A Test Answer to Abortion

    A buddy of mine, who is currently in Law School, sat through a debate on abortion today.  He and I talked briefly about the topic this afternoon.  With that in mind, I am posting an answer I provided to a test question I addressed in a previous philosophy class.   I must note that I am addressing the issue specific to a question, and in a idealistic/worldview frame of reference.  My friend is dealing with the issue in a legal context. Short and simple, but hopefully you enjoy it.

Assume that you (or your sexual partner) were put in a position to consider abortion, which of the following moral theories would you use to decide what to do and WHY:  teleological theories such as utilitarianism, deontological theories such as Kantianism, virtue theories such as that of Aristotle, or divine will?

    I would use the divine command theory to make my decision.  I’m sure this comes as no surprise.

    As a Christian I believe God’s commands and will are revealed generally to all people (some of this could fall under natural law), and specifically within the text of the Bible.  Why I believe this is a different topic for a different day.  I think if one can conclude there is a Divine Power, one would be safe in following the divine will and commands.  

    Utilitarianism should have no problem with my conclusion.  Many people do like to point to the issues of incest, rape, and harmful consequences to the mother.  However, this accounts for a small fraction of all abortion.  Most abortions, so I have read, are chosen for convenience.  Convenience means that people can act (have sex) without worry about the consequences (STD’s not included).  To have sex is to risk pregnancy.  Convenience as a reason for abortion cannot, in my estimation, equate to the greatest good and least harm.  Sure there is quality of life versus quantity of life issues.  Here again, the future is unknown, and as such, utilitarianism cannot address quality vs. quantity issues in a manner even near sufficient.  

    Using his categorical imperative theory, Kant suggests that each person should choose for his/herself what moral laws they will follow.  This would equate to relativism.  A relativist could in no way disagree with my choice to use the divine will as my guide.  In fact, Kant himself would have to accept that I am simply choosing for myself.    Kant believed that a person’s will can reason what is right and do the right because it is right, looking beyond mere self-interest and pleasure.  If convenience is the reason for the abortion, Kant would agree with me that this is merely a tactic of self-interest.

    I see two issues that could arise in using virtue ethics.  Aristotle thought virtue is an acquired or learned habit.  We are not born with virtue but learn it and continue in it.  What if the “virtues” we learn are bad virtues?  Consider the virtues of Buddha (Buddhism is based on virtue).  On the day his son was born he abandoned his wife and son, to find enlightenment.  That doesn’t seem too virtuous.  Hopefully none of his followers learn this virtue.  Additionally, Aristotle notes that excesses are bad.  Wouldn’t an abortion be an excess of fear, anxiety, or uncertainty.  He also notes that we should avoid deficiency.  Isn’t it a deficiency to act (have sex) when not prepared for the consequences (pregnancy)?

    I recognize that there are uncommon exceptions; not all abortions are for convenience.  However, I think as a whole the divine command theory as I noted above is the best approach and the one which I would use.   

