You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is "Pro-Life" an Accurate Label?
Hey Luke. Can't fault the internal consistency of your position.
I followed the link and read your Losing Eternity post, but couldn't reply as it's 6 months old.
I share your interest in the intersection of religion and politics, and if I shared your 'Origin of life' conclusions, I'd have left church a long time ago.
It appears you're placing little faith in state funded economists, and lots of faith in state funded scientists. Do you see a contradiction there?
Is there a chance that the state, (being a religion itself), would selectively reward scientists who's conclusions undermine competing religions?
Great comment, Matt. Thank you.
Can you clarify what you mean? From an anarcho-capitalist perspective, I do lean towards Austrian economics instead of Keynesian economics which seems to be the standard approach in academic circles (state funded or not). I do this because of my own study. Might I be wrong and doing an "armchair economist" thing, pretending to know what I'm talking about? Maybe.
As to lots of faith in state funded scientists, I'd more accurately say I have a justified belief in (i.e. via my epistemological framework) the scientific method. Whether or not something is "state funded" doesn't directly impact the value of the truth claim (otherwise we'd be falling for a genetic fallacy).
But let's assume for a moment the scientific claims about when a human life is viable in the womb are inaccurate. Where should we go from there? We understand cellular division and the formation of zygotes, so at what point should we decide a full human now exists? What mechanisms would you use and measure if you were a scientist?
I like the "the State is a religion" comparison and use it myself, but it does have some limitations. Religion is generally confined to groups of people specifically claiming to have specific knowledge of a deity. The State, on the other hand, makes no such claims. It does, however, fit the same psychological needs and tribalistic patterns than humans fall into (from my perspective).
I don't think all state powers actively work to suppress religions because they also use it for their own political benefit. Much of history was a very tight marriage of religion and the state. That said, I think religion is on the decline, but not because of the State, but more so because of the Internet and the smart phones in our pockets. We have the ability to fact check any truth claim and figure things out on our own. Historically, when that happens, things change quite a bit (even within religion such as with the reformation).
Thanks again for your comment.
Again, flawless reasoning re: human life. Were I not a Christian, I would inescapably come to a similar conclusion. I'm talking about the real sticking point, the actual battle ground, which is the question of whether we were created, or evolved.
I share your respect for the scientific method, but note that it applies to provable/disprovable claims about the present.
We can't conduct experiments on the past.
While the gravitational pull of the moon is a scientific fact, which we can test with the scientific method, the moon landing is a historical fact, which can't be empirically tested.
1969 is no longer available.
My issue is not with science, but with the good name of science being co-opted by state funded actors, pushing what is indisputably a pro-state story about the untestable past.
There's a lot of bait and switch going on with the word, 'Science'.
Ah, but every single scientific conclusion comes from data collected in the past. Even if it was just a few moments ago as the experiment was taking place. The challenge of science is reproducibility. If someone can't run the same test today to verify results in the past, it gets very difficult to do good science.
Very well said. A concern I also share and one, I think, many in the scientific community share as well. I'd go so far as to say the media is more to blame than the State when it comes to taking scientific findings and completely skewing them in order to create some fresh clickbait.
I guess, to put it another way; what is the 'scientific community?', who is in it, and how does one become a member?
There are thousands of incredibly potent, well established arguments for a recently created earth, which will never be published in proudly secular scientific journals, not on the grounds of their reasoning or evidence, but because they've come to a non-secular conclusion.
Now, if you want to define 'Science' as 'The search for the most rational, non supernatural explanation', then it's completely legitimate to exclude Creationist content from scientific journals; but it's not then legitimate to claim that creationism lacks the support of the scientific community.
Either we're disqualified, or we lose. You have to pick one.
Have you seen Ben Stein's documentary, Expelled?
(edited link to better version of movie)
Yes, I've seen it and my old blog even has a review off how great I thought it was. I now think much differently. I've read critiques on it that should not be ignored. Science involves falsifiable claims. To gain knowledge we have to work to disprove our hypothesis. Something I rarely if ever did before was read the critiques of the things I believed or of the content (such as this movie) which confirmed my biases. Once I started doing that with an open mind (along with learning how the human brain works), I had to let go of many views which were not defensible (IMO).
It's not surprising at all to me that a discussion about when human life begins turns to creationism and questioning science. All of these views are wrapped up together and hold eachother consistent. If one begins to crack, they are all threatened. I know. I experienced it. I could go on and link to some videos and books which further explain/support my views, but I'm coming to realize everyone has to take their own path at their own timing, just like I did.