if we grant a fundamental right to life to all individual human beings then it should be extended to each individual in the prenatal phase of its existence.

This is the same ‘objective’ morality that we afford to serial killers in putting them to sleep first before we administer a lethal injection.

Consideration of humane methods of execution does not require the existence of objective morality. I would have no problem with putting a bullet through the brain of the likes of a Ted Bundy. It would be quicker and more humane than they deserve. But that is my view, I do not claim it to be some objective truth.

May I also point out that the baby is guilty of no crime save for, in the vast majority of cases, being falsely perceived as being inconvenient for the mother.

I would agree that, short of a direct threat to the mother's life, the fetus's right to life should trump the mother's other, lesser rights. In the case of a child conceived during rape, it is not any fault of the child that this happened so there is no good reason to penalize it. However, the mother is entitled to consideration for the fact that carrying this child that was forced on her against her will is a continuous reminder of the traumatic event she suffered. Moreover, the victim will also often suffer the after-effects of the crime, which will have a significant impact on her ability to live and enjoy her life, more intensely and for much longer than the rapist will suffer any adverse consequences from what he did.

Yet you yourself admit that your worldview cannot ground morality,,, In fact, it is worse than that for you. Not only can your worldview NOT ground morality but your worldview is completely amoral. That is to say, your worldview denies the reality of objective morality altogether.

Yes, atheistic materialism is amoral because you cannot derive "ought" from "is". That does not mean that a/mats cannot form their own moral code, only that such a code cannot be grounded in the a/mat perspective or make any claim to universality.

Again, you, as a Darwinists, have absolutely NOTHING to say about the objective ‘morality’ of killing unborn babies period! For you to even try to rationalize otherwise, (i.e. put the babies to sleep first), is actually proof that you are under a objective moral law.

Again, yes, with the caveat that I was not arguing in favor of anesthetizing fetuses as allowing abortion but only offering the possibility as a counter to Egnor's claim that fetuses experience pain was an argument against abortion.

Moreover, your claim that “Christianity has no adequate explanation of consciousness or morality” is simply an insane lie. Atheistic materialists hold that material is the primary substratum from which everything else comes. Christians hold that the Mind of God is the primary substratum from which everything else comes. Quantum Mechanics has consistently supported the Christian view of reality and falsified the materialist’s view of reality.

A/mats agree that we have no adequate account of how consciousness arises from the activity of the physical brain. All we can say is that there is a close and persuasive correlation in the absence of any better explanation. But if a/mats cannot explain the conscious mind of a human being then how much less can Christians explain the nature of the conscious mind of their God or how it arose. There isn't even a physical entity like a brain with which it is associated. All we have are unsubstantiated claims of the existence immaterial phenomena such as a God and His mind. And I remind you that claiming something exists is not the same as explaining how something came into existence and how it works.

Moreover, objective morality is literally ‘built into’ Christianity’s foundation presupposition of the Mind of God being the source for all of reality. Not to mention Christ dying for the sins of the world.

Christian's claim the existence of objective morality but that can be viewed simply as their attempt to annex the moral high ground for their own particular brand of morality. As for Christ dying for the sins of humanity, it should be understood that people are behaving the way they were designed to behave by their Creator so how can they be to blame? Your God is, by definition, all-knowing, all-powerful and perfect. He does not make mistakes. If human beings behave in certain ways, that is how they were designed to behave, there's no way round it. As for the Crucifixion, Jesus is held to be the Son of God or God manifested in physical form on Earth, Now, while the body of Jesus may be killed, Jesus himself is immortal like God. There is absolutely nothing we could do today, with all our weapons, to harm Him in the slightest so how much less would the Romans have been able to do two thousand years ago? Jesus himself did not die on the cross. He could not. And if that's the case then the Crucifixion was little more than street theater.

In other words, in a technical legal sense, it is perfectly legal to kill atheistic materialists since they, by their own admission, are non-persons.

In my view, the right to life should not depend on so nebulous a concept as "personhood" but should attach only to the physical individual no matter what their stage of development.

Seversky

Of supplemental note: Atheists can give no reason why they should value reason, and Christians can show how anyone who believes in reason must also believe in God.

Cogito; Ergo Deus Est by Charles Edward White Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn't Dead https://salvomag.com/article/salvo39/cogito-ergo-deus-est?

bornagain77

Brother Brian states

BA77" Yet Brother Brian is apparently unaware, or purposely ignorant of the fact, that all of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is totally reliant on presuppositions that can only be grounded within Theistic, even Christian, metaphysics. BB: "Yes, there are some that hold that minority opinion. The majority of practicing scientists, however, disagree.,,, A follow up to 28. More correctly, you have (given) me (no) evidence that a significant number of practicing scientists support your opinion."

