the_grip on 16/11/2006 at 16:01

---

Just to throw in as the counter-balancing voice of those who are indeed religious and pro-life (i.e. Catholic, i.e. myself) and as if anyone cares, here are a couple of thoughts:

1. The human being is not compartmentalized into mind, body, and soul as if they are separate entities. This compartmentalization is a modern way of looking at things, but i would instead say that the human being is a holistic entity, not a division of parts. In other words, a human is an embodied presence of mind, body, and soul at once in union. There is some helpful discussion about referring to these individually, but they cannot be understood in isolation. Thus, i would say that a human being possesses a soul when it becomes a human being. Since i believe that the fertilization of sperm and egg is the only tangible point that can be offered as the start of life, then i would naturally say that it probably happens at fertilization. There is no empirical or philosophical reason to arbitrarily define when life/soul/person begins - instead, you have to stop asking questions about when life starts and asking questions into the area of eugenics (i.e. is it worthwhile for this person to live, would this baby be wanted, would it not have value in its existence (i.e. terminally ill, etc.), overpopulization), etc. i think eugenics is indeed horrible, but i know many people would disagree with that (on the same note, it certainly is “convenient” that the Plan B drug is being made free to poor people and to women under the age of 18 in some areas - that's at least how many orthodox Catholics understand such things).

2. This is a fascinating question (at least i think it is). However, if such a construct were possible, then i guess we'd have to wait and see to speculate. Theoretically, i can see it being a viable possibility, and, being life (although artificial in some respects) i do think it would still constitute having a soul. However, it would be a sad state of affairs to me - i could easily see such a method becoming the undoing of human rights... at least for those artificially brought into the world.

Lastly, one quick note:



The whole idea that Elton John is advocating right now (i.e. religion is the start of all wars and thus should be done away with) is a modern urban legend. If you look at the mere facts, Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and China under Mao Zedong killed well over 130 million people (Hitler at least 6 million, Stalin 60 million, and Mao 70 million) - all not because of religious reasons. There are actually very few outright religious wars, and most are the result of Islamic idealism/fundamentalism. Instead, most wars are fought over the old rubric of power, security, and resources. It would be nice if there was one cause that could be eliminated to get rid of war, but i don't think that is the case.

Just my two cents.

SD on 16/11/2006 at 16:16

---

Naziism, Stalinism and Maoism were de facto religions though.

If anything, the fact that secular political philosophies had to adopt all the trimmings of religion and religious fervour in order to whip up the kind of hysteria that allowed them to wipe out so many people, is just more fuel to the fire of the argument and not a rebuttal of it.

the_grip on 16/11/2006 at 16:26

---

STD,

That's an interesting point. i don't think Nazism or Communism are religions - they are political ideologies - but i can see your point. i would disagree with this point because it destroys any kind of boundary of definition and thus prohibits any kind of discussion. For example, one could say democracy is a religion, or that advocating any kind of betterment for humanity is a religion. i could even say that the idea that religions are the cause of war is a religion in itself. i think we're blurring definitions here... religion is a public belief regarding the divine and faith in that divine, etc. To contrast, Communism, at least, has at its heart the very destruction of such an idea.

i also don't think that secular political philosophies adopting religious trimmings as you suggest is necessarily a cause for strengthening a rebuttal. Under the same guidelines, i could say that Stalin and Mao both adopted human rights as trimmings to their argument and thus we should do away with human rights. In other words, just because someone would utilize something or abuse something doesn't invalidate that something's use or make its existence morally reprehensible. It certainly can make the user or abuser morally reprehesible, but not that "something" itself.

Renzatic on 16/11/2006 at 17:45

---

I was being a bit facetious with my previous post. But I do agree. Early humans didn't need a religious foundation to go out on mass killing sprees, but it did eventually become a convinent excuse. Much like political ideoligies, governments, and large chunks of dirt.

War is an ingrained part of humanity, and humanity itself is the source of all wars. It's a negative part of ourselves we'll all have to put up with, much like Stronts overarching generalizations.

Kolya on 16/11/2006 at 18:09

---

Use all your well-learned politesse, or Ill lay your soul to waste, um yeah.
Whoohoooo! Whooohooooo!