Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 
 2009 Articles 
Sunday, May 17 2009

Last weekend, the President of the United States was bestowed with an honorary degree from the University of Notre Dame as he spoke at the school's commencement exercises.  In a related story, former presidential candidate Dr. Alan Keyes spent the evening in a South Bend jail for prayerfully protesting the university's invitation to the most pro-abortion president the country has ever elected.

 

Let me get this straight.  The country's premier Catholic institution - one that proudly touts itself as a friend and advocate of biblical truth and moral principle - jails a man for standing against the slaughter of innocent children in the womb as it simultaneously honors and exalts a man whose policy preferences facilitate such slaughter?  There's no denying it: it's a world turned upside down.

 

Only in an upside down world could a man with such a flagrant anti-human rights record attain the highest office in a country founded upon the protection of those rights. 

 

Only in an upside down world could a man be elected to preserve, protect, and defend a people's most basic entitlements after having acknowledged during the campaign that he believes determining who should have them and who shouldn't is, "above [his] pay grade." 

 

Only in an upside down world could "hope" be embodied in a man who votes to allow half-delivered babies to be murdered, while one who believes every human being is worthy of protection is termed a "radical."

 

Obama's defenders, including the president of Notre Dame, have suggested this invitation shows the great commitment the university has to open debate, differing viewpoints, and the free exchange of ideas.  Oh brother.  Having done my undergraduate studies at a private Christian university, I find such a proposition insulting. 

 

Open discussion, arguments, and the free exchange of ideas happen in the classroom; and if Notre Dame had invited President Obama or a like minded pro-abortionist into an ethics class for a rousing debate, that would be a legitimate position.  Indeed, my favorite college course was one entitled "Western-American Intellectual and Social History," where we were presented with an eclectic array of viewpoints, belief systems, and thought streams that dominate our world.  I am a firm believer that it is enlightening, challenging, and useful to expand our understanding of viewpoints with which we disagree.  But that's not what happened in South Bend.

 

The University of Notre Dame invited President Obama to deliver the commencement address to its graduates, presenting him as a model to emulate, a man deserving of the students' admiration.  To further ingrain this point in their minds, the graduates watched the institution award Mr. Obama with the prestige of an honorary degree.  Some have asked, "Who better for these students to hold in high esteem and seek to imitate than the President of the United States of America?"  I have a simple answer: anyone with a respect for human rights, whether that's a grocery store clerk, a missionary, a stay-at-home mom, a gas station attendant, or even a man sitting in jail for speaking out against evil.  Take the lowliest person among us by earthly standards who believes in the unalienable right to life - that the protection of the law should extend to more than just those who are convenient - and you'll have someone more honorable than the President of the United States.

 

Since taking office, the one issue that President Obama has appeared to be least concerned with is human rights.  He is seemingly disinterested in the mass starvation of North Koreans, the violent oppression in Zimbabwe, the suppression of freedom by Russia, the horrendous practices of forced abortion and political subjugation in China, and the savage treatment of the innocent Burmese.  He has exchanged polite messages with the madman of Iran, shook hands, shared laughs, and officially recognized the corrupt and fraudulent radical Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and has hinted at easing sanctions on perhaps the worst human rights abusing regime of them all in Sudan.

 

As this evidence amasses, it is becoming painfully clear that the question of when a human being gets human rights is not at all above Obama's pay grade.  That pathetic response simply sought to cover the alarming reality that to our new president, human rights are determined by political winds and are pliable to partisan convenience.

 

Simply put, Barack Obama is not a man to be honored.  He is a man to be pitied. 

 