Yet, my claim was not that a majority of scientists are Christians, or even that a majority are Theists. My claim is that "all of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is totally reliant on presuppositions that can only be grounded within Theistic, even Christian, metaphysics.". I partially laid the case out for my claim in post 16, yet BB refused to address the meat of my claim, but instead, like a scoundrel, appealed to 'consensus science'.

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. - Michael Crichton

But even looking at this from what the 'consensus of beliefs' are of scientists we find that, despite the fact that scientists are more secular than the general population of a country, none-the-less, "over half of scientists see themselves as religious. And surprisingly, scientists do not think science is in conflict with religion. Instead, most see religion and science as operating in separate spheres."

Religion among Scientists in International Context: A New Study of Scientists in Eight Regions Elaine Howard Ecklund, David R. Johnson, Christopher P. Scheitle, ... - September 1, 2016 Abstract Scientists have long been associated with religion’s decline around the world. But little data permit analysis of the religiosity of scientists or their perceptions of the science-faith interface. Here we present the first ever survey data from biologists and physicists in eight regions around the world—France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, countries and regions selected because they exhibit differing degrees of religiosity, varying levels of scientific infrastructure, and unique relationships between religious and state institutions (N = 9,422). The data collection includes biologists and physicists at all career stages from elite and non-elite universities and research institutes. We uncovered that in most of the national contexts studied, scientists are indeed more secular—in terms of beliefs and practices—than those in their respective general populations, although in four of the regional contexts, over half of scientists see themselves as religious. And surprisingly, scientists do not think science is in conflict with religion. Instead, most see religion and science as operating in separate spheres. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2378023116664353

Thus even BB's claim that "a majority of practicing scientists, however, disagree" is found to be, basically, a rhetorical device that BB put to service for his a-priori preference for atheism. If BB was being purposely deceptive I have no way of knowing. Perhaps he was just robotically repeating something he heard from another troll on the internet. But anyways, again, my claim was not that a majority of scientists are Christians, or even that a majority are Theists. My claim is that "all of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is totally reliant on presuppositions that can only be grounded within Theistic, even Christian, metaphysics.". And again, I partially laid the case out for my claim in post 16. But to further make my case that all of science is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational nature of the universe and our 'made in the image of God' minds to be able to dare to grasp that rational nature, in the following study we find that "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." Moreover, "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,,

Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html

The following study found that , "the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever.",, and The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," ,,, and "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.",, and ""Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them."

Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study - Mary Papenfuss - June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever." The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers' words, "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful." Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or "default" human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether "any being purposefully made the thing in the picture," notes Pacific-Standard. "Religious participants' baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher" than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," wrote the researchers. The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712

The following video touches upon to preceding line of study,,,

Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

Thus is it not that atheists do not see design in nature, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature. I hold the preceding studies to be confirming evidence for Romans1:19-20

Romans 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

But anyways, my claim was not even that Atheists live in denial of the design that they themselves see in nature. My claim was more specific than that. My claim was that "all of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is totally reliant on presuppositions that can only be grounded within Theistic, even Christian, metaphysics." To prove my claim it is first necessary to define teleology

teleology the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.

To even 'do science', especially biology, it is first necessary to presuppose teleology. As Stephen L. Talbott put it, "the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology," In fact, as Talbott further challenged biologists, "pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness". As he further commented, "It can't be done"

The 'Mental Cell': Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! - Stephen L. Talbott - September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm

This working biologist agrees with Talbott’s assessment and states that "we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them."

Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails - Ann Gauger - June 2011 Excerpt: I'm a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn't troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it's high time we moved on. - Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161

Denis Noble himself also agrees with this and states, "it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.”

“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” - Denis Noble - Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/

Thus, even though atheistic biologists (and BB) may adamantly claim that they are not Theists, their very own words they use when they 'do science' give them away. It is simply impossible to do science, especially biology, without presupposing teleology. Dr. Michael Egnor has an interesting article on this subject,,

Teleology and the Mind - Michael Egnor - August 16, 2016 Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature. Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature. In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others. Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/

One final note, although many Darwinian scientists may robotically mouth the words 'methodological naturalism is the ground rule for all of science', the fact of the matter is that Darwinists, when they adopt naturalism as their foundational worldview, are found to be adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Paper with references for each claim page; Page 37: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit

Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

bornagain77

A follow up to 28. More correctly, you have me evidence that a significant number of practicing scientists support your opinion. Brother Brian

BA77

Yet Brother Brian is apparently unaware, or purposely ignorant of the fact, that all of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is totally reliant on presuppositions that can only be grounded within Theistic, even Christian, metaphysics.

