Genetic Screening

This post-comment is in response to what I read at http://www.carlonline.blogspot.com/

Despite the issue of whether or not we should be playing God with embryos (or at what point do we start playing God); I think an area of concern of mine is parents choosing embryos based on their own personal preferences and not what is in the best interest of the ‘child to be’.

A case could be made that just because the technology is there does not mean it should be used to its full extent. Perhaps a ‘list,’ for a lack of a better term, of disabilities that would not cause serious impairment to the quality of life should be made, and if a disability is on that ‘list’ then the implantation should be allowed with (and not to the exclusion of) normal embryos (to allow probability and fate to take it course): random selection of the approved embryos (including both normal and disability) could be used to decide which embryos are actually to be implanted. The question then becomes how to create such a list including realizing the quality of life of a child is partially based of the financial wealth of the child’s parent and the implementation practice of the list (i.e., taking into account whether or not a particular couple could afford a child with a disability).

Still another concern of mind with these screening practices (regardless if the aim is to assure or eliminate a genetic characteristic) is what occurs if a child, by perhaps a some small chance, does not turn out how the parents desire. Will the parents be allowed to put the child up for an adoption; do the parents’ financial obligations end with the adoption, etc.?

Another issue is if people are able creating children without genetic imperfections is the environmental variable (i.e., nature vs. nurture) enough to make things fair for those born without genetic screening: granted screening is one thing and creating imperfection (or genetic superiority) is another.

Topics: Theology and Evolution, and Faith

Thursday, February 7, 2008



Faith: What is it?

I am not sure why people have such difficulty with faith. By faith I mean trust without certainty, loosely speaking. To believe in something people it seems nowadays more than ever need evidence to justify that belief (or should I say our palates have become more refined/advanced in what we accept as evidence). I think this is the result of the advancement made in science and more particular the application of technology within science. People would like to think that because of the aforementioned advancement(s) that we are at a stage were if something exists then we should be able to prove it; as such, people are less likely to believe that something exists even through they have no evidence for it and refuse to settle until they have a scientific explanation for an event that at first glance seems to be unexplainable. This is no truer than the existence of God.

People seem to be determined that they need evidence to show God’s existence, rather than simply believe that God exists. This possibly is because as we have become more scientific the world has seemed to become less mystical and as such less is contributed to the Devine realm (as some other explanation is gained). This leads to either people questioning God’s existence or feeling the need for evidence for God’s existence: if those things that once were contributed to the Devine are now contributed to the scientific then what says there is a God at all. To say, before science (in particular its advancement) the evidence of God’s existence was in those things that where contributed to the Devine realm (i.e., there must be God as God was how we explained things). However, as science has not really been able to prove (or really disprove—even after considering the discredit of religious artifacts: just because an artifact is discredited does not necessary mean that God does not exist) God existence people have turned to other means to try to prove God’s existence.

People then turned to theology for evidence (or proof) of God existence, but quickly realized that theology is based on faith. Many have tried to combine theology and philosophy. By doing this partnership I believe they hope to replace those aspects of theology that are faith based with philosophy (usually of which basic root is that before believing something we should be certain/justified of it and if the belief is true we can/must be justified/certain of it). However, as I have said in pervious posts how can we prove God’s existence and as such how can we be absolutely be certain/justified in believing God’s exists. The problem is it is highly doubtful that we will every be able to absolutely prove God’s existence; thus, ultimately it boils down to not whether people are certain/justified in believing that God’s exists, but instead if people have trust without certainty that God exists (i.e., faith).
Posted by issues-issues at 11:36 PM 2 comments
Labels: religion



Wrestling Theology together with Evolution

"...Believing in both evolution and the soul requires you to accept one of the following views. Either the single-cell organisms in the evolutionary primordial soup had souls (this looks unattractive for obvious reasons), or there was some point in evolutionary history where the beings that are now humans started having souls. But what point was this, and more to the point, how can we make sense of this idea without it just being an arbitrary line to draw?..." http://www.carlonline.blogspot.com/

