Round Two
I forgot to include a link to Scott Thomas' article in the Illinois Leader.
This is Mr. Thomas' second e-mail reply.
This is kind of fun, Matt, so I'll engage in this round. I also thank you for your reply. The insight into transhumanist logic is fascinating. I'm very sorry to hear that you've abandoned your faith...but, you're not dead yet, so there's always hope.
From a Christian worldview, there is no need to introduce the example of a corpse into the discussion. A person's spirit is, after all is said and done, the most obvious way human beings are distinguished from all other living things and from artificial intelligence. When the body dies, a person's spirit leaves. Where it goes is, of course, the subject of great theological and philosophical debate. So, you have no argument from me. A corpse is not a person.
And, since a sperm is just a sperm until it penetrates an egg, then neither would be considered a person. I think it's reasonable to confine the discussion to the point at which the sperm and egg become united (as a starting point) and death as an end point.
I don't know where, if anywhere, transhumanism allows for a spiritual world. I'm just ignorant on that point. If, however, there is an acknowledgement of the human spirit, I'd be interested to know at what point in development an embryo cum fetus cum baby is indwelled by his/her spirit...and how you'd go about proving that point.
I do claim that an infant has full human rights, including the right to "freedom". Parents have duties to teach, protect, and allow the child, depending on the situation. The infant has the freedom to crawl and explore and get himself into dangerous positions. Parents have the duty to teach the boundaries of freedom and to enforce the rules of the house. Freedom and independence are two different things. An infant can be perfectly free to explore and grow, while still being dependant on his parents. Independence comes (hopefully) when you understand how to mindfully exercise your freedom without hands on parenting.
Neither does emotion, reasoning, thinking, et. al. define the value of personhood. Since we cannot define the exact moment an embryo/fetus arrives at those points, we are left with a sliding scale. If an in-womb sliding scale establishes personhood, then the logical extension of that sliding scale would be to define the value of a born person by IQ, or athletic ability, or street smarts. And, if we are willing to destroy life via stem cell research or abortion on the front end, we become numb to ending life on the back end. On both ends, those willing to end life do so without the guidance of an exact, universally recognized, beginning or end point to personhood. Absent that definitive marker, mistakes will be made...WILL not MIGHT. And, from my standpoint, there is no common greater good to justify allowing for the mistakes.
With regard to which Holy book, well that brings us back to the theological. But, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists and many, if not most (excluding far eastern religions like Taoism) world religions acknowledge the Bible (Old Testament) as Scripture, either solely (Jews) or as part of their Holy writings. When David talks about God knowing him from before he was conceived, most world religions would take that to mean that, from the moment of conception, the human spirit comes to dwell in the newly conceived person. So, I believe you can compare all the "holy books" you want. You will find a faith-based consensus for when personhood begins. That would cause most people to believe that, regardless of the gestation-to-date of John and Jesus, they were, at the time of this account, persons inside their mothers. Many would not consider the New Testament as Scripture, but few would debate my point about the story.
And, forgive me, but it's far too Spock-like for me to accept your premise that the only option for interface we have is reasoning. The thought of a totally reasonable, intellect driven world makes me want to weep. Where's the emotion? Based on history, there is no reason to be a Cubs fan, yet I wouldn't deprive anyone the emotions (high or low) of rooting. The Red Sox proved that. Intellect played no role in me falling in love with my wife 23 years ago. Seems to have worked out OK. More seriously, medical science and reasoning told my wife's parents that the 3 month pre-mature baby her mom delivered would never live more than a week. That baby, my wife's younger sister, is now 33 years old, married with a 2 year old son and another on the way. She started her life outside the womb no bigger than the palm of my hand, given no chance to survive.
Science and reason were wrong. Faith and hope and love and emotion were right. Weep for my worldview if you'd like. It is you I feel sorry for.
God's blessings (I hope you'll seek them)
ST
This is my response today.
