Doubting Didymus

One hundred years ago does not qualify for a modern genetic resercher.

Daggah

I smell a "no true scotsman" fallacy in action here. Luther was a Christian. The Germans in Nazi Germany were a Christian majority. Whether you like it or not, Hitler appealed to the anti-semitic feelings already present in the Christian Nazi Germany.

Mike

Doubting,

I did not specifically state that modern genetic researchers advocate the murder of weaker people, but I said that the philosophy that the more superior or "intelligent" have a right to decide who lives (is born) and who does not (is not born) still exists in the field.

So if any genetic researchers have ever chosen among embryos which one should be implanted, or have done research on viable embryos, or have discussed which genetic disorders provide a justification for abortion, or have considered what constitutes a genetic "disorder" then they have participated in deciding who lives and who dies. With the technology available, even a choice not to apply the knowledge of genetic engineering is still a choice about who lives and who does not. So thanks to science we now have to decide whether to play god, or to turn to God. Science has forced the choice.

Dag,

The followers of a Jew killing Jews simply because of their genetic make-up? Doesn't sound like a follower to me. To be a Scot you simply have to be born in Scotland. To be a Christian one is claiming adoption by Christ, or into the family of Christ. Thus true Christians have in fact (if they have understood the New Testament) become Jews by adoption.

Your analogy doesn't work.

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>

DarkBronzePlant

Hey Mike,

Can I venture to put words in your mouth? I think I get your point, but if so, you have been disguising it well.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that criticizing a possible truth--and more importantly, the adherents to this possible truth--for their "goodness" or "evilness" is basically a moot argument, as it lends no evidence to the validity of said truth.

Or, to use an example, if my family was killed because the plane they were flying in fell from the sky, I might argue that gravity is inherently bad and evil, or that people who use the laws of gravity by building and flying airplanes are evil. But that still has no bearing on the existence of gravity.

Autonemesis

Foul! First of all, there is no god. It has always been people making these choices, and advances in genetics only increases the number and power of the tools available. Secondly, adsvances in genetic science does not alter the situation in the fundamental way you are proposing. People had been engaging in eugenics long before the concept was articulated in modern terms. All domesticated animals are the result of people "playing god" with naturally existing creatures, manipulating which ones breed and which ones don't in order to produce desireable traits. This technology was developed thousands of years ago, long before the time of Jesus.

Mike

Dark,

Thank you! You were right, its a problem with my inarticulateness.

Kind,

Good to see you! I think I actually came to R & R looking for you, but was sidetracked by this thread.

But, yes you are right. People have been playing god for thousands of years, and it is beside the point that was so well articulated by DarkBronze. But my genetics digression was simply to suggest that the study of genetics is not neutral science, but that it is based on a philosophy (that has existed for a long time) that we have a right to meddle with our own genetic makeup. I originally said that some folks blame Darwin's use of the "selection" metaphor of livestock breeders to describe the mechanism of evolution for the idea that we can (and some have said "should") meddle. Or in other words that genetic attrocities have been done in the name of "Darwin" or more generally evolutionary progress. I then went on to say that this was NOT the idea of major significance in the original post (whether neo-darwinians were true darwinians or neo-christians were true christians), but that we had to examine the implications of the original philosophy independent of subsequent perversions or mutations of the philosophy.

So to give it a shot, there seems to have been (at least) two camps historically. One which said, "we can't trust God as we understand him" or alternatively "there is no god" and therefore "we have to create or discover our own solutions" (as represented by the humanists). And the other camp which said "we don't know enough on our own and there are some problems for which we can never find adequate solutions on our own." This second camp could be divided further into two subgroups, one of which gave the solution of looking for a more intelligent source of knowledge (believers in God), and the other which suggested that we have to simply learn to "deal with" ambiguity and the subsequent fear of the unknown and stop looking for answers (as represented by the European existentialists).

So if these philosophies are acceptably represented by my inarticulateness, then perhaps we could discuss the meaning of life as implied by these philosophies?

Doubting Didymus

This is sufficient, thank you kindly for clearing this up. Yes, modern geneticists choose between embryos. Those of us who think that this is different from murdering living humans are therefore justified in not considering this even the slightest bit related to eugenics.

Thank you.

Mike

Doubting,

You're welcome. But the work of geneticists is related to eugenics as geneticists are well aware, hence the current emphasis on PARENTAL choice and non-directive genetic counseling. Geneticists would feel no need to distance themselves from eugenics if there was no resemblance in the first place. The relation is not in the murder, but in the selective breeding. While, as you imply, eugenics did involve murder, it also had a very strong selective breeding component. And while murder is far removed from selective breeding, there is a connecting philosophy that one person or group has a right to make decisions about the genetic future (or non-future) of another. I hope you understand that I am not in any way implying that I think these people are murderers, but am trying to examine the underlying philosophy.

Daggah

And why should I accept your definition of "true Christian" over that of a Lutheran, or a Baptist, or a Catholic? Puh-lease. Anyone who claims to be a Christian - anyone who believes that the Bible is at least basically true - is a Christian. I don't give a damn what your definition is, or what a baptist's definition is, or what a lutheran's definition is. Christians can't agree on what a Christian actually is, so their attempts to define it are worthless.

In history many of those who have claimed Christianity have spread and propogated anti-semitism. This is a fact. The Christians of Nazi Germany were one of the groups of Christians who did this. This, too, is a fact. Hitler appealed to that anti-semitism. That, too, is a fact.

So, concluding: one can't blame atheism, secularism, occultism, paganism, etc. for Hitler's genocides. The simple fact is that it was Christians who carried out his orders to execute Jews. Your attempt to pussyfoot around this fact is futile. Nazi Germany was a Christian nation.

Autonemesis

I reject that. Like all science, genetics is based on a philosophy that assumes we are capable of learning new things about the world that were not previously known, and were not handed to us by authority. That this position implies that we have a right or can develop a desire to manipulate our own genome seems clear to me, but it is not the first principle out of which genetics or science flows.

And also that we are capable of pursuing this course of action with some significant amount of success, at least enough success to make it a worthwhile activity to pursue (i.e., it works, it produces predictable and useful results, it leads to deeper lines of inquiry, etc.).

You need to put your 2nd subgroup into the first class, not in the same class with the believers. The subgroup you call European existentialists are undoubtedly in the "we are capable of coping on our own" camp you described first.

Also, it occurs to me that the claim "we don't know enough on our own and there are some problems for which we can never find adequate solutions on our own" must itself be a member of the very same class of supposedly intractible problems it asserts we can never solve. That makes it self-refuting.

Yes, let's. Assuming that "we don't know and can't know unless told by authority" is a recipe for stagnation. Assuming that "we don't know but we can try to learn" is a recipe for progress.

And so here we are at the heart of why I don't believe, and what is wrong with "revealed" truth.