Yes, there are some that hold that minority opinion. The majority of practicing scientists, however, disagree. Brother Brian

Seversky:

The theory of evolution can be …

And yet there isn't any scientific theory of evolution. ET

Earth to Brother Brian- ID doesn't have anything to do with religion. ET

Three movies exposing some of the deception behind abortion

"Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer" Trailer, True Story, - The movie was released on Oct. 12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyxl5OlOTQI UnPlanned Trailer - In Theaters March 29 - What I saw changed everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBLWpKbC3ww Roe v. Wade Teaser - In Theaters sometime in 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUNwyQvRurs

bornagain77

Video, for reference, on pregnancy week by week: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/reference-pregnancy-week-by-week/ kairosfocus

In 19 Seversky claims that "The theory of evolution can be – and is – formulated without any reference to theology, Christian or otherwise." That is another blatant lie. Darwinism, especially since Darwinists refuse to accept empirical falsification, does not qualify as a science by any reasonable measure of science one may wish to invoke, but is more realistically classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience. In effect, a religion for atheists based on blind faith.

Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? Neo-Darwinists claim that evolution is an observed fact on par with the observed fact of gravity. But very contrary to their claims, the plain fact of the matter is that there are ZERO observed instances of neo-Darwinian evolution building up functional complexity: January 2019 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/is-a-philosophical-defence-of-truth-in-science-possible-any-more/#comment-672223

Seversky further falsely claims that "Individual scientists may have drawn inspiration from their personal religious beliefs but that does not mean that Christianity was either necessary or sufficient for the development of science." And yet the fact remains that it was the Christian worldview alone that gave rise to modern science:

Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html The Christian Origins of Science - Jack Kerwick - Apr 15, 2017 Excerpt: Though it will doubtless come as an enormous shock to such Christophobic atheists as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their ilk, it is nonetheless true that one especially significant contribution that Christianity made to the world is that of science.,,, Stark is blunt: “Real science arose only once: in Europe”—in Christian Europe. “China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology develop into astronomy.”,,, In summation, Stark writes: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.” He concludes: “These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/04/15/the-christian-origins-of-science-n2313593 Intelligent Design as a “Science Stopper”? Here’s the Real Story – Michael Flannery – August 20, 2011 Excerpt: If the “ID is a science stopper” argument rests on weak philosophical foundations, its historical underpinnings are even shakier. The leading natural philosophers (what we would call “scientists” today) of the 16th through 18th centuries, the men who established modern science as we know it — Copernicus, Galileo, Vesalius, Harvey, Newton — would have considered the MN dogma absurd and indeed rather peculiar. In fact, James Hannam has recently examined this issue in some detail and found that religion, far from being antagonistic or an impediment to science, was an integral part of its advance in the Western world (see my earlier ENV article on the subject). https://evolutionnews.org/2011/08/id_a_science_stopper_heres_the/ "Did Christianity (and Other Religions) Promote the Rise Of Science?" - Michael Egnor October 24, 2013 Excerpt: Neither the Greeks nor Islam produced modern theoretical science. The Greeks produced sublime philosophy and mathematics, but no theoretical science. They excelled in mathematics but never applied mathematical models to the systematic study of nature. Islam produced no real theoretical science. It invaded the Christian Middle East, Christian North Africa and Christian Spain, and expropriated the culture and work of Christians and Jews and pagans in the conquered lands. Centralized government and fresh availability of booty fostered a modest bit of science produced by the conquered locals -- the vast majority of whom were not Muslim for centuries. It took several centuries before most of the conquered peoples under the Islamic boot converted to Islam -- Islamic rulers coveted the dhimmi taxes and were not quick to force conversion -- and when Islamic lands became wholly Islamic, science became wholly dead. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/did_christianit078281.html The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited - July 2010 Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,, Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pa(n)theist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,, If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/

bornagain77

Seversky @ 20, you pretend that you, as a atheistic materialist, have a right to argue for the 'objective' morality of killing unborn babies (as long as you put them to sleep first). This is the same 'objective' morality that we afford to serial killers in putting them to sleep first before we administer a lethal injection. May I also point out that the baby is guilty of no crime save for, in the vast majority of cases, being falsely perceived as being inconvenient for the mother. Yet you yourself admit that your worldview cannot ground morality,,, In fact, it is worse than that for you. Not only can your worldview NOT ground morality but your worldview is completely amoral. That is to say, your worldview denies the reality of objective morality altogether.

