explain atheists' fear of religion? — Apollodorus

It's not the fear of religion per se. Rather it a fear of what religious people do in the name of their religion.

Speaking as a non-religious Jew living in the US, I am very glad that I am living in a place & time where the worst thing likely to happen to me is some social awkwardness. But around the world there are literally millions of people who - given the opportunity - would have no compunction about killing me and my family simply because of the religion of my grandparents.

I have no problem with people being religious. I have seen first hand how it is a source of comfort and how it helps people figure out how to live their lives in difficult situations. But organized religion is responsible for untold suffering throughout history.

Social policy has to be reasonably consistent.

So according to you there are no legal consequences for a woman to murder her unborn child by any means - morning after pill, abortifacient, actual abortion, etc. But she should get the the most severe punishment legally allowed for murdering her born child. Yet according to you the unborn child is every bit a person as the born child.

How you hold these two contradictory positions in your mind is something I do not understand.

Our conversation is going around in circles. I'll repeat myself one more time. You have a very firm belief on this topic and I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm simply trying to help you understand the implications of your beliefs.

You are one very confused person. My only hope is that in the fullness of time you will figure this out.

I give you the last word.

I think it's far wiser to let women deal with their consciences on their own after an abortion — Gregory

This is a philosophy forum. If you wish to present a position it is not sufficient to say "it is far wiser" - you need to provide some justification.

If a woman were to take her born child and hold it down on a table struggling while letting someone else slice open it's stomach and let it bleed to death, then surely that woman (and the other person involved) is committing murder and should suffer the severest penalty possible

But yet in your opinion there are no legal consequences for a woman to kill her unborn child. Why? Why is it far wiser?

If they think their actions will lead to a situation where they reasonably need to let embryos die then that should be illegal. — Gregory

It's not about what "they think". If "they" are evil Nazis who do not believe in Zygote Personhood and think that their actions will merely lead to destroying a clump of cells - does that make it OK in your book? Of course not. IVF almost inevitably leads to the destroying embryos. I gave you the links.

So I put it to you again. Per your belief system, IVF should be made illegal - and anyone who knowingly engages in the procedure should be put to death.

Meanwhile:

Women and men are not the same. If a man is talking and the woman suddenly kisses him, that is not sexual assault. The other way around it is sexual assault. They are different creatures — Gregory

This is too funny. How about if a man kisses another man or a woman kisses another woman? is that sexual assault? If you seriously believe that, I suggest you open up a new topic and see the responses you get.

But beyond that, WTF does this have to do with abortion? Are you somehow implying that woman are weak creatures and should not be held responsible for their actions?

IVF leads to death. This is a well proven fact. it leads to millions of deaths. — EricH
Then it's wrong. — Gregory

Sorry, I'm not following your last response. Are you:

A) Changing your mind and now agreeing IVF should be outlawed because it leads to death?
OR
B) Saying that it's wrong but it should still be permitted?

I wasn't talking to you, but I'll try one more time.

As for frozen embryos, you just don't make ones you plan to kill and if you have too many you let some die. — Gregory

IVF leads to death. This is a well proven fact. it leads to millions of deaths.

We shouldn't do it if it leads to deaths. I — Gregory

Make up your mind. IVF leads to deaths. You say we shouldn't do it if it leads to deaths. The only logical conclusion is that IVF should be made illegal.

And if women are not punished for having abortions, then you are giving them tacit approval - there is no consequence for the woman. A woman can have as many abortions as she wants.

I am not trying to change your mind about Zygote Person hood - I have no illusions on that. I'm simply trying to get you to acknowledge your inconsistencies. Now it is not the end of the world to be consistent. Thoreau's famous quote comes to mind: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." But it is intellectually dishonest to deny the inconsistency.

You have completely mistaken my position. If you read through the exchange between @Gregory and me, what I have been doing is echoing @Gregorys position back at him.

