I am, granted, a bit undecided on the profundity and utility of this argument, but I find it one of the more entertaining ones, if I may, as it regards aesthetic judgments we use frequently in everyday life. Perhaps, it is those aesthetic implications within this argument which, in my mind, make the characterization of “entertaining” appropriate.
Aquinas states:
“The fourth way is taken from gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and less good, true, noble and the like. But ‘more’ and ‘less’ are predicated of different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is the hottest; so that there is something which is the truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is the uttermost being; for those things that are the greatest in truth are the greatest in being, as it is written in [Aristotle’s] Metaphysics ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all other beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.”
–Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I. ii. 3.
Quite briefly, we’ll take notice of the Argument From Cause being present in Aquinas’ explanation, and the prior causal exploration may help in illustrating how this works. In Aquinas’ statement here he speaks not only of causality for being but also of cause for the attributes within a thing. It is these attributes and adjectives where gradation is applied, and a relative relationship assumed.
Aquinas cites Aristotle, who wrote:
“It is right also that philosophy should be called knowledge of the truth. For the end of theoretical knowledge is truth, while that of practical knowledge is action (for even if they consider how things are, practical men do not study the eternal, but what is relative and in the present). Now we do not know a truth without its cause; and a thing has a quality in a higher degree than other things if in virtue of it the similar quality belongs to the other things as well (e.g. fire is the hottest of things; for it is the cause of the heat of all other things); so that [which] causes derivative truths to be true is most true. Hence the principles of eternal things must always be most true (for they are not merely sometimes true, nor is their any cause of their being, but they themselves are the cause of the being of other things), so that as each thing is in respect of being, so is it in respect of truth.”
–Aristotle, Metaphysics, II, 1.
Implicit in both Aquinas and Aristotle are a few forms of being, and each form has a truth value, based on an ability for change. A thing is labeled most true, or properly True, if it remains in a constant state, not affected, but producing an effect in everything else. A thing is less true if it is sometimes true and sometimes not, such as found in gradation. A thing might be more good or less good depending on a relative object, thus its attribution of good would be subject to change. This places it firmly in the plane of gradation. In addition, these imply something less true, or even never true, something impossible and by being impossible, unable to produce effect.
An example of one argument borrowing from Aquinas’ fourth way is called the Argument From Beauty. We will start from the premise of finding something beautiful in nature, say a mountain, glen, forest, or meadow. You might look at these things and say to yourself or another, “That is beautiful.” However, let us further suppose you are on a hike, and you encounter another scenic overlook, and you declare, “This is more beautiful than the other.” The Argument For Beauty states these words and distinctions have no meaning unless there is some ultimate beauty responsible for gifting beauty in other things and is therefore the most beautiful. These gradations of beauty and indeed other gradations wouldn’t exist if their maximum wasn’t found in something.
We might say there is not an ultimate object of gradation, and we need not recognize ultimate beauty, even if it did exist, since, after all, even the Bible suggests nobody has completely experienced it. Yet, Aquinas and Aristotle might argue there is a difference between the superficial relative judgments between two things and the implications of those judgments beyond the practical and present. A difference between temporary epistemological beauty and eternal ontological beauty. They reason these judgments would not exist without the ultimate beauty, truth, or what-have-you, existing, nor would we even be able to conceive of them without the source object of gradation giving them to us.
I suppose, regarding my own thoughts and initial impressions on the arguments from gradation and beauty in particular, I might well be in error. Some find the arguments from beauty to go quite beyond personal tastes to negatively afflict those who paradoxically find beauty in its absence. It may not be as harmless as it seems, though it could reasonably be pondered if it is the cause, or merely symptomatic. Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) saw this movement of the degeneracy of the arts arise and reasoned it falls in step with the state of culture and people. He dated the emergence of this to be parallel to the rise in prominence of the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).
