[extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised

Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com
Tue May 24 03:09:44 UTC 2005

At 05:59 PM 5/23/2005 -0700, Stuart wrote:

>The two theological doctrines that make up the meat of
>that part of my argument are The Immaculate Conception
>and the Infallibility of God. The second I don't
>explicitly mention [but] I do allude to.

Yikes! Did you actually take a moment to find out what the doctrine of 
Immaculate Conception *is*:


< The subject of this immunity from 
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm>original sin is the person of 
Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.

". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception 
does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body 
was formed in the womb of the 
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01538a.htm>mother, and the 
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08406b.htm>father had the usual share in 
its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the 
generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive 
conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), 
which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the 
rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and 
infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of 
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm>original sin at the first 
moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin 
could have taken effect in her soul. >

> > Is derision a risk you have to take?
>I sincerely hope not, as a scientist much rides on my

If you insist on getting the basic details of theological dogmas wrong, and 
adding hokey spiritualist silliness like "weighing souls", the derision you 
attract will not be the kind of scorn you can happily adopt as an ensign of 
your valid thinking in a gullible and superstitious world. It will be the 
laughter of those you've try to persuade with feeble arguments that will be 
seen as more closely resembling a crank's misuse of Einstein.

Stick to what you know -- which is obviously an awful lot, specialized 
information that people *will* respect.

Damien Broderick 

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list