My Position:

-----The Main Argument-----

First, Quaking (to tell when ‘humans’ gain a souls), Second, it is up to God to decide when a species is, will, or can be evolved enough to have a soul (or should I say pre-determines). Whom says God did not pre-determine (or decided) when we where evolved enough to have souls. I think the question(s) are then (1) at what stage of evolution did God gave (or pre-determined) us to have a soul, and (2) in what sense do we mean evolution? It is in God’s right to have decided when we got souls, but was there a specific reason that we gained souls at a specific time in our biological development? Was it when our the physiology of our brains were well developed enough to understand consequences of sin, etc.?

-----More Arguing of My Position-----

After this the question of evolution becomes is evolution itself pre-determined by God (it must be if we wish to accept that we are the only creatures (biological) that have souls and will have souls)? Otherwise, how can the principle of theology that states we are the only creatures (biological) with souls be justified? I think this brings up another issue: does God take a passive (pre-determinism) or an active role in our existence of evolution (i.e., stopping other creatures from evolving to gain souls)? If evolution is pre-determined by God then does this mean God does not take an active role is our lives (or does pre-determinism only applies to evolution)? If evolution was pre-determine by God (and our science is correct) then what prevents other creatures from evolving to the same point we gained souls?

If this occurs why would God not give them souls as well? If God gave them souls then the principle of us being the only ones having souls is incorrect. Did God pre-determine evolution? If our scientific understanding of evolution is correct an other creatures could evolve to have souls (or replace us as the dominating species, especially if we as a species die-off) does this mean God is repressing evolution of other creatures or does the principle of us only having souls only in affect until our species dies off (i.e., Judgment Day, etc.)? If is God repressing evolution of other creatures so he does not give them souls or did he pre-determine that their evolution will not developed that far? Will God simply not give them souls if they evolve to the point where we gained them?

I suppose what I getting at is if pre-determinism evolution is stretched farther enough it could imply that either God does not have an active role in our lives or other creatures might evolve to the point they too can be given souls. We can defend this off only so far off by means of presumptions (as I have done): God will simply not give them souls or God pre-determined that they will not developed so far. However, we really have no proof and we must base these presumptions on faith; that is, other creatures either will not evolve to the same point when we God souls, God will not give them souls if they do evolve to that point, or Judgment Day for our species will have already arrived (before the time they gain souls).

The Association between Government and Religion

I read a post on http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/ that was making the argument that Christianity and the American style of governance are “comparable” with one another, but unlike how some think they do not “inspire” each other. I found this argument very interesting as it reminded me that often governments and church’s develop agreements between each other to “justify and support” each other (as I said in the blog’s comment section). In return for the support of the church pronouncing the government as righteous (or following correct religious principles or practices that do not break church doctrine)--which gives support and stability to the government through the masses—the government in return gives legal sectioning to the church thus giving creditability to the religion (via people’s support for or views on the governments own creditability—granted this is the logic faults of guilt or innocence by association(s) as well as ad hoc reasoning) as well as often not taxing the church or taxing at a lower rate or by financially contributing to the church’s projects through various charitable and culture funding projects. It is especially helpful to the government when the churches’ of its country support their military conquests or at least ‘forgive’ or rule acceptable the actions of their soldiers as part of their duty to their country.

'fully man' and 'fully god' (continue #2)

I have been thinking of the 'fully god 'and 'fully man' issue a little more. It seems to me that if one considers the union as combining the two together in one flesh without either of the two losing any part of them then it could be said that there is not a contradiction.

If we begin by asking the question what is man (irrespective of sin) and what is God? Then we may see that there is no contradiction in saying that what is man and what is God being put in flesh together: to say the answers of the above questions? I think to most Christians this might find this acceptable as for them it has already occurred (i.e., Jesus). As I have said previously, part of theology rests on faith as trying to prove it (or disprove with actual evidence), especial physical, would be quite challenging to say the least. I thin some would go far to argue that we must also be careful of crossing the line between understanding the relationship between the 'fully man' and 'fully god' and being so conceited to think that our conception will determine the relationship between the two. In other words, we need to remember that Jesus was/is Jesus regardless of what we think the relationship is/was; the relationship does not change even if our conception of it does. Our job is to understand the relationship and not to determine it.