William Lane Craig writes:
“According to Schaeffer, there can be traced in recent Western culture a ‘line of despair,’ which penetrates philosophy, literature, and the arts in succession. He believes the root of the problem lies in Hegelian philosophy, specifically in its denial of absolute truths….In Schaeffer’s view, Hegel’s system undermined the notion of particular absolute truths (such as ‘That act is morally wrong’ or ‘This painting is aesthetically ugly’) by synthesizing them into the whole. This denial of absolutes has gradually made its way through Western culture. In each case, it results in despair, because without absolutes man’s endeavors degenerate into absurdity. Schaeffer believes that the Theatre of The Absurd, abstract modern art, and modern music…are all indications of what happens below the line of despair.”
–William Lane Craig, “Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics.” Third Edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010. Page 70.
When regarding Aquinas’ five ways, the absence of the Moral Argument is glaring. There are numerous apologists, such as Frank Turek, who cite the Moral Argument as being one of the most important arguments for the existence of God today, and its absence from Aquinas’ five ways might seem as some sort of shortfall. It must be remembered, though, this argument wasn’t formally formulated until Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Kant didn’t seek to prove God’s existence by it, only His necessity for justifying morality. Yet gradation is not necessarily absent altogether either, since the Argument From Gradation does indeed specifically reference what is “good” and what is “noble.”
Immanuel Kant
While the Moral Argument does more than address its relative distinctions, as morally good, better, or worse, it does go beyond by reaching a God or Supreme Mind for the existence of moral judgments. Yet, in many of these arguments, say from Kant, C.S. Lewis, and Hastings Rashdall, who was purportedly the first to use the Moral Argument to construct a proof of God, they all use elements of gradation in their syllogisms and logical constructions.
In essence, extremes must exist for things to be judged on a spectrum, or through gradation. The true, good, and beautiful extreme is what we call God.
Thomas Aquinas’ third way to prove God states as follows:
“The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence, because that which does exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence–which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something existence of which is necessary. But not every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes [see Aquinas’ second way]. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.”
–Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I. ii. 3.
To help clarify the distinctions made by Thomas Aquinas in his third way, it may be helpful to categorize them briefly so the relationships between them can become clear. It will also show some overlap in the classifications:
Impossible Things: Things that cannot be thought to exist.
Possible Things: Things which may or may not be thought to exist.
Cogent Things: Things that are but may not be since they once were not, and thus are temporal.
Requisite Things: Things required to exist before a cogent thing so a cogent thing might be.
Necessary Things: Things that cannot be thought not to exist and must exist non-temporally.
That which is possible to be or not to be at one time was not.
Now, there are many possible things, and some may not be but, at the same time, aren’t logically impossible. Take for instance the mythological example of the unicorn. We know empirically the unicorn does not exist or is not a cogent thing, but it is a logically possible thing in the sense of the concept remaining free of anything self-contradictory or illogical. The proposition of a unicorn is a valid one, though its existence remains unsound. However, it remains a possible thing and the component parts of the concept occur within reality and are cogent things. A horn, a horse, hooves, and glitter, if you like, are all cogent things within the possible and imaginary thing we call a unicorn. The cogent things exist in reality, while a possible thing need not be. So, all cogent things are possible things, but not all possible things are cogent things.
There too are impossible things, those which are logically self-contradictory or go against the logical laws, like the law of identity. This we find in abstract concepts like a four-sided triangle. This object cannot exist in reality, nor can it even be conceived according to the laws of logic. So it is an impossible thing. While we can think of a triangle and square individually, an amalgamation is impossible since it trespasses against definitions.
That which exists only begins to exist by something else existing.
Requisite things are elements of causality and must exist prior to give cogent things their being. Requisite things themselves are cogent things and are needed for another cogent thing to come into being or existence. Then why this classification at all? We recall possible things are not always cogent things, though cogent things are always possible things. We could pose the question, what moves a possible thing to a cogent thing? Possibility moves to cogency by a requisite thing. Without these requisites being present cogency cannot be. We can also think of it in terms of cause and effect, how a cause produces an effect and the effect itself can become a cause when acting upon other things.
