Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!laura From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: The Myth of Neutrality Message-ID: <4126@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Jul-84 16:06:39 EDT Article-I.D.: utzoo.4126 Posted: Mon Jul 23 16:06:39 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jul-84 16:06:39 EDT References: <179@ssc-bee.UUCP> <776@pyuxn.UUCP>, <786@pyuxn.UUCP>, <914@shark.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 63 Brian, It is precisely because there are conflicting definitions of ``person'' and ``murder'' (actually, murder is fairly well defined -- it is person that is the stickler) which makes the question very difficult to answer. But people *are* trying to evade reality and replace it with their own personal opinions. Every person who concludes ``therefore it is imperative that abortions be considered murder'' and ``therefore it is imperative that abortion be granted on demand'' from the premises ``I believe that the fetus is a person'' and ``I believe that the fetus is not a person'' is ignoring the reality that *we don't know what a person is* and *it is conceivable that we may never know*. The whole arguments read like ancient philosophy. You know, everybody sits around the Acropolis and thinks nice thoughts and are judged mostly on the aethetic appeal of the ideas put forth. This sort of stuff is a lot of fun. The problem is that the theory of Ideals (Plato) and Eternal Flux (Heroclytus ) and the Indivisible Atom (Democritus) are all very nice and beautiful theories. They satisfy the aethetic sense much in the same way that a well written science fiction story does. They postulate ``laws of the universe'' and are consistent within those laws. There is only one problem with these theories. They do not measure up to reality. The way that you test your theory against reality is through experimentation. The Ancients were not so good with experimentation -- philosophy was a matter of ``thinking the pure thoughts'' and so it wasn't until after the Renaissance that some of the ideas of the ancients were finally disproven. (and, of course, some of them were shown to be true.) Right now the definitions of human life are all matters of ``pure thoughts''. They all sound more or less plausible. However, we are in no way equipped to run an experiment to test for humanness. There are just too many questions that have to be answered first. Does God exist? Do human beings have souls? non-physical souls? What is consciouness? Is there such a thing as free will? Is intelligence a measure of humanity? These just happen to be the great unanswered questions of all time. Too bad we don't have answers now. It was too bad for the ancients that they did not have electricity and thus could do JJ Thompson's experiment proving Democritus wrong as well. Sorry guys, but this is reality. We just don't know enough. The people who present their opinions as fact deny this. There is nothing wrong with opinions. for instance, I have opinions on all of the above mentioned great questions (No, Yes, No, the process by which a sufficiently intelligent being produces concepts which model perceived reality, Yes, Yes). But you must never confuse opinion with the truth, nor fail to recognise that you are believing in something for which you do not have enough evidence. (not only is this a way to avoid dishonestly passing off your beliefs as the truth to others, but it saves you from such emotional attatchement to one's beliefs that one cannot renounce them even when they are demonstrated to be false. All the world may not be Maya, but only too many of the deep beliefs of many people fit the description!) Laura Creighton utzoo!laura