Peter singer? Singer is a founding member of the Great Ape Project, which seeks to persuade the United Nations to adopt a Declaration on Great Apes awarding personhood to non-human great apes.

chrisd:

Peter singer? Singer is a founding member of the Great Ape Project, which seeks to persuade the United Nations to adopt a Declaration on Great Apes awarding personhood to non-human great apes.

I think his opinions on animal liberation are a bit extreme, but I do support this, even though I'm not going to actively campaign for it (amongst others because I see ethical deliemma's when it comes to medical research)

Singer proposes that anyone able to help the poor should donate at least 10% of their income to aid poverty and similar efforts. Of course there is a religeous attitude in him especially considering he is Jewish. I don't like that sort of thing.

medical research eh. I agree with it

chrisd:

Singer proposes that anyone able to help the poor should donate at least 10% of their income to aid poverty and similar efforts. Of course there is a religeous attitude in him especially considering he is Jewish. I don't like that sort of thing.

As I said, he is a tad extreme, but he is consequently ethical.

To say that medical research and genetic engineering is unacceptable across the board because of its potential for creating some ethical dilemmas is the most unethical stance of all. It's to basically say, here is a powerful approach which could alleviate human suffering, but we're not going to do it because we're worried about the misuses that might occur, I find that completely unacceptable from every possible point of view. Most profoundly, the utilitarian one.

What it does do is to require us to assume some responsibility for deciding which kinds of genetic engineering and medical research are, in fact, consistent with healing the sick, and which kinds are putting us in a troubling direction where we'd best not go. And that is obviously where the debates begin to get underway.

There are wonderful opportunities, to take a cell of some sort and convince it to sort of go back in time, and then back forward to become a different kind of tissue for transplantation, for instance. This may be a very significant advance. I obviously feel there's a real need for lots of people to be better informed about these scientific issues.

It's not good to have zeal without knowledge. I think in these debates, there's been, at times, a tendency for a lot of zeal, and not as much knowledge as there needed to be. I think the scientists need to get a better grasp on what it is that people are concerned about.

From the other side, I think people, if they're going to have a credible contribution to these very important debates, they have to be brought up to speed on what the information really is and what it isn't. And the good news is, these things are not all that complicated. People assume that it is but, you know, it's really very simple stuff. A modest investment will get you a long way in understanding the issues.

So we agree that extremism can come from both sides right. I think we agree on this one.

Cool down, chrisd,

I find Singer thought provoking and I follow his reasoning to a certain extent, but he is just too consequent for my taste (I'm coming out of a Catholic country, after all ).

To set the record straight:
1. I am not against medical research, even where it involves using primates or other apes
2. I am all for genetic engineering. I don't think there is no fundamental difference with natural evolutionary processes working
3. Ethical considerations on medical research should never be driven by a priori's but rather by the consequences of the research in se, not it's potential negative applications
4. There are other elements where irrational attitudes drive the public opinion, e.g. nuclear energy, genetically modified crops. This is why I stopped my membership of Greenpeace

So many long posts.

@Topic:

As regards Seun's first post, let me ask this question.

Knowing that you can only have one of these two options, which would you choose? =>

Freedom of Choice or Freedom from suffering ??

Freedom from suffering. Definitely

Is there a reason that you would have to choose?

Freedom from suffering.. I see.

But then, there will be no freewill. God is not the type that forces us down on a particular path, rather, he allows us to choose the way we go. That explains why there is suffering in the world today. We all want to live our lives, our own way, yet, we want suffering to stop. How possible is that, knowing the normal human nature?

Goodguy, you keep on repeating the same tired argument. Free will is incompatible with an omniscient God.
And even if free will would miraculously solve the problem of moral evil, it still does not account for the natural evil in the world (as opposed to the moral evil)

Point of correction: I have never engaged in any debates concerning freewill on this land, though I might have participated in such topics.

Now back to the topic:

Actually, someone like Seun who was once a believer will be in a better position to understand my point here.  I have read your arguments on freewill and I see that you make a lot of sense.  If I'm not mistaken, your arguments were based on fate/destiny and freewill. I really didn't have anything to say, that was why I decided to not to contribute.

But now, we aren't talking of destiny or fate here so I really would like you to explain what you mean by, "Free will is incompatible with an omniscient God" before I go on with my arguments.

Where is Seun?

"Free will is incompatible with an omniscient God"

Stop telling God what to do.

He better not know everthing as I think he will get pretty bored with some of the discussions here. It's like a sys admin, he can know lot of things but do you think a sys admin, actually does that. Who cares.

goodguy:

Point of correction: I have never engaged in any debates concerning freewill on this land, though I might have participated in such topics.