Hence, we arrive at a necessary thing, which Aquinas says is found in two forms: caused, and not caused by another. Since the former is merely reducible to a requisite thing (and a requisite thing need not necessarily be), then our focus is on an uncaused necessary thing, which is what we will mean when we say the term. It would be quite impossible for a necessary thing to owe its existence to anything else (thereby rendering it a mere requisite thing) since this would shift the “necessary” attribution to a previous thing which in itself would then become necessary. Simply, a necessary thing for our purposes is something where it would be impossible to conclude its non-existence and wouldn’t be temporal as cogent, possible, or requisite things.
It is the goal of Aquinas to show since God is possible (logically not impossible), and since there are cogent things, these cogent things, to move from possible to cogent, demand a requisite thing. Yet, not all things which are cannot be requisite things. We now ask how a requisite thing as a cogent thing can’t exist into infinity, and why a necessary thing must be concluded?
A requisite moves a possible thing to a cogent thing, but requisite things are reducible to cogent things and only become requisite by their existence prior to bringing cogency out of possibility. Indeed, everything other than what is a necessary thing or impossible thing is a possible thing.
Here we reach another distinction regarding what we mean by “possible.” We have what is logically possible, as our minds may consider something possible or not possible, and we have the metaphysical attributes of possibility within a thing. We see this distinction in a necessary thing insomuch it is logically possible, but it is argued metaphysically it is not merely possible, but necessary for all possible, cogent, or requisite things to exist.
If our universe is made up of things to be or may not have been, as indicated by their generation and corruptibility, our universe itself may not have been and at one time was not.
Nothing has a possibility without a cogent and requisite thing acting upon the possibility prior. But this cannot extend ad infinitum since possibility without cogency would amount to nothing beyond possibility. Yet, requisite things are cogent things, and we arrive at the same problem, a cogency without requisite would add nothing since at one time it was not, for as we see by possible things, and all existing things are possible things, if anything may or may not be, at one time it was not.
If our universe was not it would be impossible for anything to exist and by our own existence we see this to be absurd.
Even if it were possible, the start of the universe would not be able to create being, because if we say “start” we mean beginning, and if there was a beginning, at one time it was not, and would continue to not be, since a requisite thing would be not. Everything would remain as such without something acting upon it which is necessary and must be.
Therefore, an ultimate Necessary Cause, free of possibility, is needed to create all things. A necessary thing to move what may or may not be, which would be naught, into what is. This Ultimate Necessity is called God.
Of all the arguments for God’s existence, perhaps the most well-known is Aquinas’ Five Ways. His ways are listed as follows:
God’s existence can be proved by motion
God’s existence can be proved by cause
God’s existence can be proved from possibility to necessity
God’s existence can be proved from gradation
God’s existence can be proved by governance
This entry will reflect solely on the first two, the arguments from motion and cause.
Aquinas’ First Way: Argument From Motion
“The first…manifest way [to prove God] is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that toward which is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which ispotentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be atonce in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must need to be put in motion by another again. But this cannot go to infinity, because then there would be no first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands as God.”
–Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1.2.3.
It befits us to regard the first way as not just reasoning from the motion of physical bodies, but the motion from one state of being to another. Let us say p has the potential of becoming q. Now, this could not occur unless this transition is prompted by another agent, say r. We can say this motion is prompted by a thing which in turn causes the transition, and this cause of the transition is one the result will mimic. If q is the outcome, then the attributes of q in its motion from p will mimic or reflect the properties of r. In the example of heat, wood, and fire, wood only has the potentiality of being affected by heat, but if caught alight by means of spark or heat, it resembles and takes on some of the attributes of the heat and fire which existed prior. Even in terms of physical motion, this is played out when a body interacts with another body, transferring a like energy to the other which then produces motion in another, even to the point of stillness or inertia in the cause.