"It may be well first to premise that I do not wish to maintain that any strictly social animal, if its intellectual faculties were to become as active and as highly developed as in man, would acquire exactly the same moral sense as ours. In the same manner as various animals have some sense of beauty, though they admire widely-different objects, so they might have a sense of right and wrong, though led by it to follow widely different lines of conduct. If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering." -Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p 67

Again, you, as a Darwinists, have absolutely NOTHING to say about the objective ‘morality’ of killing unborn babies period! For you to even try to rationalize otherwise, (i.e. put the babies to sleep first), is actually proof that you are under a objective moral law.

“Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.” - J. Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know: A Guide

Moreover, your claim that "Christianity has no adequate explanation of consciousness or morality" is simply an insane lie. Atheistic materialists hold that material is the primary substratum from which everything else comes. Christians hold that the Mind of God is the primary substratum from which everything else comes. Quantum Mechanics has consistently supported the Christian view of reality and falsified the materialist's view of reality.

The Death of Materialism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE

Moreover, objective morality is literally 'built into' Christianity's foundation presupposition of the Mind of God being the source for all of reality. Not to mention Christ dying for the sins of the world. Again, your claim that "Christianity has no adequate explanation of consciousness or morality" is simply a insane lie. Moreover, besides atheistic materialism not being able to account for consciousness, atheistic materialism actually denies the reality of 'personhood' altogether. And as such, the atheist inadvertently gives up his legal status as a 'person', and thus, humorously, in a technical legal sense, since the 'right to life' is legally based on the concept of 'personhood', the atheist has, inadvertently, forsaken any legal claim that he has to a 'right to life'. In other words, in a technical legal sense, it is perfectly legal to kill atheistic materialists since they, by their own admission, are non-persons.

Legally in the United States, the right to life is granted to anyone who is granted the legal status of being a ‘person’., And yet the atheist’s Darwinian worldview is unable to ground the concept of ‘personhood’: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-governor-of-virginia-killing-babies-is-ok-by-him/#comment-672236

bornagain77

To paraphrase Avicenna, just insert "pain is an illusion" for "the law of noncontradiction" "Anyone who denies the law of noncontradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." dgosse

Bornagain77 @ 18

Seversky at 15, if you murder a person in their sleep, instead of when they are awake, is the crime any less a murder since the person was asleep? Of course not.

That was not the point. Egnor is arguing that fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than we do and is offering that as an argument against abortion. But if the fetus is not conscious, although it may display instinctive responses to stimuli that would be painful if it were conscious, it cannot feel pain.

Moreover, as an atheist, besides you not being able to account for morality, you certainly cannot account for consciousness.

I have no problem conceding that there is no adequate materialist account of consciousness. That is why it's a "hard problem". But no one has anything better.

Might I suggest that you stop stealing from Christian presuppositions about the nature of consciousness and morality in order to try to argue for your atheistic position of murdering unborn babies without restriction (as long as they are asleep)?

Christianity has no adequate explanation of consciousness or morality to offer nor does it have copyright on any of its moral principles so there is no question of theft, not even where Christianity appears to have adopted moral or theological concepts from other cultures.

Remember, your worldview is completely amoral and denies the existence of any objective morality whatsoever. Therefore you have absolutely NOTHING to say about the ‘morality’ of killing unborn babies period!

Atheistic materialism does not entail any moral principles since it makes claims about what is and you can't derive an "ought" from an "is". None of that prevents me from forming my own moral principles and judgments on whatever bases I choose. It just prevents me from grounding those views in the nature of the world around us. Your worldview, on the other hand, implies that you are incapable of forming moral beliefs of your own and are entirely reliant on what is provided to you in the Bible. In other words, you only know what is right or wrong if God tells you which is which. This, of course, raises an interesting question: where in the Bible do we find a clear and specific prohibition of abortion such as a commandment? And if there isn't one, on what do Christians base their vehement opposition to abortion? Seversky

Bornagain77 @ 16

Yet Brother Brian is apparently unaware, or purposely ignorant of the fact, that all of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is totally reliant on presuppositions that can only be grounded within Theistic, even Christian, metaphysics.

The theory of evolution can be - and is - formulated without any reference to theology, Christian or otherwise.

Science is simply impossible without basic Theistic presuppositions,,,

Individual scientists may have drawn inspiration from their personal religious beliefs but that does not mean that Christianity was either necessary or sufficient for the development of science.