The fabled Notre Dame Victory March sung at every football game calls to "shake down the thunder from the sky."  Those words take on all new meaning when considering what a just and holy God must think of Notre Dame's decision to honor a man whose policies encourage the slaughter of His innocent creations.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 03:58 pm   |  Permalink   |  65 Comments  |  Email
Comments:
This is what happens when a nation's Godly heritage has been replaced with secular humanism. Afterall, Pres. Obama has said that we are no longer a Christian nation. It is easy to blame the leftists, but lets not forget that the blame really lies at the doorstep of our churchs that have abandoned Biblical doctrines such as repentance and holiness. Wake up Christians!
Posted by Matthew Turner on 05/17/2009 17:49:20
This is exactly articulating what the major issue about Obama at Notre Dame was. A lot of people made it about side issues, but the heart of it is human rights. Well said.
Posted by Darrin on 05/18/2009 12:01:12
I couldn't disagree with Darrin more. Or Heck. This is garbage. Notre Dame can invite who they want and it isn't the end of civilization if they invite someone who has views that are shared by the majority of the population. If you don't think they are, then just look at the last election.
Posted by Anti-Darrin on 05/18/2009 13:45:20
I had the honor of shaking President Obama's hand at my graduation last year. My tiny alma mater was absolutely thrilled to have him even though it meant walking through metal detectors in our gowns. His speech was amazing and also funny, he joked about how our school's name is always mispronounded. The very same day, Fox News tried to paint the joke as a gaffe the chickenhawk Bill Kristol chided him for not urging us to all go to Iraq. Anyway, the great majority of Notre Dame's students are just as thrilled. Good for them. As per the world being upside down, maybe it's just your vision, Pete (can I call you Pete?) My school was also highly religious and is now completely secular. Things change. People change.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/18/2009 15:12:14
Anti-Darrin, No one is arguing that Notre Dame can't invite who they want. Just don't try to make it look like they are engaged in public debate about abortion when the other side is not given an opportunity to express their viewpoint. Finally, Pres. Obama's views on abortion are not shared by the majority of the population (eg. partial-birth abortion).
Posted by Matthew Turner on 05/18/2009 15:37:16
NGav, Pete is more than fine. To answer your question, it's possible. Am I wrong on the abortion issue, though? Or is Obama? It's one of those that there's really not any middle ground on. Either abortion is a morally reprehensible violation of human rights, or it is morally acceptable. Even President Obama thankfully seemed to recognize that. So who's right? I think that will help answer your question.
Posted by peterheck on 05/18/2009 19:49:20
It's not as simple as you make it out to me. There are actually a multitude of different perspectives and positions. Here's mine: I won't ever tell all pregnant girls and all pregnant women what to do with their womb because I don't know them and I don't know what it's like to be them. Abortion is not is a simple subject and it's not an easy decision. Pro-lifers attempt to stop everyone from having abortions, but each year droves of the very same naysayers end up seeking abortions themselves. By the way Pete, I don't remember asking you a question, but I do have one for you: Do you think aborted fetuses go to heaven?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/18/2009 22:43:26
Actually, it is exactly as Heck makes it out to be. Show me just one example of your "different perspectives." It will boil down to you either A. saying that abortion is morally wrong and should be prohibited, or B. is morally acceptable. There's no middle ground there. If it's wrong, you have no justification to allow it. If it's not wrong, you have no justification to deny it. And obviously aborted fetuses go to heaven. Please don't embarrass yourself with the: "Oh, then abortion is an act of charity" argument.
Posted by RTL on 05/19/2009 13:08:23
My own perspective defies your simplistic dichotomy, RTL. Abortion strikes me as wrong (but then so does bearing the child of the man who raped you), but this doesn't license me to tell every girl and woman what they can and can't do with their wombs. The real question is: what justification do *you* have for imposing your values on everyone else? How do I know you're not just another Dan Quayle, you know, a person who forbids abortions for everyone until you suddenly think you need one?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/19/2009 13:31:42
"And obviously aborted fetuses go to heaven." Thanks for the frank answer. Now brace yourself for a very frank question from a non-Christian: If abortions all go to heaven, then isn't abortion the best thing for fetuses? Before you inevitably get offended, actually think about it: If all abortions had never been aborted, if instead they were born, grew up, lived their lives, and died, many of them would sin and presumably go to Hell. However, because they were aborted, they will ALL be going to heaven. As perverse as this might sound, it's what your beliefs dictate, and by this logic, abortions everywhere should thank people like Obama. Seriously, think about it.
Posted by RTL on 05/19/2009 13:43:54
that last post (12:43:54) was mine. I wrote it, not RTL