It seems a jump to then reason, ‘this process cannot go on forever, because there would be no first mover,’ which seemingly presupposes the First Mover’s existence and thus disassembles any sound proof since; the conclusion is presupposed in its proof. If left to this statement alone, we would be justified in the conclusion of its falsehood. There is the prompt however to ask, “Why can’t it go on to infinity?” We recall the movement argument talks not of the movement of bodies interacting solely, but a potential quality becoming actual within a thing. This cannot go on forever because there would be no first mover to bring actually in anything, for only potentiality would exist, and potentiality alone does not exist, or cannot exist, as it is bound as a product of actuality.
Thus, for the universe to form, an ultimate actual thing must exist which causes the movement from potentiality to actuality in everything else. Furthermore, we might reason an actual thing, must bring about an actual thing for potentiality to exist (as opposed to an actual thing bringing about a potential thing), for there must be some Actuality free from potentiality since what is potential requires first actuality to come into being, but if Actuality created mere potentiality then this would not allow for motion. Thus, it is reasonable an Actuality created actualities, that by these interactions of what is actual, potentiality would come into being. This Actuality, the Prime Mover of all movement, is what everyone calls God.
A visual aid might help in this understanding and will serve in clarifying not only the First Way but the Second Way, which is related to the First.
The Prime Mover must be a thing Actual so the universe may exist since potentiality alone is nothing if there is no preexisting actuality. Also, it follows, in the beginning, actual things must have been brought into being, not merely potentialities for the same reason. Mere potentiality wouldn’t bring about anything. Also, as seen, it requires multiple actualities for potentiality to exist through their interactions.
Therefore, for the sake of illustration, this chart would be impossible:
If it were the case, the Prime Mover created potentiality, it would go no further. It would remain in a state of nothingness, so while the first illustration continues ad infinitum, the second one would not, and wouldn’t result in anything.
The resulting eternal nothingness of created potentialities.
For the same reason, a potential Prime Mover is impossible:
An impossible flowchart, since everything after the Prime Potentiality would be negated.
Thus, we find the first illustration is the only means by which we can account for the universe’s existence, that there must be a Prime Mover who at the onset of the universe, set actualities into their place, that by their interaction, potentialities may become extant and bring about other actual things. This is why we can’t extend this back into infinity, and a Prime Mover is necessary.
Now we continue on to Aquinas’ Second Way.
Aquinas’ Second Way: Argument From Cause
“The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In a world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or be only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name God.”
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1.2.3.
The second way, Aquinas’ argument from causality, declares it empirically true and observable there exists a temporal element between cause and effect. It is clear a cause must come before an effect and though it may seem a cause and effect can exist simultaneously, it is diverged from by the temporal element. A cause can be an effect itself, but only when due to a prior cause, and this effect shifts from effect to cause when it produces an effect in something else. A process we see repeated ad infinitum. In this process, there are former efficient causes, the intermediate causes, and the ultimate cause, the latter being the last of the order. A notable thing about cause is it’s a necessary condition of any effect (which, as stated, could become the cause of another thing). It is impossible an effect would exist without cause. We see this as an obvious natural law.
If the universe has a cause for its being, then the universe as a whole is representative of an effect, and if the universe is an effect, or what might be called “caused,” it cannot be uncaused and a first cause must exist. It is impossible a “self-caused cause” could exist because it is self-contradictory and akin to saying the cause existed prior to itself. A self-caused effect cannot exist for the same reason, since it follows effect does not lead to cause, but cause leads to effect. It is quite easy to stretch the imagination to its limits and suppose an infinite chain of subsequent causality, but it is much more difficult to do so through infinite regress because of these natural considerations. Regardless, in the end, we must admit the existence of a First Cause, lest those who deny one exists stand in their own “god of the gaps” void.
This topic should be approached on two other grounds, one requiring an even more metaphysical level but will keep with the same notion of cause, and another applying this causality to the Argument From Motion for the sake of illustration (and perhaps to offer an explanation as to why some philosophers conclude Aquinas’ Five Ways aren’t really five ways since some are reducible to very similar arguments).