Max Planck himself, the main founder of Quantum Theory, stated that science requires faith in God :

Planck was entitled to his faith but his eminence as a physicist does not mean he is any better qualified than you or I to pronounce on questions of theology.

Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself, in order to stay scientific, is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend it.

As I have argued many times before, you can strip out all the theological references from Darwin's writings and his theory would remain intact. We observe the world around us to be ordered. We would not exist if it weren't. Science can - and I would argue did - use that as a starting-point. We can observe, study, describe and try to explain those regularities without any need to invoke the concept of a deity or creator. If you want to claim that the Christian God is the Creator of it all, I cannot disprove it. It is a possibility. But that is all it is, as far as I'm concerned, and it is not necessary for science to proceed.

In establishing the fact that Darwinists use bad liberal theology to try to establish their the legitimacy of the supposed ‘science’, it is interesting to point out that Charles Darwin’s degree was in liberal theology and was not in mathematics. nor any other field that would be considered essential for founding of a brand new branch of science. (In fact, Charles Darwin was said that he found higher level mathematics to be “repugnant”)

Darwin went initially to the University of Edinburgh to study medicine but was drawn more towards geology and natural history. Because he was thought to be neglecting his studies his father moved him to the University of Cambridge to study for a Bachelor of Arts degree with a view to joining the clergy. While at Cambridge he read and was greatly impressed by William Paley's Evidences of Christianity and Natural Theology which you may regard as bad liberal theology but there are others, perhaps even here, who would give you an argument on that. The fact is that while the gentleman naturalists and "liberal ‘unscientific’ Anglican clergy of Darwin’s day" lacked the formal qualifications of a modern scientist, in their driving curiosity, painstaking research and meticulous records many of them epitomized what we now think of as scientists. Seversky

Seversky at 15, if you murder a person in their sleep, instead of when they are awake, is the crime any less a murder since the person was asleep? Of course not. Moreover, as an atheist, besides you not being able to account for morality, you certainly cannot account for consciousness. Might I suggest that you stop stealing from Christian presuppositions about the nature of consciousness and morality in order to try to argue for your atheistic position of murdering unborn babies without restriction (as long as they are asleep)? Remember, your worldview is completely amoral and denies the existence of any objective morality whatsoever. Therefore you have absolutely NOTHING to say about the 'morality' of killing unborn babies period!

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

bornagain77

Moreover, Charles Darwin's book itself, Origin of Species, instead of being filled with experimentation and mathematics, is replete with bad liberal theology.

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X

To this day, Darwinists are still very much dependent of bad liberal theology, instead of any compelling scientific evidence (much less any compelling mathematics), in order to try to make Darwinian evolution seem 'scientific'.

Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

That Darwinists would still today be so dependent on such a faulty theological foundation based in bad liberal theology, in order to try to give force to their arguments, is, contrary to what Darwinists may believe, actually another compelling argument that drives my point home that basic Theistic presuppositions are necessary for us to even be able to coherently practice science in the first place. Darwinists, with their vital dependence on bad liberal theology in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution are, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.

“In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.” Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).

One final note, since Christianity was necessary for the founding of modern science, then it should not be all that surprising to find out that Christianity also brings us what can be termed 'an ultimate closure to science' ,,,, in that Christ's resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into what is called the quote unquote “Theory of Everything”:

Short take: Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything” - January 2019 Copernican Principle https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/bill-nye-should-check-wikipedia/#comment-671672 Agent Causality https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/bill-nye-should-check-wikipedia/#comment-671692 Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

bornagain77

Brother Brian, since he is an atheist, jokes about the strong connection between ID and religious beliefs. Yet Brother Brian is apparently unaware, or purposely ignorant of the fact, that all of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is totally reliant on presuppositions that can only be grounded within Theistic, even Christian, metaphysics.

Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited - July 2010 Excerpt: The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/

Science is simply impossible without basic Theistic presuppositions,,,

The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site Excerpt: When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://justinholcomb.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist/

Max Planck himself, the main founder of Quantum Theory, stated that science requires faith in God :

“Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view”. Max Planck – 1931 – Lutheran/Christian – main originator of Quantum Theory

Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself, in order to stay scientific, is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend it. In establishing the fact that Darwinists use bad liberal theology to try to establish their the legitimacy of the supposed 'science', it is interesting to point out that Charles Darwin’s degree was in liberal theology and was not in mathematics. nor any other field that would be considered essential for founding of a brand new branch of science. (In fact, Charles Darwin was said that he found higher level mathematics to be "repugnant")

Charles Darwin - The Rest of the Story Excerpt: Charles Darwin received a general degree in Theology from Cambridge, graduating in 1831.,,, he almost became an Anglican Minister and his degree was in Theology. http://creationanswers.net/biographies/CDarwin.htm

In fact, the liberal ‘unscientific’ Anglican clergy of Darwin’s day were very eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning, whilst the conservative ‘scientific’ clergy reacted against Darwin's theory:

Reactions to Origin of Species “Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_On_the_Origin_of_Species

Pastor Joe Boot and Dr. Cornelius Hunter have both done work exposing the faulty liberal theology that underlays Darwinian thought..