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/19/2009 20:07:53
Great moments in history when N.Gavelis's logic was enacted: Abraham Lincoln: "Slavery strikes me as wrong but this doesn't license me to tell every plantation owner what they can and can't do to other human beings." And RTL warned you NGav not to embarrass yourself with the "all fetuses go to heaven" thing. You did anyway. By that logic, wouldn't you argue that killing all infants and toddlers who have not yet reached the age of accountability is divine? Come on, man. You're capable of better thinking than both of these posts. I know...I saw it in the last column discussion.
Posted by peterheck on 05/20/2009 07:45:02
I'm not the one embarrassed because I don't believe fetuses go to heaven - RTL does. (You probably do too, Pete, although you avoided answering the question.) Again, how can any Christian oppose abortion when you believe abortion means a free ticket to heaven? Now of course this all sounds silly because it is predicated on the fanciful Christian idea of heaven. I don't believe any of it, I'm just showing you guys your own cognitive dissonance. Unless you actually *want* fetuses to go to hell, your beliefs do not square with your position on abortion. And Pete, if my post is so inferior, then go ahead and refute the main argument which I've repeated for you. Don't just laugh it off - address it.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/20/2009 08:31:40
Humans are made human by their ability to think and feel. In this light, your comparison of living people to undeveloped, non-sentient embryos and fetuses is a poor one. Of course embryos do develop and in time become sentient and conscious, but they are not, just like a dead person, although having been sentient and conscious, is still a dead person. We can't just equate everything with a thinking, feeling person when they are not. However, living mothers are indisputably sentient and conscious, and that is why I defer to them on this very difficult matter. I don't force my beliefs on them. Apparently this makes me a vile human being.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/20/2009 09:07:13
Hi Pete, me again. Just thought I'd address the rest of your article. You say President Obama is a man to be pitied, but your article reflects no pity at all, just pure, unbridled contempt. Ironically, though, you share the delusion of the man's most ardent, mindless followers: that he can and should solve all the world's problems. I mean seriously, he's been in office for 4 months and you're castigating him for not solving all the problems in Russia, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and on and on. Get a grip. If you can get this outraged this early, you should see your doctor regarding hypertension. Your Baracknophobia is not healthy; it may actually be physically hurting you. And I have trouble believing you ever held Bush to such standards.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/20/2009 12:28:19
I'm actually coming down with Heck on this one, as much as it pains me to say. Lincoln's words "A House Divided" ring true. Just like he said the country would survive only if it was "all one thing or all the other," it is the same with this issue of abortion. I am a Democrat, but they are wrong on this issue.
Posted by JB on 05/20/2009 12:51:28
N. Gavelis, you are basically saying that once a person becomes a Christian, they should be executed so they can go to heaven. Is that what you honestly think Christian doctrine is about?
Posted by The Reverend on 05/20/2009 12:52:56
NGav, Sorry, didn't know I was dodging any of your questions. Yes, aborted children go to heaven. No, that isn't reason to slaughter them. Sorry I didn't go into detail, I just thought it was too stupid to seriously address. Not to be rude, but ardent pro-abortion fanatics don't even make this type of illogical point. Life serves a purpose, NGav. As a Christian, one understands that after being born again, a new life surrendered to Christ, making a difference in the fallen world for His kingdom is our calling. Why then would any Christian seek to strip from God's children the ability to live and follow Christ's commands? More answers in a second...
Posted by peterheck on 05/20/2009 12:58:49
Humans are humans only if they think and feel. Okie-dokie. So when a fetus frantically seeks to avoid the abortionist suction, they aren't feeling? If they are, does that make them "sentient" in your view? Obviously babies in the womb have functioning life systems...being a biology man you should know this. They dream, they recognize the sound of their mother's voices as opposed to other voices, etc. This is basic human development stuff, NGav. How can a biology man suggest a similarity between a fetus and a dead person? Good grief. More in a second...
Posted by peterheck on 05/20/2009 13:01:43
Don't put words in my mouth and then argue with them, NGav. It's straw man intellectual dishonesty. I don't fault Obama for not "solving" the human rights violations around the world and in his own country. Re-read the column. I fault him because he is disinterested in them. He makes no mention of them. He facilitates them with his policies. THAT's the problem. I think this covers all you brought up.
Posted by peterheck on 05/20/2009 13:05:01