I wasn't saying you were the one introducing the argument. It's only that this is the ultimate objection of theists when confronted with the problem of evil: free will

goodguy:

Now back to the topic:

Actually, someone like Seun who was once a believer will be in a better position to understand my point here. I have read your arguments on freewill and I see that you make a lot of sense. If I'm not mistaken, your arguments were based on fate/destiny and freewill. I really didn't have anything to say, that was why I decided to not to contribute.

That was the source of the argument, b
ut the same argument still aplplies to this case

goodguy:

But now, we aren't talking of destiny or fate here so I really would like you to explain what you mean by, "Free will is incompatible with an omniscient God" before I go on with my arguments.

Ok, I will try the condensed version (once more):
Omniscience means all seeing, including the future
knowledge of future events means that there is no other action possible than the one God is seeing beforehand
no other action possible equals predestination
predestination contradicts free will

chrisd:

"Free will is incompatible with an omniscient God"

Stop telling God what to do.

What on earth are you saying here?

As nicetohave always says, we need to deviate a little in order to prove our points.

I'm trying as much as possible to stay on track with Seun's first post, that is, the reason why he stopped believing. Let's not deviate into "predestination", as that does not have anything to do with the discussion at hand.

In reference to Seun's post now;

If we're to clearly understand why God allows suffering, we must squarely face another important question - How can we have true freedom of choice and still gain freedom from suffering? We desperately want both, but are both possible at the same time?

goodguy, you asked me to explain why Free will is incompatible with an omniscient God. Don't tell me that I am the one deviating. You explicitely asked me to explain.

I asked you to explain but I wasn't expecting you to digress into predestination. That was why I said we should not deviate.

Anyway, let's go back to the topic.

goodguy:

I asked you to explain but I wasn't expecting you to digress into predestination. That was why I said we should not deviate.

Predestination [b]is [/b]part of that explanation
Topically, yes, please answer. Are both possile?

It seems here what people are interested in is either proving God exists, or God does not exist. Or proving he does not have this attribute or not. A bit crazy.

chrisd:

It seems here what people are interested in is either proving God exists, or God does not exist. Or proving he does not have this attribute or not. A bit crazy.

If some people come up with silly reasons for their God belief, I do like to point out what exactly is silly about these reasons. You have probably noticed that I have not called you on your God belief. What you have currently explained is reaonable, unnecessary perhaps, but still reasonable.

You have a point there,

I mean, even on religous aspects, both persons in that faith, from other faiths and anyone who has any interest in what's happening in the world, to try to understanding and investigate what it is all about. Most people believe so many wonderful things that is good to investigate why they do.

People who claim that other religions are totally wrong.
People who say all religions are equally true often mean that all religions are equally false – that none of them conveys any factual information about God, that all are just fluff and warm feelings.

It sounds charitable and fair to say all religions are equally good – until you think about it. What would we think of a geologist who said, "Some people believe the world is round and some believe the world is flat, and I think we should let everyone choose the belief with which he is most comfortable"? Would you say he’s an exceptionally wise and tolerant geologist?

Sometimes I think that being fair and accepting all points of view, is not so ggod. Hovever, I agree that all religions deserve equal protection under the law, not because I believe all religions are equally true, but because whenever government gets involved in prescribing religion for people it messes everthing up.

Look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since, there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell.

The point here is that you need to look at what your source of knowledge is and what your criteria for truth are. You accept your God belief to be true, even though you lack the evidence for your position. You take it by faith. This is an irrational position.
Its is not necessarily wrong and neither is it objectionable, but it is irrational nonetheless

Consider love and music, they are also irrational. That does not make them wrong or untrue. I mean, you really think I am an irrational man about being Catholic. I don't think so, if one believes more what religion teaches than just for the sake of tradition. I am not that stupid.

chrisd:

Consider love and music, they are also irrational. That does not make them wrong or untrue. I mean, you really think I am an irrational man about being Catholic. I don't think so, if one believes more what religion teaches than just for the sake of tradition. I am not that stupid.

Point taken, the trueness lies in the value it gives you.
If you analyse what the religion teaches you, then you will come to the conclusion that that knowledge is not dependent on your religion. A lot of these values are universal human values. And if you take the Bible as a source, then you would still need to discard those portions that contradict your values

Of course if something is silly, I certainly would not accept that. I mean, I read a lot of works not only christian. Tolstoy "The Kingdom of God is within you" is good and some buddist texts which make sense.

nferyn:

Topically, yes, please answer. Are both possile?

How possible is that? Freedom of Choice and Freedom from suffering? Can they really go together? (You will have to assume God exists in order to answer this appropriately).

Expand your argument, goodguy. I'm waiting

How possible is that? Freedom of Choice and Freedom from suffering? Can they really go together? (You will have to assume God exists in order to answer this appropriately).

Let's talk reality here, and not what's possible. A moral code for Physicists, "Don't confuse what is possible with what is probable"
What there is, is Freedom of Choice. Freedom from suffering? I don't think so.