The Descent of Darwin (The Faulty Theological Foundation of Darwinism) - Pastor Joe Boot - video - 16:30 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996 Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil - 2001 Excerpt: (Cornelius Hunter) shows how Darwin's theological concerns-particularly his inability to reconcile a loving, all-powerful God with the cruelty, waste, and quandaries of nature-led him to develop the theory of evolution. Hunter provides the crucial key to engaging the intelligent design debate in the context of modern theology. He addresses the influences of Milton, rationalism, the enlightenment, and Deism, quoting extensively from Darwin's journals, letters, and scientific writings. https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-God-Evolution-Problem-Evil/dp/1587430118 From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought - May 2011 Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-philosopher-to-science-writer.html

bornagain77

Brother Brian @ 3

Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults:

For a neurosurgeon, he knows very little about the brain and nervous system. Pain, fundamentally, is an illusion. It is how our brains perceive various types of stimulation. Like our perception of color and music. A fetus before brain development can’t feel “pain”. It can react to stimulation, but that is not the same as pain.

One further point is that pain is a conscious experience, If we are unconscious we do not feel pain, hence anesthesia. Unless Egnor is claiming that fetuses are fully conscious throughout their development then they do not feel pain. Seversky

EricMH

@ET, very perceptive. There is a strong connection between the ID position and the pro-life position.

Yes, it is called religion. :) Brother Brian

@ET, very perceptive. There is a strong connection between the ID position and the pro-life position. EricMH

The problem is with the people running the show. They think life, our existence, is basically just an accident anyway. There isn't any meaning to it beyond what you can make of it. Our brain runs the show. And that brain arose via mindless processes- minds from the mindless. They do not understand the value of life nor the miracle of conception. For use who are pro-life, it all comes down to ensoulment. Well, not all because we do understand the miracle of conception. ET

Seversky:

But if we grant the fetus the same right to life to which the child is entitled after birth then abortion would become both immoral and illegal.

What if this "we" you speak of isn't in any position to grant anything? ET

@brotherBrian@2 There was a faith healer from Keel Who said – although pain isn’t real When I sit on a pin And it goes all the way in I dislike what I imagine I feel Belfast

Of course, Darwinian materialists are at a complete loss to explain why any of this should be so, whereas on the other hand, on Christian presuppositions this ‘more real than real’ finding is to be expected.

A Doctor's Near Death Experience Inspires a New Life - video Quote: "It's not like a dream. It's like the world we are living in is a dream and it's kind of like waking up from that." Dr. Magrisso http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/as-seen-on/A-Doctor--186331791.html Medical Miracles – Dr. Mary Neal’s Near Death Experience – video (More real than real quote at 37:49 minute mark) https://youtu.be/WCNjmWP2JjU?t=2269 "More real than anything I've experienced since. When I came back of course I had 34 operations, and was in the hospital for 13 months. That was real but heaven is more real than that. The emotions and the feelings. The reality of being with people who had preceded me in death." - Don Piper - "90 Minutes in Heaven," 10 Years Later - video (2:54 minute mark) https://youtu.be/3LyZoNlKnMM?t=173

Moreover on top of all that, whereas atheists have no evidence for all the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth (to try to 'explain away' fine tuning, quantum wave collapse, and such as that), in fact, there is fairly strong evidence that can be mustered against their claims for parallel universes and/or multiverses,,

Multiverse Mania vs Reality - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJV4fH6kMo

And whereas, atheists have no compelling evidence for all the various extra dimensions, parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a higher heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.

Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

All in all, Brother Brian’s materialistic claim that all of our perceptions are illusory since he believes, via his materialistic presuppositions, that our perceptions are wholly dependent on 'how our brain interprets electrical signals', is found to be, besides self-refuting nonsense, directly contradicted by numerous lines of empirical evidence from our strongest theories in science. If Brother Brain were truly concerned about ‘scientifically’ following the evidence wherever it leads, (instead of just trying to defend his atheistic worldview no matter what the evidence says to the contrary), then Brother Brain should drop his materialistic Darwinian worldview altogether and become a Christian. He should even become a true ‘brother in Christ’. i.e. a true “Brother” Brian! Verses:

Matthew 12:48-50 He replied to him,“Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said,“Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” John 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

bornagain77

As the preceding article stated, "The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can't explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense.” And indeed, advances in quantum biology have now falsified the entire reductive materialistic foundation upon which Darwinian evolution is built:

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology - video https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

An even more direct falsification of Brian's claim that our perceptions are wholly dependent on 'how our brain interprets electrical signals' is this. Evidence suggesting that quantum mechanisms are at play on the macro level of the human body is revealed in the following article where it is revealed that a ‘subject perceives a sensory stimulus on the skin at the moment the skin is touched, before the stimulus reaches the brain and before full deliberative consciousness occurs.’

Do Perceptions Happen in Your Brain? - Michael Egnor - December 1, 2015 Excerpt: The sensory experiments of Benjamin Libet, a neuroscientist at U.C. San Francisco in the mid 20th century, demonstrated that a subject perceives a sensory stimulus on the skin at the moment the skin is touched, before the stimulus reaches the brain and before full deliberative consciousness occurs. Libet was flabbergasted by this result,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/do_perceptions101261.html

Moreover, Dr. Michael Egnor’s (Theistic) contention (via Aristotle) that “Perception at a distance is no more inconceivable than action at a distance.”,,,

Perception and the Cartesian Theater – Michael Egnor – December 8, 2015 Excerpt: Perception at a distance is no more inconceivable than action at a distance. The notion that a perception of the moon occurs at the moon is “bizarre” (Torley’s word) only if one presumes that perception is constrained by distance and local conditions — perhaps perception would get tired if it had to go to the moon or it wouldn’t be able to go because it’s too cold there. Yet surely the view that the perception of a rose held up to my eye was located at the rose wouldn’t be deemed nearly as bizarre. At what distance does perception of an object at the object become inconceivable? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/perception_and101471.html

,,,, Dr. Michael Egnor’s (Theistic) contention (via Aristotle) that “Perception at a distance is no more inconceivable than action at a distance.”, is now verified in the following "quantum entanglement in time' experiment which directly implied that that “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”

You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time - Feb. 2018 Excerpt: Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?,,, The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted. What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old. https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time

As the following article stated, "Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,,"

Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time – 2016 Bizarre quantum bonds connect distinct moments in time, suggesting that quantum links — not space-time — constitute the fundamental structure of the universe. Excerpt: Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,, “If you have space-time, you have a well-defined causal order,” said Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna who studies quantum information. But “if you don’t have a well-defined causal order,” he said — as is the case in experiments he has proposed — then “you don’t have space-time.”,,, Quantum correlations come first, space-time later. Exactly how does space-time emerge out of the quantum world? Bruner said he is still unsure. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/

Moreover, Brian's materialistic assumption that "everything we perceive is an illusion" and that what we perceive is wholly dependent on 'how our brain interprets electrical signals' is also falsified by Near Death Experiences. First off, we have far more evidence supporting the reality of Near Death Experiences than we have evidence supporting the claims of Darwinists:

Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html

And in further falsification of Brian's claim that all our perceptions of reality are illusory, Mickey Robinson stated this about his Near Death Experience,..

“I was in the spiritual dimension. And this spiritual dimension, this spiritual world, that's the real world. And this spiritual man that I was seeing and perceiving, that was the real me. And I instantly knew it. The colors are brighter. The thoughts are more intense. The feelings have greater depth. They're more real. In the spirit world instantly I knew that this is the real world.,,," - The Near Death Experience of Mickey Robinson – video (testimony starts at 27:45 minute mark) https://youtu.be/voak1RM-pXo?t=1655

Mickey Robinson is hardly alone in his claim that the spiritual world is ‘more real’ than this temporal material world. In the following study, materialistic researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences being real, set out to prove that they were ‘false memories’ by setting up a clever questionnaire that could differentiate which memories a person had were real and which memories a person had were merely imaginary. They did not expect the results they got: to quote the headline 'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real”

'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/

bornagain77

In response to,

" if pain is an illusion, please list everything that is not".

Brother Brian states that,

"Given that we experience everything through how our brain interprets electrical signals, it could be said that everything we perceive is an illusion."