E.g., here

He believes in Zygote Person-hood. I.e., the moment a sperm & egg fuse - that single cell organism (AKA zygote) is legally a human being - and any attempt to prevent the zygote or blastocyst from implanting in a woman's uterus is murder - it is no different than if you were to go into a maternity ward, garb a newborn by the legs and bash its skull on the floor.

However his position is wildly inconsistent, because he is OK with IVF - a process which inevitably leads to killing unused embryos which (again according to him) are human beings.

He is also wildly inconsistent in how he would treat people involved in abortions. He calls for the death penalty for the doctor (or person) performing the abortion, but there is no punishment for the woman - who is equally responsible for committing (again according to his belief) murder.

There is no point in trying to talk him out of his belief. He's locked in. The only thing you can do is to point out the logical consequences of such a belief.

As for frozen embryos, you just don't make ones you plan to kill and if you have too many you let some die. — Gregory

So under some situations it's OK to kill your children by "letting some die" (which is simply a euphemism for murder). Got it. And there is no punishment for a woman who murders her child via abortion. Got it.

Thank you for the intelligent response. It appears to me that we're more or less on the same side of this particular discussion - namely that the OP does not make much sense. My analysis was more informal - yours is clearly grounded in a deeper knowledge of math.

The term "classical logic" is a bit vague, — EricH
Classical logic is exactly formalized. It's not vague. — TonesInDeepFreeze

One question for you - when I said "the term classical logic is a bit vague" - I was referring to the way it was used in the OP. In my response, I pointed to the SEP article on Classical Logic Is this your understanding of the term classical logic? If not, could you point me in the right direction?

Suggest you try to follow what @TonesInDeepFreeze is saying - they have deep knowledge of this topic.

Perhaps a naive notion here, but whether a statements/procedure can take a value or true or false depends on the context. I apologize in advance if I am going over stuff that you are familiar with.

1) Factual statements
Are we making a statement about the real physical world (AKA Kant's nuomenal world, existence, the universe, reality, everything that is the case, etc)? Not sure what country you're from, but in the USA if you give testimony in a court of law you swear to tell the truth - which basically means that if a statement accurately (or as accurately as possible) describes an event in the real world, then it is true. This is the correspondence theory of truth.

With this in mind, the sentence/proposition "This sentence is false" does not describe any event in the real physical world, and as such it cannot be assigned a truth value.

2) Logical/Mathematical Statements/propositions
Logic/math statements do not refer to any event (real or hypothetical) in the physical universe, but are only true or false depending on the rules within the particular mathematical/logical system framework being used. While there are many such frameworks, at the risk of over simplifying each of these logical frameworks works in a similar fashion. You start off with axioms which are defined to be true within the particular logical framework you are working in - and then you have rules for generating other statements. For example, here are the axioms for Peano Arithmetic. I am not an expert in this, but there are many people on this forum who are highly knowledgeable and might provide you with more details.

So now the question here is, within what logical framework are we asserting the proposition "This sentence is false"? You said it is a "paradox of classical logic". The term "classical logic" is a bit vague, but here is the SEP article on Classical Logic Perhaps there is a way to translate the sentence into classical logic syntax (it's beyond my capabilities) but I'm reasonably confident that even if the sentence could be formulated it would have a value of false


Put differently, the sentence "This sentence is false" does not express a coherent thought and thus cannot take a truth value. There are many examples of nonsense sentences in the philosophical literature. "Quadruplicity drinks procrastination". "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." We recognize that these sentences are grammatically correct and we also recognize that they are nonsense sentences. So there is no need to construct an elaborate logic system to handle such statements.

But maybe I'm missing your point altogether.

Letting fertilized eggs die outside the womb is not killing them. — Gregory

If there is some way to save the embryos we must do it instead of taking away what we give to it for it to live — Gregory

If you were to leave a newborn infant unattended, it will die a painful death in a few days. If you leave an embryo unattended it will perish shortly.

For the moment let's forget about the millions of frozen embryos. There is nothing anyone can do about it, they will never be implanted and while you can postpone it , they will eventually all be killed.

So let's ask a different question. How can this holocaust be prevented moving forward?