I think a remaining question would be is Jesus without sin because he is 'fully God' or is it because he rested temptation, but unlike any other human is not sinful? I think if the argument that the two exists in one flesh, but are separate then the answer to be consist would have to be the later (i.e., rested temptation despite being fully man).

This I think this might bring back the argument that if Jesus was 'fully God' then he had an advantage on the rest of us (i.e., knowing what was right and wrong, how to go about things in a rightful manner, etc.). With the response being that we too can have access to this knowledge through first Jesus (as it is through him that we find entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven and through him we are brought to God--the father).

'fully man' and 'fully god' (continue)

I suppose the best way in philosophy terms I can explain “conceptually separate” is, for example, to keep them epistemology and metaphysically separate in how we think of them.

I think it is important to realize there is a 'first principle' (as I said in my original posting) in Christianity and that is Jesus was God: this principle either rests of faith alone or very little evidence. The theologians would point to Jesus rational when people accused him of driving out demons by being a demon himself: it simply does not make sense that demons would expel one another because it would defeat the purpose of what they are trying to do: "[25]Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined...[26]If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself..." (Matthew 12). This passage could be interpreted to show either one or two things that either Jesus is the Son of God (and as such God himself) or at the very least he is on the side of divinity (i.e., doing god's work).

Once the 'first principle' is accepted then the argument might go: [second principle] we know Jesus was man as well as god (and not god alone) because he humbled himself in front of God and was obedient to his heavenly father (it makes no sense, some may argue, that a God would humble himself in front of himself and be obedient to himself). The response could be simply why not, if they are equal to each other? Who says a God could/should not humble himself in front of himself? Who are we to question a God's practice? In Christianity, there seems to be a debate that some like to perpetrate of whom is more important/powerful/etc. Jesus or God: it seems to me that most church's response have been the God is above Jesus (because of the humbling and obedience of Jesus to God (the father) in importantance (for a lack of better phrasing), but they are both equal in stature.

If we accept these two principles then this leads to the third principle, that Jesus is fully god and fully man (or at least some combination of both--I think it would be difficult to argue that Jesus was more man then God so if you are going to argue anything else then it must be that Jesus was more God than man, which according to some would not simply make sense. Remember there has been thousands of years in how religion has made us culturally think of Jesus--this is not to say the 'not make sense' group is correct or incorrect it just to make the point of cultural and religious bias and the changes of them over time.

Once you accept that Jesus is ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ then the next step is to pick an approach that best causes understanding for us. I think it is to keep them conceptually separate (as I explain the meaning of at the start of this posting) so we can work with them in our minds to understand them.

If you are looking for a coherent concept of ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ do you mean linear? It would be my opinion that theology cannot be completely linear as components of it rest on faith alone (for example, Jesus was a God--try actually proving it with evidence, especially physical?) and faith is rarely linear or even logical. I am now wondering if this means if faith is incoherent.

fully man and fully god

I think maybe a way that people can handle the "fully man” and "fully god" thing is to keep them conceptually separate. I am not sure if people would be just willing to do this or if they need a reason for doing so. If they do not need a reason then it works fine; if they do then a reason needs to be come up with.

On a theological said of things, I think a reason could be that Jesus himself while realizing he was God humbled himself in front of God (his father). I think for the Christians this might do; for those coming from the atheistic said of things I think they might want something else which is not based on theology as well as they would say: why was it necessary or why would Jesus humble himself in front of God as this could be thought as Jesus humbling himself in front of himself.