Mr. Heck, you did a nice job addressing N. Gavelis's silliness, but I don't want anyone to miss the reality that Mr. (or Ms.) Gavelis actually proved RTL correct in his arguments (and you, Mr. Heck, indirectly). After saying how RTL was wrong and that his "nuanced" position proved that there is middle ground, he actually demonstrated that he doesn't think abortion is morally reprehensible and that it is acceptable (he has since made that even more clear). Inadvertently, NGav, you have proved the original proposition that there are ultimately two positions, even if your reasoning differs.
Posted by Bob Mitchell on 05/20/2009 13:36:16
Hello, The Reverend. Yes, I do realize Christians don't think abortion is good thing - and I'm arguing this reflects cognitive dissonance. Again, if abortion is a free ticket to heaven like RTL says, whereas not-aborting enables a significant possibility of ETERNAL TORMENT IN A LAKE OF FIRE, then abortion is the *best* thing that could happen to a soul. Now, the Christians here have called this silly and stupid, but they've yet to refute it. It's important that they do refute it, since it logically follows from their own beliefs, not mine. By the way, how do you reconcile a loving God with eternal torment, anyway?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/20/2009 15:21:00
Pete, thanks again for your replies. As a bio guy, I do oppose late-term abortion because I know fetuses develop sentience in the 3rd trimester. Prior to that, the required neurological equipment is absent. Anyway, I can tell your faith galvanizes your pro-life stance. That being said, what do you think Psalms 137:9, when God said "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Or Hosea 13:16, when God commanded that the Samarians' "infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." So you are definitely pro-life, but is your god? Also, since life is important, I'm wondering what your position is on stem cell research.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/20/2009 15:38:48
Also, I know what a straw-man fallacy is. You made some bang-up straw-men in your article on evolution or - what did you call it? - "goo to you by way of the zoo." Anyway, I am heartened to know that you care about North Korea, Russia, Zimbabwe, etc - that your concern for human life does not emd at the American border. I don't see that Obama is any different from you in this regard, but if I had to guess, I'd think his focus is currently on the crumbling economy. Both sides can probably agree that takes precedence to foreign crises at the moment. Take care.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/20/2009 15:51:13
You're wrong, Bob, but thanks for playing. Even if a human fetus can't think or feel, I maintain that it is immoral to kill it, and I never said otherwise. But again, I am not confident enough to impose my decision on everyone (including rape victims and women bearing children with severely debilitating diseases.) This is where we differ.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/20/2009 16:36:44
Well, we're leveling down the playing field, so that's good! You now concede that we have life in the 3rd trimester. So what is it in the 2nd trimester? And at what second does it suddenly become life? I'm glad that you are willing to acknowledge that life, once it is life, is worthy of protection. Your only problem is being consistent with that principle - you surely know that EVERY medical expert testifying before Congress said unequivocally life begins at conception. You therefore must either A. know more than them, or B. be too cowardly to stand for the principle you claim to hold (that life deserves protection).
Posted by peterheck on 05/20/2009 16:44:36
With all due respect, N.Gav., your argument that you think hasn't been refuted has been thoroughly refuted. Christians are commanded to live Godly lives, impacting their culture around them. They are to live in obedience to Christ's doctrines seeking to transform the hearts and minds of others and set them free from the chains of sin. They can't do that if they all kill each other (which would obviously be a violation of God's moral law itself- talk about cognitive dissonance: you think Christians, in order to be true to Christianity must violate Christian principle!).
Posted by The Reverend on 05/20/2009 16:52:26
NG, Heck and Co. have you on this one, and I say that based on what you just argued: You maintain that it is immoral to kill a child (fetus), but then you say even though it is immoral and wrong, it should be allowed. Cognitive dissonance at its finest. Would you make such an exception for first degree murder? Rape? Slavery? And seriously, how freaky of a statement is your last one about children of rape or with debilitating diseases? "Well, they're not as worthy of life because they're not like the rest of us." Probably makes any rape babies or handicapped folks reading this site feel REAL good.
Posted by JMat on 05/20/2009 16:56:52
Bring on the pigpile. @ Pete, I never used "life" as the standard; I used consciousness and sentience, so your ultimatum is moot. Animals are also alive, in case you haven't noticed, yet animal rights are a complete joke to most Christians. Funny how a single human cell, the zygote, has more rights than say an elephant - a thinking, feeling entity that even demonstrates remorse. @ The Reverend: to refrain from imposing one's values on all others is not cognitive dissonance. For a Xian it might be, since Xians believe their values are absolute, but as a humble free-thinker, I allow for the possibility that my values are wrong. To the extent that I am unsure of my values, I hesitate to impose them on others.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/20/2009 17:27:46