I am not an expert in IVF, but from what I have read, under the current technology there is no way to prevent at least some of the embryos from being killed. It is in the nature of the procedure; multiple embryos must be created because not all of them turn out to be suitable for implantation - and the unsuitable embryos are killed.

So I put it to you, the only way to prevent this mass murder is to outlaw IVF. Now you might say that if IVF procedures could be improved to the point where all embryos are implanted, you could pass such a law - "All embryos must be implanted". But to get to this point you would have to do further research - and there is no way you could do such research without doing extensive testing - and such testing would inevitably involve killing embryos.

So, I put it to you that if you truly want to embed zygote personhood into a country's legal system - then IVF must be outlawed.

- - - - - - - -
But all of that aside, IVF is really a minor side issue. Here's my next question:

and have capital punishment for the doctor (and him alone) for illegal abortions — Gregory

This is selective punishment. Any punishment for the abortionist must apply equally to the woman. Take this example: you and I agree to murder someone. I grab the person from behind and seize their hands so they cannot defend themselves - and then you stick the knife into their heart. Even tho I did not perform the final act of killing, I am equally responsible for the murder.

A woman goes voluntarily into an abortion clinic, holds down here helpless child, and lets the abortionist rip her child out of her uterus and kill it. The woman and abortionist are equally responsible for this murder and must be punished equally.

But it goes beyond that. If a murder is committed in the course of a bank robbery, the driver of the getaway car is equally responsible for that murder (at least that's my understanding of US law). So if you knowingly and voluntarily assist in any way this murder - if you drive the woman to the abortionist, if you give the woman money to have the abortion, if you work in the clinic (receptionist, assistant, etc) - you are committing 1st degree murder and must be punished accordingly.

- - - -- - - - - -
As an aside, I generally try to avoid getting personal in these discussions and just deal with the issues, but it is revealing that you used the masculine pronoun for the doctor. There are female doctors.

Hey, EricH, now you and I are BOTH Nazis! If you're not too busy tomorrow, shall we invade Poland? — Herg

Ha! That got a laugh out of me. But no - I don't get the impression he's a troll - I think he sincerely believes what he says. I get the appeal of zygote personhood - it's simple to understand plus you get to be self righteous and lecture people on how bad they are.

Once a zygote is formed human DNA is activated as a human being. — Gregory

It is not the same thing, as I've explained. — Gregory

What you did is to avoid any explanation. Per your definition, the millions of frozen embryos are human beings - yet you have no problem with killing them. Yet preventing a blastocyst from implanting in a woman's uterus is murder.

Morning after pills have been explained to me as killing the being once it's DNA is activated and so is truly a zygote. — Gregory

You have been misinformed. Morning after pills do not destroy the blastocyst. They either prevent fertilization - OR - they prevent the blastocyst from implanting in the woman's uterus. In the former case, there is no zygote, so in your world - AFAICT - that's OK. In the later case the blastocyst gets flushed out of the woman's body by normal body processes. It is in this second situation that I'm trying to understand your position.

You don't have to take my word for it. Here is an explanation by the anti-abortion American Life League

So once again - you say you are OK with thawing out frozen embryos (which typically have several hundred cells and are more developed than the blastocyst) and letting them die. So then you should be OK with preventing the blastocyst from implanting in a woman's womb. From the perspective of the blastocyst/embryo it's the same thing.

Or maybe not. There are alternate explanations. Perhaps you feel that the little frozen embryos are not truly human beings since they have been artificially created, and thus it's OK to destroy them? Or perhaps you feel that the little IVF embryos are not really alive unless they are inside a woman's body, and thus again it's OK to destroy them?

Note that all these books and articles, and others like them, are intended for mainstream audiences. So these authors are physicists who understand the physics; and who also believe that it IS the business of the public to make informed judgments on the validity of the work currently being done by the physicists. — fishfry

Certainly. if someone wants to spend a billion dollars to create a perpetual motion machine or to prove once and for all that the earth is flat, then the public can reasonably say that this is a waste of money. But this line of discussion is not what the OP is talking about. The OP is about TPF being cluttered up with "Stupid Physics" posts.