The response from the Christians would be either you do not understand our perceptive/understanding of the make-up and nature of the trinity (in it components or its whole) or that was part of what made Jesus so great and it is the goal of Christians to focus on God and the Kingdom of Heaven and not earthly issues (as Jesus demonstrated i.e., ‘walking the walk,’ rather than just preaching which is the message behind ‘God sending his only Son to us’). The atheistic (I mean from an intellectual side of things) might say that was fine-and-dandy for Jesus to do as he is God and thus at no risk for damnation or that because of being God he knows without a doubt that God exists and he knows without a doubt what is expected to be done and how to rightfully go about achieving it.

This leads us to the issue of whether or not Jesus was fully God and fully man (a circular issue). I think the Christians would respond by saying Jesus is shown to be fully man and fully God because he was faced by the same temptation in human form as rest of us (that he is God is an untouchable/should not be touched first principle of faith): I think this open the question of that if Jesus fell for temptation (such as that by Satan and offering the world) would he have faced damnation like the rest of us. I think the response would be it is not in the nature of Jesus to fall for temptation (I think they would be forced to say this as to suggest that Jesus had a nature that might have permitted him to have fallen would be blasphemy); however, the response to this could be, in that case is it fair to say Jesus was ‘fully man’ if he did not have the same nature as us. The response to this would be Jesus was the type/nature of person that would have not chosen (i.e., Free-will) to fall for temptation but he could have if he wanted to: which brings us into a debate about what makes a person fall for temptation and more importantly what prevent someone (in both cases here more specifically Jesus) including questions down the line of what is Free-will? Some also might consider it blasphemy to consider Jesus not having Free-will.

The aesthetics would respond saying what about Jesus’ inside understand of God existence and what is expected and how to go about it? The Christians would explain the knowledge is ours through Jesus and/or the Bible. The aesthetics would respond what about uncertainty. The Christians would respond uncertainty does not exist through Jesus or the Bible it exists either through not understanding what is being taught (i.e., limited capacity) or things (or ourselves) blocking/distracting us from understanding i.e., temptations, sin, etc.

I think to break the circular issue we need to say theology and atheism or even theology and philosophy (to say that theology and philosophy are two very different things) should not meet. I think too many people conceive theology as the Philosophy of Religion (which it is not as Philosophy of religion is the application of principles of philosophy on religion or religious issues) or they conceive theology as Religious Philosophy (which it is not as to say ‘religious philosophy’ is to suggest that its base root is philosophy that in my understanding that philosophy has its own rules/way-of-doing-things which do not rely on religious principles or beliefs for its base).

In short, (1) we need to keep fully man and fully god conceptually separate to understand them (and have faith in reality the two exists together in symbiosis); and (2) that theology and atheism or even theology and philosophy cannot be reconciled together, paired respectively.

Luke 14:26 and Luke 14: 33

I have found it useful to sometimes focus on general principles rather than specific and then applying the specifics to the general. For example, if detachment is taken as to be able to leave this world behind to gain eternal life (whether or not in a Christian sense). That Luke 14: 26 speaks to more of that people should not be consumed with human companionship. Luke 14, 33 states ‘…any of you who does not give everything he has cannot be my disciple”. These taken together it would seem to me it is all about detachment (or in other words as much it may seem to be painful for us, to be in a sense cold towards earthy-fondness unless risk being coming to close to them). I must admit that I have become increasing wary that the meaning of the Biblical phrases have been changed either because of language translation or intentional linguistically interpretation, which brings me back to my original point that unless a person wants to devote his/her life to Biblical studies including learning ancient Greek and possible Arabic, etc. then the best approach is to focus on the general principles an applying the specifics to the general (and even at this, we may have to accept some contradictions and to do our best to live with them unless risk going insane trying to get all the ‘ducks in a row’). Another thing that needs to be considered is assuming that Biblical words have kept their meaning through translation and interpretation is the absolute wording of things: i.e., an all or nothing approach such as “everything,” so I must ask myself is that I use translation and interpretation (and thus the focus on generality) as an excuse or is it valid that we have lost something overtime through written changes?