It is the nature of philosophy that even the lowliest of philosophical ponderers must apply a name to every idea, and being unable to resist the temptation, the first I will refer to as a Causal Argument of Sets. In logical form, suppose we state the whole of causality as cause and effect, with its temporal considerations intact in this manner:
{…c, e, c, e, c, e,…}
Within the brackets is represented the law of causality, cause, and effect, to infinity. Such an illustration might serve as an answer to someone who challenges, despite arguments of First Cause, it is so that causality has extended both into the past and into the future ad infinitum. Hence, a possible utility for this argument will be expanded on.
As mentioned, this is an obvious natural law. No phenomenon exists where someone doesn’t seek out a cause, know the cause, or suppose a cause. Psychologists have found causal relations in the mind, physicians within the body, and sociologists among trends and factions of society. The philosophy of determinism supposes causality in nature, in action, or even, in choice and thought. It seems this law is accepted on all fronts to some degree. In fact, I suggest there is no reason to declare otherwise when considering time itself. A moment in time, no matter how brief and minuscule, is dependent on time existing prior, and thus every current moment is in essence an effect with time prior being the cause. In a way, the effect of tomorrow depends on the cause of today.
As the Greek playwright Sophocles wrote:
“If anyone counts upon one day ahead or even more, he does not think. For there can be no tomorrow until we have safely passed the day that is with us still.”
–Sophocles. (1966). The Women of Trachis and Philoctetes. Translated by Robert Torrance. Houghton Mifflin
At any rate, is it reasonable for one to assume such a law sprang from nothing in and of itself or would be subject to the same principle found within the causal set? While there are many theories where the relationships within the set are not found necessarily outside the set, a metaphysical and philosophical law implies universality and if causality is found in certain things and not others it is not a metaphysical law. Thus, if this law, or any law, is said to exist, then it is bound by the same cause/effect relationship found within the set, and a First Cause is needed. This might be expressed as:
C -> {…c, e, c, e, c, e,…}
We simply restate this by saying there needs to be a Cause for causality. Interestingly, it becomes clear to see the attributes of God which the Bible attests to. Aquinas surprises by not only seeking to show God’s existence but His necessary attributes as well, for without them, nothing that was made could have been made, as the scriptures tell us:
John 1:3, “All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.”
It seems apparent, just like in Aquinas’ argument from motion, an infinite regress within the universe is impossible and the set needs to begin with a cause:
C -> {c, e, c, e, c, e,…}
It is impossible for a First Cause to produce the universe by effect at the beginning within the set, like so:
C -> {e, c, e, c, e, c,…}
This would not bring about anything since it is of the nature of things that cause brings about effect, while this would assume the opposite. This is where we can apply the former reasoning of the Aquinas’ First Way. An effect standing alone in the universe, if we could even accurately apply the term to begin with, is nothingness. It is only potentiality since an effect may be realized or not and could or could not be dependent on the existence of the former cause. Effects are not impossible things, nor are they necessary things, but are potential things. Thus, the building blocks of the universe could not have been made from potential effects, but from actuality. We apply the reasoning of actuality to potentiality in the Argument From Movement to cause and effect, with cause being actuality, and effect being potentiality. As actuality is the necessary condition for potentiality, so too is cause the necessary condition for effect. If there is no actuality or cause, there is no effect or potentiality.
Therefore, by our flowchart from before, it fits to put cause and effect in the place of, or alongside, actuality and potentiality. It is seen the First Cause could not have brought effects into proper being, but causes. Multiple causes must exist from the onset of the universe so that by their interaction the effects are made manifest and causality is put in motion as a universal law or first principle.