Mr. Thomas,
I try not to engage in speciesist discrimination when it comes to intelligence and emotional sensitivity such as that found in lovely creatures like dolphins or elephants. However, I agree that humans are qualitatively distinct from anything that exists so far. Although there is not just one distinction of that difference simple enough to be a radio show sound bite, the number of measurable factors are clear. Why do you consider a spirit one of those factors? You ask how I would prove the presence of a spirit. I'm glad you asked! How would anyone? What do you use to empirically measure the presence or absence of a spirit in a living species that another living species lacks? I can detect the presence of mind and volition. But "spirit," as defined by biblical literalists, is a substance that makes no first-hand observable difference so it has to be taken entirely on faith. So I doubt you would use it as a synonym for mentality, or even emotion like "school spirit."
I can't speak for all Transhumanists (may I call it TH for short?), but I have found some advocates of human enhancement technologies who come from a religious or spiritual perspective. However, being a TH tends to correlate strongly with being a secularist, and could be considered an upgrade to Secular Humanism, which recognizes no realm outside of empirical cause-and-effect. That's my position. For me to assert this before I have provided my evidence, is not intended to persuade at this stage, but merely for your information about this demographic.
You gave examples of people who are in danger of being deemed somehow "inferior" by others. But don't they each place a value on their own life? That's where the value of a life comes from, and that's the only opinion that matters about its worth. We should recognize that the value we subjectively place on our own lives is on no different a footing than the value others subjectively place on their own lives. TH in North America tends to be individualist and anti-authoritarian, both on this topic and politically, favoring small government and no coercion in the affairs of an individual. THs in Europe are slightly less so, since they tend to favor the welfare state and universal health care. In either case, we are dead-set against eugenics programs that would force anyone to transition into post-humanity just as much as we oppose restrictions that would force people to remain human. In TH the individual is intended to be the sole arbiter to improve on one's own body by one's own standard.
They are not the slavish property of a god to grant life and take it away. The top of TH's research agenda is to cure aging and all disease to postpone death indefinitely. This begins with current research into telomeres on the genetic codes with which nature provided you and me. It counts down to cause cells to wear out and cease regenerating, which is mostly why we age. This ticking time-bomb is the result of blind and indifferent nature, but if it were the work of a creator then such a being would be either incompetent or murderous. We hope to take the power of life and death away from the cruelty of nature to place the choice in the hands of each individual to make for one's self. We dream of a world in which no one need ever die an involuntary death again.
Hope is important to a TH. I have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that technology will extend the human health-span in time to save me. So I have to cross my fingers and just contribute to funding the research to improve the odds. You equated hope with faith, but hoping is not claiming to know. If you think you know, you don't need to hope.
I advise you not to offer me reasons as a premise an attempt to discredit reason. You may not realize that in so doing you would be discrediting your own premise. The show you reference, Star Trek, has done a disservice to our culture in its message that reasonability and emotion are mutually exclusive. I have not suggested that anyone disregard or surpress their feelings. Faith and emotion are two different things. Faith and reason are attempts at the truth-finding process. Emotion reacts to that which is found, and serves as motivation. Reason and emotion are very poor at doing each other's jobs in these separate domains. The fact remains that a person of a different religion cannot beam faith waves into your head just like you can't beam it into theirs. Faith is unaccountable to reason, so they can't sit down and reason with you as we are doing now.
The skeptic objects to antagonism toward evidence because it is an outrage. The most important reason that you may not exempt yourself from following evidence wherever it leads is that rational discourse is the only moral means of settling disputes. If A claims "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," and B claims "Allah said something that contradicts A, I believe it, and that settles it," then nothing is settled. Faith is the victory that overcomes the world in the same way that victory in a chess match means petulantly kicking over the table and demanding the prize.
Further, how does playing intentional mind games on oneself advance the holy cause? Will your children grow up to realize you have betrayed them in this way, as I did? Unrepentantly admitting and endorsing rejection of evidence implies "no-contest" not only to followers of contradictory religions, but to every shade of paranormal crackpot. Without that "no contest," faith serves as a double standard rendering your evangelism hypocritical: you are not accountable to evidence but you will hold others to it.
