This is a review of an old article from '05. I had been searching for information about the specific beliefs surrounding souls in order to better discuss the theistic arguments against abortion.
Shoemaker thoroughly dissects the argument against stem cell research due to religious ideas of ensoulment. He begins with hard questions about what exactly defines a human life. Conceding that late stage fetuses can “think, feel, locomote, laugh, love, and actually be seen with the naked eye” (Shoemaker, 2005, p. 51). He reminds people that an embryo is literally a tiny cluster of cells completely invisible without magnification. The religious argument that life begins at conception, resulting in the immorality of stem cell research is his target, not objections to abortion. Making this clear he defines why the stem cell argument is an important one to have. He notes that the public opinion of stem cell research has direct affect on how government, and perhaps private, funding assists the research. Without public support research that is considered controversial will be set aside due to outcry from religious groups. It is the religious reasons that Shoemaker is determined to confront. They are often only popular due to public ignorance or the misinformation campaigns of religious groups.
After a short biology lesson Shoemaker explores the definition of a soul. The standard Catholic definition seems most applicable and the most thoroughly expressed. The most important part containing this description: “an individual substance of a rational nature” (Shoemaker, 2005, p. 56). Each major word in this description is broken down and the terms are defined. The most important of his conclusions include defining a soul as an immaterial substance and an individual substance. This concept different from the 'soul stuff' of the Hindu Brahman or idea that a soul is our intelligence alone. Embryos are specific to each individual and they are immaterial. After exploring many possible routes in which these assumptions might not be true Shoemaker concludes that it is and that the soul must be connection to a physical substance. Here is where things get much more complicated. Shoemaker explores the possibilities of fission and fusion in reference to embryology. Sometimes, between approximately the second and fourteen day, an embryo splits into two embryos and creates a problem for people that believe life, or ensoulment, begins at conception. Shoemaker explores every reasonable possibility available to God to remedy this problem (Do two souls reside in one embryo for a time? Does one soul get added later? Etc..). These questions leave no easy answer for theological soul theorists. To further complicate the matter in an almost absurd way, Shoemaker discusses the same issue in regards to the fusion of embryos. They occasionally fuse from two embryos into one healthy embryo which can generally grow up into a healthy normal adult. This occurrence creates even more problems for a soul theorist intent on defining life at beginning at conception. After both of these discussions it seems that believing life to begin at conception leaves the believer in a “logically impossible position” (Shoemaker, 2005, p. 74). Shoemaker is clearly adept at making logical arguments. His skill makes his arguments watertight but his writing suffer.
Two basic beliefs about the nature of souls dominate Christian thought. Shoemaker labels them the Thomistic view and the Augustinian view. In the Thomistic view the physical body is of great importance. Without a physical body there would be nothing to resurrect and carry off to heaven when that day comes. Embryonic fission and fusion both leave difficult questions for the Thomas Aquinas version of ensoulment. When two embryos become one and there is no physical body left for the soul that had been occupying the fertilized cells what happens to that soul? Is it resurrected on judgement day? What would it be resurrected to look like having never lived a life whatsoever? We are left with the more popular Augustinian concept of ensoulment. St. Augustine of Hippo had a strong theme of duality in his writing. He believed the soul to be a separate entity “trapped” in a body (Shoemaker, 2005, p. 66). In light of both fission and fusion it is difficult to see how souls, trapped in this way, could be anything other than featureless, potentially full, souls. If they can be removed and replaced arbitrarily by God, which would need to be the case in fission and fusion, then they are just as able to be withheld because God's omniscience allows for awareness of the destiny of the embryo. This argument opens up issues of theodicy which we will not entertain here. The most damning evidence Shoemaker presents is his almost nonchalant mention of the fact that a large number of fertilized embryos fail to implant and are flushed away during menstruation “often even before the mother is aware of her pregnancy” (Shoemaker, 2005, p. 68). If theologians concede that ensoulment doesn't occur until after the fourteen day period when they can split into two, or until after implantation, then the argument against stem cell research is destroyed. However, if they maintain the position that life begins at conception then they make God a cruel murderer, arbitrarily removing some souls and damning them for hell while others remain before any merit could be earned. This point seems most important and damning although Shoemaker explored it very little. He instead became occupied with an overly complicated discussion of soul's features in space-time. He can not be faulted for being overly detailed on such a complicated topic.