Morning after pills have been explained to me as killing the being once it's DNA is activated and so is truly a zygote. — Gregory

You have been misinformed. Morning after pills to not destroy the blastocyte. They either prevent fertilization - OR - they prevent the blastocyte from impanting in the woman's uterus. In the former case, there is no zygote, so in your world - AFAICT - that's OK. In the later case the blastocyte gets flushed out of the woman's body by normal body processes. The woman is respectfully putting the blastocyte somewhere to die It is in this second situation that I'm trying to understand your position.

You don't have to take my word for it. Here is an explanation by the anti-abortion American Life League

So once again - you say you are OK with thawing out frozen embryos (which typically have several hundred cells and are more developed than the blastocyte) and letting them die. So then you should be OK with preventing the blastocyte from implanting in a woman's womb. As you put it

Or maybe not. Perhaps you feel that the little frozen embryos are not truly human beings since they have been artificially created, and thus it's OK to destroy them? Or perhaps you feel that the little embryos are not really alive unless they are inside a woman's body, and thus again it's OK to destroy them?

I'm not trying to be insulting, it sounds from your response that you do not know what a blastocyst is.

The morning after pills - which you have stated are equivalent to murder - prevent the blastocyst from embedding in a woman's uterine wall - and thus prevents pregnancy.

Why is preventing the blastocyst from implanting in a woman's uterus murder, but thawing out an embryo and letting the life slowly (or quickly) seep out of it acceptable. What is the difference?

So is thawing out the embryos (and doing nothing else) equivalent to respectfully putting it somewhere to die. OK, an answer.

Next question, what is the moral difference between taking a medication that prevents a blastocyst from embedding in a woman's uterus and thawing out a frozen embryo and letting it die?

In the former, the woman is simply putting the blastocyst somewhere to die.

Why is the second scenario morally acceptable, but the first is murder?

I think this is a small example of a larger problem - the inability to accept reality.

Reality deniers come in many shapes & sizes: Vaccines, the Holocaust, Flat Earth, climate change, etc.

I wish I knew what causes this. I have close relatives & friends who deny at least one (and typically many) aspects of reality. My amateur psychologist analysis is that this is partly driven by fear. The way they view themselves and how they fit into the world is being challenged. And they are afraid of that change.

And the thing is - they are not stupid people. You can have intelligent conversations with them on any number of issues, you can share laughter & tears, etc.

And then - whoo-hoo . . . . . . . ! They dive off into outer space somewhere.

Now back to your question. The "bad physics people" phenomena is a relatively (pun intended) minor example compared to flat earth folk. And in this particular case case I share the sentiments of other responders that there is more than a touch of Dunning-Kruger mixed in . . .

Respectfully putting them somewhere to die is not the same as stepping on them — Gregory

So is thawing out the embryos (and doing nothing else) equivalent to

A) Respectfully putting them somewhere to die , OR
B) Stepping on them

There a difference between allowing to die and killing. The doctors can work out how they want to do this in a human way very easily — Gregory

Is thawing out embryos allowing them to die or is it killing?

Your answer is still not clear, so I'll try again. Do you think we should keep millions of embryos frozen for all eternity? Please choose one of the two options below.

A) Yes - we must keep millions of embryos frozen for all eternity - and laws must be passed to insure this.
B) No - It may be necessary at some point to unfreeze them and thus (using your terminology) murder them. E.g., the clinic goes bankrupt and no one is willing to pay to keep them frozen. Note that I'm not implying that this a good outcome.

Actually, there is a third option - namely (a la the Catholic Church) that in vitro fertilization should be illegal - but since you have had ample opportunity to state that and have not, I assume you are OK with IVF.

Again, I am not criticizing your position. But there are far reaching policy decisions to be made if a country is to incorporate zygote personhood into its' legal system. This has to be thought though..

Your response was not clear so just confirming. If I'm following you, you think we should keep millions of embryos frozen for all eternity. Am I understanding you correctly?