-Matt
This is Mr. Thomas' second e-mail reply.
This is kind of fun, Matt, so I'll engage in this round. I also thank you for your reply. The insight into transhumanist logic is fascinating. I'm very sorry to hear that you've abandoned your faith...but, you're not dead yet, so there's always hope.
From a Christian worldview, there is no need to introduce the example of a corpse into the discussion. A person's spirit is, after all is said and done, the most obvious way human beings are distinguished from all other living things and from artificial intelligence. When the body dies, a person's spirit leaves. Where it goes is, of course, the subject of great theological and philosophical debate. So, you have no argument from me. A corpse is not a person.
And, since a sperm is just a sperm until it penetrates an egg, then neither would be considered a person. I think it's reasonable to confine the discussion to the point at which the sperm and egg become united (as a starting point) and death as an end point.
I don't know where, if anywhere, transhumanism allows for a spiritual world. I'm just ignorant on that point. If, however, there is an acknowledgement of the human spirit, I'd be interested to know at what point in development an embryo cum fetus cum baby is indwelled by his/her spirit...and how you'd go about proving that point.
I do claim that an infant has full human rights, including the right to "freedom". Parents have duties to teach, protect, and allow the child, depending on the situation. The infant has the freedom to crawl and explore and get himself into dangerous positions. Parents have the duty to teach the boundaries of freedom and to enforce the rules of the house. Freedom and independence are two different things. An infant can be perfectly free to explore and grow, while still being dependant on his parents. Independence comes (hopefully) when you understand how to mindfully exercise your freedom without hands on parenting.
Neither does emotion, reasoning, thinking, et. al. define the value of personhood. Since we cannot define the exact moment an embryo/fetus arrives at those points, we are left with a sliding scale. If an in-womb sliding scale establishes personhood, then the logical extension of that sliding scale would be to define the value of a born person by IQ, or athletic ability, or street smarts. And, if we are willing to destroy life via stem cell research or abortion on the front end, we become numb to ending life on the back end. On both ends, those willing to end life do so without the guidance of an exact, universally recognized, beginning or end point to personhood. Absent that definitive marker, mistakes will be made...WILL not MIGHT. And, from my standpoint, there is no common greater good to justify allowing for the mistakes.
With regard to which Holy book, well that brings us back to the theological. But, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists and many, if not most (excluding far eastern religions like Taoism) world religions acknowledge the Bible (Old Testament) as Scripture, either solely (Jews) or as part of their Holy writings. When David talks about God knowing him from before he was conceived, most world religions would take that to mean that, from the moment of conception, the human spirit comes to dwell in the newly conceived person. So, I believe you can compare all the "holy books" you want. You will find a faith-based consensus for when personhood begins. That would cause most people to believe that, regardless of the gestation-to-date of John and Jesus, they were, at the time of this account, persons inside their mothers. Many would not consider the New Testament as Scripture, but few would debate my point about the story.
And, forgive me, but it's far too Spock-like for me to accept your premise that the only option for interface we have is reasoning. The thought of a totally reasonable, intellect driven world makes me want to weep. Where's the emotion? Based on history, there is no reason to be a Cubs fan, yet I wouldn't deprive anyone the emotions (high or low) of rooting. The Red Sox proved that. Intellect played no role in me falling in love with my wife 23 years ago. Seems to have worked out OK. More seriously, medical science and reasoning told my wife's parents that the 3 month pre-mature baby her mom delivered would never live more than a week. That baby, my wife's younger sister, is now 33 years old, married with a 2 year old son and another on the way. She started her life outside the womb no bigger than the palm of my hand, given no chance to survive.
Science and reason were wrong. Faith and hope and love and emotion were right. Weep for my worldview if you'd like. It is you I feel sorry for.
God's blessings (I hope you'll seek them)
ST
This is my response today.