Intent before Content

    Intent before Content, or Content follows Intent.  Put another way, your intentions will lead your conclusion.  To provide a simple example, I will use the beauty, or lack thereof, of Tucson.  I don't like the desert, and I don't like excessive heat.  Therefore, I tend to think the least of Tucson--I want to see the worst, because I have already decided I don't like this town.  I often miss that there is beauty in the mountains that surround our town, and there is comfort in a town in which a snow shovel is not necessary.  My intent to see Tucson as ugly controls the content of what I allow to sit at the table of my ideas.
    For a better example, take the philospher Thomas Nagel.  He has stated,  "It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”  While I appreciate the honesty Dr. Nagel displays--which is quite uncommon among atheists--he displays well his bias.  His intent may drive him to refuse God at all cost, even to the realms of absolute absurdity and irrationality.  Intent before content.  This is a simple idea, but many people forget its truth.  Christians often forget this idea to their detriment, and to the loss of the truth of God.
     I see this idea creating judgmental and defensive Christians.  For instance, for many years, and even still now, many Christians lose their minds at the mention of the "Big Bang."  I noted during a recent Sunday School class that I think the Big Bang is completely valid.  Some people sat in stunned silence, others wanted to attack me.  Thankfully for me, they could not conclude in their minds why I might be wrong, nor articulate any arguments.  The "Big Bang" is simply the idea that all time, space and matter started at a singularity that "exploded."  Why is this a bad idea for the Christian?  I argue it isn't.  I argue that it fits well with Genesis 1:1 and fits well within all logic.  But this is a different topic for a different day.  Perhaps it is that many atheists have crammed Darwinian Evolution  down our throats, or attempted other arguments from science to disprove God.  However, this does not mean that science is the negation of God.
    This leads to another point.  This past Sunday, while in a new Sunday School class on the C.S. Lewis book, Mere Christianity, A few ideas about Intelligent Design were thrown about.  The context was chapter 4 of the first section of the book in which Mr. Lewis is pointing out the difference between the Materialist view and the Religious view.  Someone commented that there is a difference between Intelligent Design and what he called "Intelligent Biblical Design."  As my church is traditionally young earth, it became clear that "Intelligent Biblical Design" is another way of saying Creationism.  It is obvious that Intelligent Design is different from Creationism, but need not be any more different than Deism and Theism.  It seemed, after a few more comments, the group wanted to commence the Intelligent Design assault, but thankfully our leader pushed back to the text and moved along the discussion.  When we got to the last paragraph of chapter 4, the real fun began, as I could no longer remain silent.    The text reads, "...I ought to mention the Inbetween view called Life-Force philosophy, Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution."  Unless I am wrong, this idea, called by the three different names, deals with a creator who started everything, but then went hands off, or set thing in motion to allow things to evolve (think Darwinian Evolution with an initial purpose).   But the reader decided to include Intelligent Design with the sentence, reading it as, "...I ought to mention the Inbetween view called Life-Force philosophy, Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution, or Intelligent Design."  I waited until the rest of the paragraph was read, but then raise my hand; I had been silent in the class till this point.  I tell you the truth...neither did I raise my voice nor use any ad hominem language or tactics.  I stated something very close to, if not exactly, "I don't think we should so quickly or arbitrarily throw Intelligent Design into the sentence above.  This runs the risk of great error."  Just as with the "Big Bang" story, most people were in stunned silence.  However, the spouse of the person who read the section quickly, angrily and incoherently rambled off something that included me not knowing the context.
    For the sake of arguing, let's assume I don't understand the context of the above situation, of which I was present and listening.  Heck let's assume, up to this point, this post is completely biased and irrational.  With all that said...Intelligent Design does not assume an impersonal designer, as does the other ideas C.S. Lewis mentioned.  In fairness, it does not assume the Christian God.  At the most basic level it simply assumes a Designer.  Starting with that, we must then ask the question, what type of Designer must have created our universe? I think ultimately you will discover that the idea of Intelligent Design will lead to the Christian God.

All that to say this...

    May I offer my opinion to the Christians who may read this.  I think God is the source of Truth.  Therefore, I think the intent of Christians should be to find truth, regardless of what content that includes.  Truth can come from science, sociology, philosophy, the bum on the corner of Speedway and Stone.  If we would refuse the temptation to reject something based on its source, we might be amazed at what we uncover.  The "Big Bang" is a great example, as it is a great testament to the existence of God.  As many Christian Scholars are finding out, the long held fears or denials of Christians about certain subjects or truth are unmerited.  It seems many of the strong-holds in the case against God were/are actually beacons pointing us to God.  Intend to find the truth, no matter what, and God will reveal Himself as the content, and source, of that truth.

Theological Discussion with new friends

    At the invite of my buddy Steve, I joined him tonight for a regular Wednesday night group for food, drink and discussion.  I met a group of about 5 other guys.  Good conversation was had.  I enjoyed the lighter discussions, as well as, the heavy stuff.  The group was a good fit for me.  They challenge one another's ideas and pull no punches.  In fact, I even told one of the guys that his justification for a theological position was a "cop out."  You wanna know his response?  Well, it did not involve raising his voice, verbally attacking me, storming out, or crying.   Good group, good discussion.
 
   I brought up the topic of God's timelessness vs. God's omnitemporality.  This was a good discussion, and one in which I was handed some good objections/challenges by the guys.  I appreciated this, as this is a topic I have been studying just over the past few days.  I had what I thought was a solid stance, but the challenges demonstrated that I still have some questions to ask and answer regarding my belief.  My thought was that perhaps God was timeless until the moment of creation but then became omnitemporal.  I should note that I have been doing the vast majority of my studying over the past few months within the philosophy of time.  Specifically, I have been studying the A theory of time, aka, the static or tensed theory of time.  I think some studying of how God interacts and/or exists in temporal time is needed.