As predicted, you cannot answer this one simple question. Our discussion has now looped around three times with me asking a question and you giving me non-answers and/or attempting to switch the dialogue.

I don't have the bandwidth to engage you further, my real life activities are much higher priority. I give you the last word . . .

I'll try a different tactic. Once again your point #8:

8 With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness? — 3017amen

The plain language reading of this is that you are claiming that religion is a natural science. If my reading of this is incorrect and, as @180 Proof hypothesized, you are simply making some sort of analogy? Then please explain what you actually mean.

BUT - if my plain language reading is accurate- that religion is a type or form or subset of natural science, then I disagree. Religion - all religions - are based on supernatural claims which are outside the realm/discourse of what science (let alone natural science) deals with. Science does not deal with supernatural claims.

Again, I'm only talking about your point #8. If you feel the urge to bring in anything from points #1 thru #7, please resist that urge and proceed directly to point #8.

Also, this is not a criticism of religion or people being religious. It is merely to make clear that religion is not a natural science. Please limit your response to this one narrow topic only.

I tried but I find that interpretation a real stretch. But if indeed that's what the OP is trying to say, then they could/should simply say it. E.g.,

I was comparing the prospect of "philosophy and science" collaborating on consciousness to (i.e. "like") that of the late Scholastic, early Enlightenment collaboration-rivalry of "religion and science" (i.e. natural theology and natural philosophy) on problems of cosmology. — 180 Proof

Or something equivalent.

Instead we get this non-answer

Natural science>life science>cognitive science>phenomenology>religion — 3017amen

I am not criticizing your stance. I am simply attempting to follow through on the implications of your position.

Are you opposed to in vitro fertilization (that would be a legitimat6e position to take)? If not, then are you OK with millions of partially developed human beings existing in a sort of unconscious limbo for all eternity? If not, what should happen?

Natural science>life science>cognitive science>phenomenology>religion — 3017amen

I have no idea what that means. Would you please clarify that? Thank you.

OK - I just wanted to be clear. You believe in zygote personhood (i.e., the zygote is a legally a person and any attempts to prevent the zygote from being implanted in the woman's womb is murder.).

So now I'm curious - what is your position regarding in vitro fertilization (IVF)? More specifically, what should be done with the left over human beings who are sitting around cryogenically frozen? Exact numbers are difficult to come by, but by at least one estimate there are 1.4 million in the US alone.

Is it murder to destroy a cryogenically frozen embryo? If yes, then what should be done with them?

With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness? — 3017amen

Can you kindly explain in what sense religion is a "natural/physical science"? Thank you.

If it was obvious we would not be having this discussion.

Are you OK with a woman taking a "morning after" pill to prevent the blastocyst from implanting in her womb?

If you want us to respect all human life then you need to be specific. When does human life begin? Is a zygote a person? A blastocyst? An embryo?

Here's a pertinent article: How Maxwell’s Demon Continues to Startle Scientists

Total state control over society, that's what people object to. — Apollodorus

Much of this discussion has been over the definition of the word socialism. Not trying to be flippant here. Is partial state control OK? If so, how much? What are the criteria for determining when there is too much state control?

In my wildest dreams I never imagined that I would agree with Bartricks on anything, but I think he's got a valid point here:

What the hell are you asking? — Bartricks

I would amend his question to also ask "To whom the hell are you asking this question?"

Funny you should bring this up. This was on my Facebook feed just a few days ago:

https://www.facebook.com/bbccomedy/posts/10157981561436778

Quote from a 1960s USA TV show. You'll have to find the rest yourself . . . :nerd:

So I'm just saying, "Ward, don't you think you're being a little hard on the Beaver?" — TonesInDeepFreeze

You realize that you have just outed yourself as being of a certain age . . . :razz:

The Australia path is a ticking time bomb in my opinion, it could go off at anytime in the future. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Not if the Australians have any say in the matter: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-australia/australia-begins-mass-covid-19-vaccination-programme-idUSKBN2AL0Q1