Rusty Lopez has responded - kind of - to my post about the absurdity of the anti-stem cell research position. He seems to have perfected the presuppositional boogie, that curious theological tap dance whereby one never actually engages the position being taken, preferring meta-debate to debate. He never addresses, or even attempts to address, any of the factual claims I made. For instance, I argued that since the leftover blastocysts from IVF would be destroyed anyway, not allowing stem cell research does not, in fact, save a single life. But it does, of course, have a great potential to cost lives, the lives of actual people as opposed to little clumps of 32 or 64 cells that had the potential to become life but instead were bound for destruction anyway.
First, he attempts to make some major distinction out of the fact that he was quoting Patrick Reardon. I already noted that. But since he said in a comment here that he agrees with Reardon's words, what's the point? Okay, so both you and Reardon think that Christopher Reeve is selfish for "promoting death" to help himself. You're both wrong. I've explained why you're wrong, but you didn't bother to engage that argument at all. Instead, he simply tries to equate atheism with nihilism. I'm not an atheist, of course, but Rusty pronounces that I "live next door in the world of deism", so what the hell. Close enough, eh? And since he asserts that atheism = nihilism and deism = atheism lite, then I must really be a nihilist. And if I'm a nihilist, I can't have "strong beliefs", you see, because nihilists think nothing is true and life has no meaning. Talk about mental gymnastics. I'll simply reassert my original argument, since it has not been responded to at all. Your position is wrong, for the reasons I stated. Let me know if you actually want to talk about the issue instead of this meta-nonsense based on ridiculous assumptions.
- Log in to post comments
Ed,
I just read Rusty's post and I think that in his mind he has answered you. It's the old "slippery slope" thing... zygotes today, embryos tomorrow, babies next week... If you could pin him down on this, he would probably say that "flushing" all those zygotes is murder.
When your "faith" is ALL that you have and you've given up any pretense at logical thought, this is where you end up.
Don
When your "faith" is ALL that you have and you've given up any pretense at logical thought, this is where you end up.
Yep, that's presuppositionalism for ya.
That was the biggest fluff I've read in several months. He creates this chain that links your deism with only caring about your personal well-being. He does this by first equating deism with atheism, then atheism with nihilism, and then naturalism with all of the above. He doesn't exactly explain why deists are like atheists, in any meaningful way, or why atheists are all nihilists (which is completely absurd), or most importantly, what any of that has to do with anything your article was about. At least worldnutdaily doesn't claim to be rational. This guy's writings are, "based on clear thinking and sound philosophy," which of course means dividing an issue into believers and nonbelievers, positioning himself on the side of believers, thus making himself right, by default.
Hmmmmm, lemmie see ....
deist = atheist
deist = believer
Conservative Christian = believer
Therefore, Conservative Christian = atheist! Mathematical proof positive.
I've seen this type many times. Never getting around to looking at the facts although they'll swear they do. Always looking at the bigger picture (as they see it) while you fumble helplesly looking at the trees instead of the forest (again as they it).
You can't possibly be using logic and reason, because you don't get the same answer they do, and their answer is so obviously the right one. The only reasons you could possibly have in clinging to a wrong answer is that you really don't understand, or you don't want to understand.
Oh crap! Now I'm a nihilist.
As if I didn't already have enough problems...
Oh crap! Now I'm a nihilist.
It all sounds like something from the Big Lebowski.
This is slightly off the topic of this thread, but it is something that I wanted to post on a companion thread below.
I wish that the public opponents of embryonic stem cell research would be a little more honest in why they oppose ESCR. I have chatted with a few of the non-public opponents, and what has become clear is that their opposition is based, not so much on the research, per se, but on the fear of what might happen if the research proves successful. I suspect that they view that research conducted on embryos that are going to be discarded anyway isn't the problem--their problem is that, if the research pans out, large numbers of embryos will be created merely for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells. In their view, the deliberate creation of human life merely to be destroyed for the purpose of benefiting others. That is what is anathema to them. And I don't believe that merely poo-pooing that issue is going to make it go away. It's an issue that ethicists are going to have to come to grips with.
raj,
Someone got Rusty to respond that the zygotes should be kept frozen (forever, I guess) or discarded in a humane way (wahtever that means). Then someone else responded with exactly your point... they are worried about cloning and "cell factories". Then PZ jumped in and it's getting interesting :-)
I have no biology background, so I'll ask a dumb question... once these beneficial cells are identified, wouldn't it be possible to reproduce them without going through the egg/sperm fertilization process?
DonM,
Yes, that is exactly what's done. But you need lots of different lines to maximize the research potential.