Believe it or not, Brother Brian is finally being somewhat consistent within his Darwinian reasoning. The one thing he left out is that consciousness itself, i.e. our ability to perceive, is also considered an illusion on the Darwinian worldview. And as Rowan Williams asked Richard Dawkins in regards to Dawkins' materialistic claim that “consciousness is an illusion”, ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”

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

And indeed it has now been proven that, as Brother Brian pointed out, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, then "everything we perceive is an illusion."

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

Ignoring the self-refuting fact that consciousness itself is held to be illusory in the Darwinian worldview, the problem for Brother Brian and other Darwinists in holding that all our perceptions of reality are illusory is that it undermines the scientific method itself. That is to say, reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method.

Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

Thus, since Darwinian evolution denies 'reliable observation', which is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself, then Darwinian evolution can never be based upon the scientific method and is therefore falsified once again in its claim to be a scientific theory. Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.

New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html

Apparently science itself could care less if Darwinian atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory! Moreover, Brian's materialistic claim that the perceptions of our 'illusory' mind are wholly dependent on 'how our brain interprets electrical signals' is found to be severely wanting. First, the human mind is able to perceive 'abstract' immaterial objects, such as mathematical objects, that lie beyond space and time.

Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”? It seems a stretch. What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

In fact, there is entire world of abstract immaterial objects that humans perceive that can have no material instantiation in space and time, and therefore cannot possibly be wholly dependent on 'how our brain interprets electrical signals'

The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals - Michael Egnor - November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different -- ontologically different -- from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, It is a radical difference -- an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2100661.html The Representation Problem and the Immateriality of the Mind - Michael Egnor - February 5, 2018 Excerpt: The human mind is a composite of material particular thought and immaterial abstract thought. Interestingly, modern neuroscience supports this view. Perception of particulars maps with precision to brain anatomy, but abstract thought is not mapped in the same way. Material powers of the brain are ordinarily necessary for exercise of abstract thought (e.g., you have to be awake to think about justice), but matter is not sufficient for abstract thought. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-representation-problem-and-the-immateriality-of-the-mind/

In support of the claim that our ‘abstract perceptions’ cannot have a material instantiation, the following studies show that our ‘abstract’ moral intuition transcends space and time:

Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html   Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) - (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: "But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called "presentiment," as in "sensing the future," but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. "I like to call the phenomenon 'anomalous anticipatory activity,'" she said. "The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can't explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It's anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it's an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm

bornagain77

BB@5 "Given that we experience everything through how our brains perceive electrical signals, it could be said that everything we perceive is an illusion." Quite correct; we never experience "reality as it is", but at least 2 stages removed from reality: (1) the limitations of our sensory receptors and (2) the brain's interpretation of those electrical inputs received. Yet so many of us on both sides of this debate (and others) are so SURE about the nature of the reality that we are greatly distanced from. Another point related to those electrical signals and their interpretation: If I lie awake at night wondering "what's it all about?" or "is there really a God?", what is generating those thoughts? According to neuroscience, thoughts are caused by electrical signals. After all, as BB has stated, everything we experience (including our innermost thoughts) is nothing but the brain's interpretation of electrical signals. But if this is so, *what causes the electrical signals that cause our thoughts?* For me this seems to defeat materialism, unless our thoughts are entirely caused by a chain of particle interactions dating back to the Big Bang, which would mean we are meat robots with no freewill. Any thoughts on this? (Pun not intended!) Charles Birch

if pain is an illusion, please list everything that is not.

Given that we experience everything through how our brain interprets electrical signals, it could be said that everything we perceive is an illusion. Brother Brian

BB - if pain is an illusion, please list everything that is not. Heartlander

Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults:

For a neurosurgeon, he knows very little about the brain and nervous system. Pain, fundamentally, is an illusion. It is how our brains perceive various types of stimulation. Like our perception of color and music. A fetus before brain development can’t feel “pain”. It can react to stimulation, but that is not the same as pain. Brother Brian

The unborn child is considered a person by law: Women have been arrested for killing their unborn child during an attempted suicide – also harming or killing their unborn child by using illegal drugs during pregnancy. Many states that have the death penalty prohibit the pregnant mother from being put to death until the child is born. People have been convicted of double homicide for killing women who are a few weeks pregnant. There are laws against violence to pregnant women and their unborn children. Unborn children can be beneficiaries of trusts and estate settlements. In all these cases, the unborn child is considered a person, abortion is the exception. Heartlander

Abortion is not a question of science but of morality. Whether or not a fetus can feel pain is irrelevant. If that were the only obstacle then it could be overcome quite simply by the administration of painkillers. But if we grant the fetus the same right to life to which the child is entitled after birth then abortion would become both immoral and illegal. Seversky