Mr. Thomas,
I try not to engage in speciesist discrimination when it comes to intelligence and emotional sensitivity such as that found in lovely creatures like dolphins or elephants. However, I agree that humans are qualitatively distinct from anything that exists so far. Although there is not just one distinction of that difference simple enough to be a radio show sound bite, the number of measurable factors are clear. Why do you consider a spirit one of those factors? You ask how I would prove the presence of a spirit. I'm glad you asked! How would anyone? What do you use to empirically measure the presence or absence of a spirit in a living species that another living species lacks? I can detect the presence of mind and volition. But "spirit," as defined by biblical literalists, is a substance that makes no first-hand observable difference so it has to be taken entirely on faith. So I doubt you would use it as a synonym for mentality, or even emotion like "school spirit."
I can't speak for all Transhumanists (may I call it TH for short?), but I have found some advocates of human enhancement technologies who come from a religious or spiritual perspective. However, being a TH tends to correlate strongly with being a secularist, and could be considered an upgrade to Secular Humanism, which recognizes no realm outside of empirical cause-and-effect. That's my position. For me to assert this before I have provided my evidence, is not intended to persuade at this stage, but merely for your information about this demographic.
You gave examples of people who are in danger of being deemed somehow "inferior" by others. But don't they each place a value on their own life? That's where the value of a life comes from, and that's the only opinion that matters about its worth. We should recognize that the value we subjectively place on our own lives is on no different a footing than the value others subjectively place on their own lives. TH in North America tends to be individualist and anti-authoritarian, both on this topic and politically, favoring small government and no coercion in the affairs of an individual. THs in Europe are slightly less so, since they tend to favor the welfare state and universal health care. In either case, we are dead-set against eugenics programs that would force anyone to transition into post-humanity just as much as we oppose restrictions that would force people to remain human. In TH the individual is intended to be the sole arbiter to improve on one's own body by one's own standard.
They are not the slavish property of a god to grant life and take it away. The top of TH's research agenda is to cure aging and all disease to postpone death indefinitely. This begins with current research into telomeres on the genetic codes with which nature provided you and me. It counts down to cause cells to wear out and cease regenerating, which is mostly why we age. This ticking time-bomb is the result of blind and indifferent nature, but if it were the work of a creator then such a being would be either incompetent or murderous. We hope to take the power of life and death away from the cruelty of nature to place the choice in the hands of each individual to make for one's self. We dream of a world in which no one need ever die an involuntary death again.
Hope is important to a TH. I have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that technology will extend the human health-span in time to save me. So I have to cross my fingers and just contribute to funding the research to improve the odds. You equated hope with faith, but hoping is not claiming to know. If you think you know, you don't need to hope.
I advise you not to offer me reasons as a premise an attempt to discredit reason. You may not realize that in so doing you would be discrediting your own premise. The show you reference, Star Trek, has done a disservice to our culture in its message that reasonability and emotion are mutually exclusive. I have not suggested that anyone disregard or surpress their feelings. Faith and emotion are two different things. Faith and reason are attempts at the truth-finding process. Emotion reacts to that which is found, and serves as motivation. Reason and emotion are very poor at doing each other's jobs in these separate domains. The fact remains that a person of a different religion cannot beam faith waves into your head just like you can't beam it into theirs. Faith is unaccountable to reason, so they can't sit down and reason with you as we are doing now.
The skeptic objects to antagonism toward evidence because it is an outrage. The most important reason that you may not exempt yourself from following evidence wherever it leads is that rational discourse is the only moral means of settling disputes. If A claims "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," and B claims "Allah said something that contradicts A, I believe it, and that settles it," then nothing is settled. Faith is the victory that overcomes the world in the same way that victory in a chess match means petulantly kicking over the table and demanding the prize.
Further, how does playing intentional mind games on oneself advance the holy cause? Will your children grow up to realize you have betrayed them in this way, as I did? Unrepentantly admitting and endorsing rejection of evidence implies "no-contest" not only to followers of contradictory religions, but to every shade of paranormal crackpot. Without that "no contest," faith serves as a double standard rendering your evangelism hypocritical: you are not accountable to evidence but you will hold others to it.
-Matt