Embryos, Souls and the Forth Dimension
by David W. Shoemaker published in Social Theory and Practice 2005
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Know the facts
I recently had a short discussion with a classmate about the popularity of Christianity. He was under the impression that 33% of the world's population are protestants. He attributed the growth of Christianity to the efforts of missionaries and the evangelical mission or "calling" tasked to many Christians as part of their doctrine.
A 2010 report published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public life offers evidence to the contrary. Their report was completed as a joint effort along with the Templeton Foundation. The report showed that in 1910 35% of the world's population were estimated to have been Christians, the majority being in Europe and North America. The population at that time was estimated to be around 1.8 billion. In 2010 the data reflects interesting changes. The Christian population is now estimated at 32% with very large Christian groups represented in Africa and the Asia-Pacific region. Also the population is now roughly 7 billion strong.
What my classmate misunderstood or misrepresented was the fact that this 32% included Catholicism and Greek Orthodox, as well as Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and even the Amish. The American attitude toward other flavors of Christianity was recently reflected by the words of Pastor Robert Jeffress during Rick Perry's lack-luster attempt to be the GOP presidential nominee. He referred to Mormonism as a cult but Perry as a "genuine follower of Jesus Christ." American Christianity generally falls into several broad categories, many of which would not consider Mormonism Christianity. They would hardly consider many other flavors Christianity as well.
The data also shows that much of the Christian population is represented by Africa, with 519 million Christians. This is a misrepresentation of what most people understand as Christian. Many Africans simply blended their indigenous beliefs with what missionaries taught them. Many still practice rituals venerating ancestors and fear spirits that have simply been labeled as demons or the devil. It would hardly be recognized as Christianity by an average American. However, the same average American would proudly claim that 1/3 of the world's population is Christian.
What this data also shows is that despite the attempts of missionaries and the "calling" of Christians to evangelize, the percentage of Christians in the world has not substantially changed. There are only more Christians in the world today because there are more people in the world today and they are such a diverse group they should hardly share one label. According to percentages there are no more or less Christians in the world today than there were a hundred years ago. They are just replacing themselves and growing accordingly with the population. This would indicate their missionary attempts have been largely unsuccessful.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2010, December). Global Christianity. Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Global-Christianity-worlds-christian-population.aspx
A 2010 report published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public life offers evidence to the contrary. Their report was completed as a joint effort along with the Templeton Foundation. The report showed that in 1910 35% of the world's population were estimated to have been Christians, the majority being in Europe and North America. The population at that time was estimated to be around 1.8 billion. In 2010 the data reflects interesting changes. The Christian population is now estimated at 32% with very large Christian groups represented in Africa and the Asia-Pacific region. Also the population is now roughly 7 billion strong.
What my classmate misunderstood or misrepresented was the fact that this 32% included Catholicism and Greek Orthodox, as well as Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and even the Amish. The American attitude toward other flavors of Christianity was recently reflected by the words of Pastor Robert Jeffress during Rick Perry's lack-luster attempt to be the GOP presidential nominee. He referred to Mormonism as a cult but Perry as a "genuine follower of Jesus Christ." American Christianity generally falls into several broad categories, many of which would not consider Mormonism Christianity. They would hardly consider many other flavors Christianity as well.
The data also shows that much of the Christian population is represented by Africa, with 519 million Christians. This is a misrepresentation of what most people understand as Christian. Many Africans simply blended their indigenous beliefs with what missionaries taught them. Many still practice rituals venerating ancestors and fear spirits that have simply been labeled as demons or the devil. It would hardly be recognized as Christianity by an average American. However, the same average American would proudly claim that 1/3 of the world's population is Christian.
What this data also shows is that despite the attempts of missionaries and the "calling" of Christians to evangelize, the percentage of Christians in the world has not substantially changed. There are only more Christians in the world today because there are more people in the world today and they are such a diverse group they should hardly share one label. According to percentages there are no more or less Christians in the world today than there were a hundred years ago. They are just replacing themselves and growing accordingly with the population. This would indicate their missionary attempts have been largely unsuccessful.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2010, December). Global Christianity. Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Global-Christianity-worlds-christian-population.aspx
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Something Better, Something Smarter
I read a very interesting article in the Stanford Review today. The basic theme was that the pro-life/pro-choice argument does not depend on religion. In many ways the author is correct in asserting "The logical case for life is built entirely upon premises grounded in the Constitution and science." After all, the Constitution grants life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to any person.