Welcome, JMat. Murder, rape, and slavery are much more clear cut issues, in my mind. For one, they involve thinking, feeling human beings. Secondly, their effects on society are clearly, demonstrably detrimental. Anyway, Christians don't hesitate to throw away lives to fight religious wars, so you really can't pretend you are pro-life, especially when your own god isn't. Your god is a genocidal killer, in case you haven't read the Bible. Before you get offended by that comment, remember that it's completely true. He killed off the entire world once, and he's going to let those people burn forever.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/20/2009 17:33:53
Just to be clear, I don't hate Christianity, and I certainly don't hate Christians for believing what they do. I think the Bible was written to give society order and to give life a purpose. This I respect, even if it's all a farce. But inevitably, the Bible reflects the setting in which it was written, and it was written in brutal times. I won't say the book is wholly good or wholly bad, just that it's man-made and outdated. We can do better. Also, it's so big and clunky, a person could use it to justify almost anything. It's rife with misogyny and violence, for instance. In countless ways, Biblical ethics are tempered by secular ethics. The atrocities of the Bible are simply explained away. I can't base my morality on such a book.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/20/2009 18:07:19
I'm not overly surprised that we are arriving at different conclusions about the destruction of human life given our different worldviews. You probably aren't either. Okay, so you do recognize the being in the womb is alive. Is it human? And while we're at it...could you tell me what part of Christian doctrine is so atrocious?
Posted by peterheck on 05/21/2009 19:08:06
We come from two different planets, we really do. That's exactly why I read your blog; to keep abreast of the ethos on Planet Heck. But getting back to life terrestrial, it's a fact that any and every living cell, in any and every living organism, is life. If you want me to define what's living, I will go into that too. About Biblical atrocities, I've mentioned a few already. 1st was the god that permits eternal combustion of his children. 2nd was the god who commanded genocide and spared no one, not even fetuses. 3rd was the god who drowned a planet he created because he was displeased with it. A 4th would be the god who punishes children for sins not their own, but the sins of distant ancestors. Let me know if you need more.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/21/2009 20:28:56
A very predictable column from a consevative fundamentalist "Christian" who has little understanding of the Catholic Church or the Unverisity of Notre Dame. Obama was warmly received by the students. Fr. Jenkins and the President gave very good speeches. Converatives as Heck and Keyes are opportunists and want no dialogue. That is not the ND way. God Bless Notre Dame, Lew ND Class of 74
Posted by Lew on 05/21/2009 22:58:19
I believe I answered your question earlier, in that humans are defined by sentience and consciousness. These traits are absent in fetuses prior to the establishment of thalamocortical connections, which typically occur in month six of fetal development.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/21/2009 23:35:51
NGav, first of all, perhaps you didn't get my question. Could you explain to me the atrocities of Christian doctrine (the teachings of Christ). I understand you lack a firm grasp of the Old Testament, you lack a firm understanding of the context of Hebrew conquests, the Ark, and you lack an understanding of free will, and the implications of eternal justice. That's not what I'm asking. Also, I hope you recognize that you have backed yourself into an intellectual corner. It is not "human" until approximately month six? Very well, then what is it, before that time period? It's alive, but not human. What is it if it is not human? To give some counter points to your scientific ponderings...
Posted by peterheck on 05/22/2009 08:08:33
"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."- Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth Harvard University Medical School
Posted by peterheck on 05/22/2009 08:14:15
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception." - Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
Posted by peterheck on 05/22/2009 08:15:20
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." - Dr. Jerome LeJeune Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes
Posted by peterheck on 05/22/2009 08:16:26
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings...no witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species." -Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981
Posted by peterheck on 05/22/2009 08:18:09
And finally, to Lew...good grief man, open your eyes...WE'RE HAVING A DIALOGUE ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW! It would be helpful to your credibility to recognize that there are those of us who recognize this isn't about politics...it's about human rights. It might be time for you to set aside your own political leanings and get on the side that believes life is worth protecting.
Posted by peterheck on 05/22/2009 08:20:06
