[extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised
avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com
Mon May 23 23:54:20 UTC 2005
--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> I hope what follows is regarded in the spirit of
> collegial critique, rather
> than gratuitous insult, but I don't intend to mince
> words. Several people
> (including me, off list) have advised deleting the
> "theology". Instead,
> you've added this ridiculous spiritualist/new-age
> item, which for most
> traditional Christians schooled in the elements of
> theology will look like
> either barefaced parody and mockery, or tone deaf
Of course I take this in the spirit of scholarly
critique. In fact your critiques early on gave me much
food for thought in writing this essay. I know the
theological arguments are not water tight but they are
only a small part of the whole argument.
> The idea of an immortal soul is that its "essence"
> is metaphysically
> disjunct from corruptible, measurable matter and
> energy. This is precisely
> what is supposed to grant the soul its incorruptible
> immortal character.
> Angels and souls have no extension, no footprint, as
> it were, in the world
> -- hence the celebrated (although mythical) debate
> over the number of
> angels that can dance on the head of the pin. Of
> course, this mental
> construct seems incoherent. How can something with
> no palpable material
> reality supervene upon, interact with, let alone
> command the physical body?
> But that's allegedly the mystery of the thing. For
> many Christians, the
> sheer vulgarity of supposing that you can put a soul
> on scales and weigh it
> is (arcane pun intended) breathtaking. You will win
> no significant number
> of supporters with this line of argument.
I am first and foremost a scientist. I know that the
results of a single experiment cannot be taken as
"truth" but I also realize that the results of any
experiment should be taken seriously enough to repeat
them in some way to either verify or falsify them. If
there is a mass loss in dying patients, then that
phenomenon needs to be addressed, with or without a
"soul hypothesis". Especially in this day in age where
even physicists are invoking higher dimensions and an
insubstantial vacuum seething with "dark energy" that
apparently has mass.
> If you must persist, consider the equally misjudged
> possibility that souls
> also develop in size and mass from conception to
> death. The reason a
> blastocyst doesn't weigh very much, on this unlikely
> argument, is that its
> soul is proportionately less massive. That doesn't
> mean God fails to love
> it, nor that killing its material substrate, however
> underdeveloped, is not
> murder most foul of the innocent.
I actually considered this possibility, which is
precisely why I am calling for the ban on reproductive
cloning to remain in effect in my essay. I shudder to
think that Christianity might be wrong and that I am
dooming future fully developed clones to
stigmatization as souless slaves. Therefore I
sincerely hope we are never foolish enough to allow a
clone to reach full development.
> I think the way to go with an essay like this is
> either to stick very
> closely to elucidation of the physical and
> developmental facts, or to
> provide a sophisticated theological argument for why
> the ensoulment theory
> is a culturally-specific importation of certain
> historically located and
> limited philosophical opinions, as corrigible as the
> rest of the largely
> fallacious Greek biology of that time. That would
> require hard work by a
> theologically informed theorist, and probably should
> not be tried at home.
There are plenty of essays out there that try to
justify therapeutic cloning from a secular humanist
POV, but it is obvious that those arguments are not
swaying either the bioethicists or the policy-makers.
Like I said, I am targeting this essay at the people
that are not likely to believe the secular arguments
precisely because of the theological implications.
> In addition, many sophisticated Protestant
> theologians, and I imagine
> Jewish theologians as well, no longer countenance a
> dualist model of the
> human person. Spirit is not any longer regarded as a
> gadget that gets stuck
> on, at conception or any other time. Admittedly,
> believers of this sort are
> probably not your natural audience, since they very
> likely won't object to
> stem cell research in the first place.
I have preached enough to the choir, it is time to do
> There's much to admire in your draft essay, Stuart,
> and I hope you'll
> consider this critique seriously, because it would
> be a shame to provide an
> unnecessary opportunity for derision rather than
Derision is a risk I will have to take. It would be
better then me having to live in Korea in order to
pursue my research.
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu
"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us."
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the extropy-chat