So the question becomes when does something become a person?
He claims that a fetus is a person and then immediately equates the abortion of a fetus with discrimination. That seems like a pretty big leap to me. Perhaps there needs to be new terms and new ideas instead of labeling abortion as discrimination.
I would argue that a life becomes human when higher brain functions begin. That is, after all, what sets us apart from other animals and gives us personality, critical thinking, and creative reasoning skills. But what would that mean for people that have lost the higher brain function or were born without it? Would that mean that those people were somehow no longer human?
The fear seems to be that if we define human life and beginning at conception, or, as I suggest, when higher brain functions begin (mid 3rd Trimester) then we would be both opening the door to discrimination practices and the striping of humanity from people with injuries or malformed brains. I'm all for defining things, but making things that black and white would mean throwing out all common sense.
First of all, if a fetus is a person and a woman miscarries will there be an investigation into what the possible causes of death were? Often a miscarriage is due to a problem with the child. Would the woman still be interrogated and perhaps punished for being careless around a smoker, or taking too bumpy a car ride?
What about a person that suffers a tragic accident and is now in a vegetative state? Would he cease being a human at any point?
Capps's point was that you do not need religion to argue the pro-life view and I agree, (I would add you don't need it for nearly anything else either). But he goes off the deep end when he seems to suggest that a fetus has Constitutional rights. Maybe we do need to define when a human life begins and when the protections of the Constitution begin, but we will not be able to do it with old ideas or old terms. We need something better, we need something smarter.
But What?
So the question becomes when does something become a person?
The debate over the legality of abortion, then, reduces to the question of fetal personhood, and the most reasonable definition of a person is a living human organism. Additional constraints on this definition based on race, age, or level of dependency inevitably reduce to discrimination. As a handbook published by Feminists for Life puts it, “If we take any living member of the species homo sapiens and put them outside the realm of legal protection, we undercut the case against discrimination for everyone else.” |
He claims that a fetus is a person and then immediately equates the abortion of a fetus with discrimination. That seems like a pretty big leap to me. Perhaps there needs to be new terms and new ideas instead of labeling abortion as discrimination.
I would argue that a life becomes human when higher brain functions begin. That is, after all, what sets us apart from other animals and gives us personality, critical thinking, and creative reasoning skills. But what would that mean for people that have lost the higher brain function or were born without it? Would that mean that those people were somehow no longer human?
The fear seems to be that if we define human life and beginning at conception, or, as I suggest, when higher brain functions begin (mid 3rd Trimester) then we would be both opening the door to discrimination practices and the striping of humanity from people with injuries or malformed brains. I'm all for defining things, but making things that black and white would mean throwing out all common sense.
First of all, if a fetus is a person and a woman miscarries will there be an investigation into what the possible causes of death were? Often a miscarriage is due to a problem with the child. Would the woman still be interrogated and perhaps punished for being careless around a smoker, or taking too bumpy a car ride?
What about a person that suffers a tragic accident and is now in a vegetative state? Would he cease being a human at any point?
Capps's point was that you do not need religion to argue the pro-life view and I agree, (I would add you don't need it for nearly anything else either). But he goes off the deep end when he seems to suggest that a fetus has Constitutional rights. Maybe we do need to define when a human life begins and when the protections of the Constitution begin, but we will not be able to do it with old ideas or old terms. We need something better, we need something smarter.
But What?
Friday, March 2, 2012
Why the Story of Hypatia is Important
Hypatia was born in Alexandria in 370. She taught mathematics, astronomy, physics and perhaps many other things in the great Library of Alexandria. Alexandria was a melting pot of cultures. Alexander the Great had established the city many years before although by Hypatia's time it was under Roman rule. Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria, was threatened by Hypatia's very existence. She was a brilliant rationalist thinker with friends in the government and many students. Her father had trained her to question dogma and think for herself.