What's your point, Peter? I'm not disputing the fact that zygotes, embryos, and pre-viable fetuses are living Homo sapiens. I'm disputing that they are conscious and sentient. Your argument is based in semantics only, hinging entirely on the word 'human.' However, if I had said 'person' instead of 'human,' your arguments would suddenly crumble and mine would be unchanged. So I think I will. A zygote is not a person. An embryo is not a person. A pre-viable fetus is not a person. Only a thinking, feeling Homo sapiens is a person. And suddenly you've got no ground to stand on.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/22/2009 14:10:16
Is the Old Testament no longer part of Christian religion Peter? You don't get off the hook the hook that easily. If you're a Christian, then you do believe in the Old Testament, a book describing God's brutal extermination of millions, perhaps billions. He doesn't even show fetuses the mercy that you are demanding of mere mortals. You can call me stupid, ignorant, confused, but that doesn't change the grotesque, *subhuman* behavior of your deity in his own book. I can certainly understand why you want to limit the discourse to Jesus, because Jesus was infinitely more decent than the God he's claimed to be associated with.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/22/2009 14:22:58
About the quotes you cite - I agree with every one. "Human" is colloquial for "Homo sapiens," so you've successfully proved that living Homo sapiens are living Homo sapiens - congrats. Call or email any/all of those scientists and they'll confirm your amazing proof. And while you're on the phone with them, ask whether or not they accept evolution by common descent. Since their scientific opinion is important to you, you've got to agree with them, right? Oh no wait, you only listen to the experts when they say what exactly you want to hear, even if what you've heard is completely out of context. Oh, to be a creationist.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/22/2009 14:57:04
You honestly just said that? You honestly just said that MY position is based in semantics?! You are the one trying to deliniate between homo sapien, human, person, fetus, baby, zygote, embryo. You even threw in the viability canard. If anyone is in a bad position to start accusing others of games with semantics, it's you, friend. I think it's wonderful you used the word person. Your argument is that a person is not the same as a human then? And you think this helps your credibility in this argument? And since science is pushing back that line of viability every day, does that mean babies in the womb are becoming people sooner than they used to?!
Posted by peterheck on 05/22/2009 19:05:49
And when we get to the point of being able to grow a baby in a test tube, is it a person from the beginning since it doesn't need the womb? If you look back through this discussion and are willing to be intellectually honest, you will note it is not my position lacking grounding. I have said, and continue to say that life becomes life and is worthy of protection from the moment of conception. You are the one who is desperately trying to establish a perpetually fluid baseline for allowing the destruction of that life. If you're looking for unchanging, unwavering consistency, don't re-read your own statements.
Posted by peterheck on 05/22/2009 19:09:21
Only thinking, feeling human beings are people. What about the comatose? The unconscious? People or just clumps of useless cells? And what do you think about the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University who wrote in The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), "and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way." Concur?
Posted by peterheck on 05/22/2009 19:15:52
On your continued accusation regarding the character of the God of the Bible, a few brief initial notes. I will have to come back to this another time - too much going on at the moment to write excessively. I first want to establish your position: you, as a rather insignificant carbon-based life form (no offense) are presuming to judge the morality and character of God on the basis of your own. You surely recognize immediately the terrible problem this will present you. With the scarcity of knowledge from which you operate (even being a smart guy), you must presume to know enough about the universe, morality, reality, and complexity to declare God less compassionate, less kind, less benevolent, less humane than you. A bit bizarre?
Posted by peterheck on 05/22/2009 19:30:13
Hi Pete, you're right about me being a rather insignificant carbon-based life form - we all are. And as such transient, limited beings, who are we to proclaim absolute knowledge? Christians say they "humbly" know the creator of the universe and his will (because somehow he's male), but in doing so, Christians actually *play* god. They claim to have knowledge that humans can't possibly have. They think they know what happens after death, and wouldn't you know it, they think they're ideological enemies will be tortured forever.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/22/2009 21:28:07
This self-serving superstitious nonsense is so transparent, so man-made, it requires either an intellectual lobotomy to believe it, or you were simply indoctrinated from the start. Most Christians never even get the choice to critically examine their beliefs, so I try not to blame them. If they had such an opportunity - I did - they would not be nearly as confident about them. As a dogmatic Xian,you begin with the a priori conclusion that a god exists as described in the Bible. Since this is the lens through which you view all things, it cannot be changed. It is an intractable bias, and intellectual dead end. How are non-fanatics any different? We allow for the possibility that even our deepest beliefs may be wrong.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/22/2009 21:37:02