    Since one of the guys was a strong Calvinist, I asked a question about predestination.  This was a thought that came to mind last week while driving home from work.  I try not to let myself drive too deep into other area outside of the one I am currently studying.  Since I am not too up on the free will vs. predestination topic, I was not seeking to offer argumentation but questions.  Those on the far side of determinism believe that all events in our life are determined by God.  It seems that if God's foreknowledge exist because He has already created the events, all free will is out the window, except God's.  This seems to contradict the A theory of time, since in this theory future events do not yet exist.  The gentleman did offer an explanation of God existing in other dimensions, which seems to bypass the time issue, but I think deeper scrutiny is needed to reveal this as an error. 
    Back to the point.  If God has already predetermined our lives, free will is abolished.  If free will is abolished, accountability seems unreasonable, if not cruel.  I do not know our God to be unreasonable or cruel.  Recognizing that God can use evil for the greater good, I offered the following argument.  If God has deteremined that I do certain bad things in my life, and never receive Christ, how can he hold me accountable for these things.  Someone may argue that it is still the person who chooses such a such.  However, if such a such is the only option because it was predetermined, I have not arrived at free will.  Free will = accountability, No free will = No accountability.  Even if God exist in extra dimensions and is too far beyond us to understand, it still holds that we exist within only 4 dimensions.  God created a being within 4 dimension that he predetermined to effect such a such.  Regardless of the possibility that God may exist in extra dimensions, it seems counter to the justice and love of God to create a being existing in less dimensions than Himself  that is designed to reject him and therefore suffer eternal damnation.  I understand that God does things that are difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend.  However, to simply say this is one of those imcomprehensible marvels of God seems weak.  Certainly this does not offer any counter-arguments against the objections, nor does it offer any plausible arguments for how this works itself out.  A lot of questions to think about.  Perhaps some day my studies will lead me into a deeper understanding of this free will vs. presdestination argument.  For now, at a quite superficial understanding, I would consider myself a molinist.  BTW, one of the gentleman who I spoke with tonight, may read this.  If he decides to offer his name and insights or objection, I welcome his input.

***As a side note, just because some of the men I spoke with are Calvinist and I am not, does not make us enemies.  I think some Christians can wage internal wars against one another to the detriment of the Gospel.  For me, it is great to talk with my Calvinist brothers.  I do not think someone's stance on determinism is going to get them into heaven or exclude them from such.  I would not be disheartened or angry if a person were brought to Christ by a Calvinist or Armenian, I would rejoice that a soul was redeemed.  Perhaps more of us should use our differences to challenge one another and to reach more of the lost for God's Kingdom.

A funny story and a few lessons

    Nothing Profound here, just what came while eating lunch today.

    Some years ago, I read a story that not only has great insight, but it quite funny.  The story is supposed to be of a study that was conducted using monkeys. I think the study is fictional.  Although I so wish it were legit. 

     

    Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, you'll see a banana hanging on a string with a set of stairs placed under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, all of the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.

    After a while, another monkey makes an attempt to obtain the banana.  As soon as his foot touches the stairs, all of the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. It's not long before all of the other monkeys try to prevent any monkey from climbing the stairs.

    Now, put away the cold water, remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him as he makes his way toward the stairs.  After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

    Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.

    Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

    After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

   

    I see 3 lessons to be learned here.

1.  There is always some jerk ready to throw cold water on you even when you are doing nothing wrong.  Trust me on this, as I have often been that jerk holding the hose.

2.  Beware of improper goals.  Society is great at setting the prize in sight, but placing it out of reach.  It seems just a wee bit scumbagish to set the banana out of reach or in a place that should be reachable but lining the path with landmines. 

3.  Perhaps the greatest moral to be gained is this:  ask questions.  Plato suggested living an examined life.  It seems absurd that the monkeys in the cage at the end of the story continued to attack each other without knowing why.  How more absurd for us humans. 

    I can list a number of times that I have been verbally maligned for not believing in Darwinian Evolution by those who think it true.  However, most, if not all, have been unable to provide cogent, legitimate reasons that they believe this theory to be true.  On the other side of the coin, I have also received harsh treatment by a number of fellow church members for my stance on young earth vs. old earth.  I am not a young earth person (not an area I have studied to a great extent), but few, if any, young earth proponents I have spoken to can logically defend their stance.  The point is to ask questions, seek to know the what, why and how.  Relying on what you heard some “smart” person say is a recipe for shallow, un-defendable beliefs.  Just because ‘that is the way it has always been done’ does not make it right.  Just ask the monkey most recently placed in the cage.

This is the beginning and it is AWESOME

For those of you wondering what this blog is, and what it be about.