She said "Fable should be taught as fable, myth as myth, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truth is horrifying. The mind of a child accepts them and only through great pain, perhaps tragedy, can the child be relieved of them. Men will fight for superstition as quickly as for the living truth - even more so, since a superstition is intangible you can't get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable." Hypatia was clearly well ahead of her time and clearly a threat to religious establishment. She even recognized the psychological terror religion causes young children, only recently being made public by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and others.
Carl Sagan described Hypatia's death in Cosmos "In great personal danger, she continued to teach and publish, until, in the year 415, on her way to work she was set upon by a fanatical mob of Cyril's parishioners. They dragged her from her chariot, tore off her clothes, and, armed with abalone shells, flayed her flesh from her bones. Her remains were burned, her works obliterated, her name forgotten. Cyril was made a saint." No living thing deserves that kind of sadistic end. She died ripped to pieces by Christians in a church.
Her story is relevant today because of the rise in militant faith among most major religious groups. The Christian fundamentalist resistance to modernity that began in the 1900s shares many similarities with the rise of extremist Islamic violence. Both are a reaction to changes. Both attempt to stifle the advancement of Science, cooperation, civil rights, and dignity for every living thing. The root of this aggression is faith. Faith is the enemy of reason and critical thinking. Sam Harris calls religious faith "unjustified belief in matters of ultimate concern." Faith is at the root of the unjustified actions of the religious. It took men of great faith to commit the atrocities of 9/11, it took men of great faith to drink Jim Jones' or Applewhite's poisonous kool-aid. It takes great faith to be exposed to all the evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and still claim to believe the world is only 6,000 years old.
The answer to this problem is communication and education. The religious groups that seek to take dominion over the Unites States and Europe are enemies of education. They demonize colleges and universities as liberal mills. They associate environmentalism with paganism. They try to teach people that a blastocyst is a human in order to prevent women from being able to choose when to have a child. In some form or another they fight against nearly everything that offers humanity a bright future. Faith must be recognized as a liability and not a value to be respected.
This blog will be dedicated to the memory of Hypatia and everyone lost, tortured, raped, murdered, molested, or robbed by men and women of faith. Sadly, that includes quite a few people.
She said "Fable should be taught as fable, myth as myth, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truth is horrifying. The mind of a child accepts them and only through great pain, perhaps tragedy, can the child be relieved of them. Men will fight for superstition as quickly as for the living truth - even more so, since a superstition is intangible you can't get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable." Hypatia was clearly well ahead of her time and clearly a threat to religious establishment. She even recognized the psychological terror religion causes young children, only recently being made public by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and others.
Carl Sagan described Hypatia's death in Cosmos "In great personal danger, she continued to teach and publish, until, in the year 415, on her way to work she was set upon by a fanatical mob of Cyril's parishioners. They dragged her from her chariot, tore off her clothes, and, armed with abalone shells, flayed her flesh from her bones. Her remains were burned, her works obliterated, her name forgotten. Cyril was made a saint." No living thing deserves that kind of sadistic end. She died ripped to pieces by Christians in a church.
Her story is relevant today because of the rise in militant faith among most major religious groups. The Christian fundamentalist resistance to modernity that began in the 1900s shares many similarities with the rise of extremist Islamic violence. Both are a reaction to changes. Both attempt to stifle the advancement of Science, cooperation, civil rights, and dignity for every living thing. The root of this aggression is faith. Faith is the enemy of reason and critical thinking. Sam Harris calls religious faith "unjustified belief in matters of ultimate concern." Faith is at the root of the unjustified actions of the religious. It took men of great faith to commit the atrocities of 9/11, it took men of great faith to drink Jim Jones' or Applewhite's poisonous kool-aid. It takes great faith to be exposed to all the evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and still claim to believe the world is only 6,000 years old.
The answer to this problem is communication and education. The religious groups that seek to take dominion over the Unites States and Europe are enemies of education. They demonize colleges and universities as liberal mills. They associate environmentalism with paganism. They try to teach people that a blastocyst is a human in order to prevent women from being able to choose when to have a child. In some form or another they fight against nearly everything that offers humanity a bright future. Faith must be recognized as a liability and not a value to be respected.
This blog will be dedicated to the memory of Hypatia and everyone lost, tortured, raped, murdered, molested, or robbed by men and women of faith. Sadly, that includes quite a few people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)