Because I admit my beliefs may be fallible, I put them to the test. For me, scientific method drives my beliefs, whereas in your world, all evidence that conflicts with your personal ideological agenda is discarded. For me, knowledge is primary, for you, it comes second to dogma. This is how we arrive at such vastly different conclusions about the world. I said it before and I never got a response from you, so I'll ask you again: If the Bible was a science text written by the creator of the universe, why did it fail to reveal a single important scientific fact about the universe that was not already known at the time it was written?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/22/2009 21:46:01
Sentience and consciousness are our invaluable, defining traits. "Human," on the other hand, is just a label. A human body can be artificially sustained on a respirator for months, even years, after irreversible brain death. Although your logic dictates such an entity is human and privy to full human rights; what I've just described is a living corpse that is systematically preserved solely for organ donation. This shows how superficial your semantics are. Comatose people, however, are different, because there still exists a chance of recovery. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that some comatose continue to think and feel. Again, my standard of "personhood" more accurately reflects this than your superficial labeling.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/22/2009 22:04:04
Just as I don't think anyone should ever be forced to have an abortion, I don't think any family should every be forced to pull the plug on the comatose. As long as there is CNS activity, there may still be thoughts, feelings - a person. Here's another thing for you to chew on: Ever heard of Helen Lane? She died in 1951, but her cell line lives on. These cells are, in fact, immortal. According to your definition of human, there is immortal human life dwelling in a petri dish, and this clump of cells deserves full human rights. And you've still yet to say that feeling, thinking animals have any rights at all! How flawed, how label-based your values are. Like a gullible consumer, you are more obsessed with the packaging than with the product.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/22/2009 22:11:51
I don't won't to put words in your mouth, Peter, so please correct me wherever you think I've misrepresented you. I've been pretty clear on what constitutes a person so please, if you would, elaborate on what you consider human. (Is a human simply any living Homo sapiens?) I don't want to make false assumptions about you and your beliefs - I want to address them head-on. The last thing I'll say is thank you for your continued responses. I've got nothing but respect for people who take the time and effort to rationalize, articulate, and defend their beliefs, even if I don't share them. I'll be at Wesleyan this weekend (CT, not Ohio Wesleyan), so I won't be able to respond for at least a day, so have a good weekend.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/22/2009 22:40:03
Sorry, one more thing before I hit the road: You cite Dr. Gesell in a book from 1945. This is ancient history by bio standards - it was not known then that thalamocortical connections do not begin forming until week 26 of pregnancy. So Dr. Gesell was incorrect (keyword "was," because he is now likely either dead or has been updated on neurology.) Also, I recant the intellectual lobotomy remark. That was rude of me. I'd instead say too much emotion is bound up with the Christian intellect - this is a problem because our emotions don't tell us how reality works.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/23/2009 08:42:04
I think you underestimate a lot of Christians, though I do 100% agree with you that too many of us have left the realm of academia. It is disastrous for mankind and for Christianity that there is such a lack of emphasis placed on learning a Biblical worldview - and too much placed on the experiential ("taking a ride with Jesus" kind of stuff). Christian thinkers have contributed so much to every field of study throughout history, it is a real shame to see happen. Many of us have found the intellectual component of Christianity one of the most appealing.
Posted by peterheck on 05/24/2009 17:49:56
To suggest that I reject anything that doesn't agree with my dogma is unfair and incorrect. It is true that because I have come to a belief in the authority of God's Word, I begin and end with it. That doesn't mean that I ignore any evidence that is seemingly contradictory to my dogma. In actuality, not ignoring it, thinking through it, and uncovering repeatedly the truth of the Word only emboldens my faith. It is an incredibly faith-affirming exercise to be unafraid to ask questions. An example: my faith and belief in Christ's existence, his work, his death and resurrection was never as strong as when I questioned it, researched it, and examined the evidence for it.
Posted by peterheck on 05/24/2009 17:57:18
Am I correct in assuming that your understanding of Christianity is a purely emotion-based experience, void of rational, cognitive thought? I'm not offending by that if it's true...it would just be your perception. And actually, it would go to confirm what I fear about the current realities of the Church today. Scripture teaches to love the Lord with your mind, and I don't think many Christians take that seriously enough. As a result, I think it turns a lot of rational, scientifically-minded folks like yourself off. I hate that. Have you ever read...I mean REALLY read Scripture? With accompanying commentaries? C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity?" If not, it might be eye-opening.
Posted by peterheck on 05/24/2009 18:01:42
To address what you said initially: a human mind CANNOT have absolute knowledge! Who told you Christians believe that we do? It's not true. And any Christian who tells you that he knows the mind and will of God is lying. Well, unless they're speaking in broad terms like "it is God's will that none should perish" kinda stuff. Christians believe that God gave man: 1. revelation to serve as a guide and path to salvation, and 2. reason to uncover and discover more of His eternal mysteries. But we will never have exhaustible knowledge of God (it's one reason why heaven won't be boring). Look at the universe: so much to know! Reason is not a pariah to Christians.
Posted by peterheck on 05/24/2009 18:09:12
Finally, to answer your question that I guess I missed before (sorry): the Bible obviously is a compilation of books that tell the story of God's plan of salvation. It is NOT a science text. Now, that certainly doesn't mean that when the Bible speaks of scientific things the Bible is unscientific or wrong. And the Bible WAS revealing mysteries about the cosmos long before we ever figured it out for ourselves: Innumerable stars (Gen22:17), Undersea mountains (Jonah2:5-6), Earth's position in space (Job26:7), Ocean currents (Ps.8:8), Water cycle (Job 36:27, Amos 9:6), Earth is round (Is. 40:22), etc.
Posted by peterheck on 05/24/2009 18:12:50
Hope you had a good weekend, Pete. You're right about so many Christians leaving academia - it's unfortunate in itself but it also hurts our country. Historically, Christian and Muslim thinkers were instrumental in the advancement of scientific knowledge. Ironically, the most zealous adherents to those two religions tend to reject much of today's scientific knowledge. It's not an exaggeration to remind people that over 99% of researchers acknowledge that this universe, this planet, and life are billions of years old. The movement to deny these facts is not scientific, but religious: largely Christian and Muslim. Young-Earth creationism is the perfect example of this.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/25/2009 12:26:47
Of course you won't feel you've rejected evidence if you weren't familiar with the evidence in the first place. I can't count how many times I've discussed evolution with a creationist only to learn they haven't the slightest clue of what evolutionary theory is, what it predicts, and what supports it. Phrases like "from a monkey" and "just a theory" raise red flags. AiG and the like feed people this sort of propaganda because they're goal is not to educate. In order to begin to understand evo, you need to read bona fide literature on the subject. I'd start with an intro bio textbook. This will be boring but informative.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/25/2009 12:50:24
Every Xian sect tends to claim every other Xian sect's got "God's word" wrong, so as a non-Christian, I'm sure I have a flawed understanding of the Bible. Like I said, I should brush up on the book - it's been a very long time. But even if I read it from front to back today, it would not change my disgust regarding the eternal torture of billions of human souls. Eternal. Apologists tend to say "well those are no longer God's children" or that they *chose* eternal combustion. Nobody, literally nobody, would choose to be tortured forever. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then he would be accountable for permitting such an endless atrocity to occur.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/25/2009 13:04:45
Your post on absolute knowledge was enlightening. Thank you. I arrived at my assumption after speaking with Xians who claimed to know, beyond a shred of doubt, that God exists. (This would be an item of absolute knowledge.) Some of these same Xians have said that their "knowledge" of God somehow validates the Bible as entirely, literally true. This confused me, because even if I had a numinous experience that convinced me there was a higher power, how could I connect that to the Christian God, to the Bible, etc? I'm oftentimes put off by the over-confidence some Christians exhibit on matters where they lack firsthand knowledge and experience. However, I realize every believer is different and I try not to foster prejudices.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/25/2009 13:14:43
"It is NOT a science text." OK, good. I'd rather not go too far into this point, then. I could point out the Bible also references to Earth's 4 corners, standing on pillars, rabbits chewing cud, etc, but that debate would be boring and endless. What strikes me is that the Bible neglected to mention the heliocentric solar system, cells, bacteria, and a lot of other incredibly important stuff. But like you said, it's not a science text, so that wouldn't really matter. However, if the authors *had* included knowledge that led to immediate scientific advancement, and not just ambiguities that could be retroactively interpreted as literally correct, that would certainly have helped win over converts. Well, Happy Memorial Day. Have a good one. :)
Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/25/2009 13:27:36

Post comment
Name
 *
Email Address

Message
(max 750 characters)
*
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here