The set illustration helps us solve an additional problem we might face. If there is a First Cause then it is the case the universe is an effect, but cannot be started as an effect with its own laws, since it would need to exist before itself. Further, if the universe is an effect, it too is potential, but if it is a potential effect then it could not have been or could be. This leads reasonably well into the arguments for the need for the Personality of God, adding to the attributes Aquinas has already alluded to. A personal Being, of Pure Being, who made the choice to cause the universe to be. He is timeless, the Creator, and is Personable since the whole of the universe is only a potential effect.
With these considerations in place, our set may look like:
C -> E(c, e, c, e, c, e…)
What about God? Doesn’t this illustration leave room for God to be an effect? No, the First Cause (and True Actuality) would need to be timeless, which this model implies. True beginnings are not needed outside time, for there is no cause/effect relationship outside time since nothing can come before, nor after. Now doesn’t the universe being an effect imply time outside of the set, and thus both the First Cause and the effect of the First Cause are within time? Yes, but not in the same way we perceive it within the causal timeline set of the universe. The effect includes time within it. There is such a thing as meta-time or, say, a heavenly time, but by definition, it would have to differ and be more complete than our perceptions of time within our timeline.
We can see this by our inclusion in the causal set of the universe, which regulates us to being once removed through causality and kinship from the First Cause. This differs from the heavenly things inasmuch as they are created directly by the First Cause and owe their existence directly to God without a vast chain of regress. It is salvation that God uses to take man from being once removed to being in direct relation to Him by the eventual resurrection and renewal of all things through which God wants to bring back all removed from him. The Scripture makes clear the difficulty of the human mind in contemplating time as it refers to both the heavenly things and the true Eternal God.
Ecclesiastes 3:11; 14-15, “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from beginning to end….I perceived that whatever God does endures forever, nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear Him. That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away.”
“God seeks what has been driven away,” refers not only to original sin but the whole of the universe which currently stands as once removed that through the renewal of the world and the resurrection of man, all things will owe their being directly to God and be united in His presence once more.
Through the explorations of causality and movement themselves, the need for actual things and causes to be at the onset of the universe is clear. The set starts with multiple causes to bring effects into being. So there is no infinite regress of time. On the meta-level however, there are not multiple causes that need to exist to introduce effect, but a singular Cause for their being. Since this Cause must embody Being itself to impart being, as shown in the Argument From Motion, it extends to infinity both toward, say, the meta-past and forevermore. Among heavenly things, all point directly to God without the need for intermediate causes.
But who can fully understand?
2 Peter 3:8, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.”
The fifth-century Bishop of Ravenna highlighted the mysteries that confront us when he said:
“With God, beings who will be born are already born; with God future things have been made.”
–Peter Chrysologus
Another theologian wrote:
“We only see the system of Providence in the making, and not as a completed whole. Therefore, we can only discern the mere rudiments of what shall be; no complete or extensive knowledge being possible to us….We can only see, at a time, but an inconsiderable part of the ocean, so that we can never take a view of it as one great whole. In like matter the ways of God can only be seen in small portions. Their vastness overtakes our powers. Eternity casts upon the whole course of time the shadow of mystery. We have enough light to work by, but not enough for complete revelation. The creature of a day cannot be expected to grasp those vast designs stretching from creation to the final destiny of all things.”
–Thomas Henry Leale
There is only one sense where the existence of meta-time would lead to an infinite regress of causality, but only if we regarded meta-time, the time found among heavenly things, as the means by which our own timeline came into being. This is not what Judeo-Christian doctrine declares, as has, hopefully, been shown in this exploration.
As we contemplate a First Cause, a thing comprised of Being itself, then we have no infinite regress and this First Cause extends or exists unhindered by time and apart. It is fascinating to reflect on this as applied to Exodus 3:13-14, as God reveals Himself as “I AM,” which can be indicative of the attribute of God’s nature of being Pure Existence. Philosophers and theologians have long pondered the essence or the substance of God, and most, quite rationally, say it is unknowable. Yet, I posit, in part, God’s essence is one of Pure Being.
Exodus 3:13-14, “Then Moses said to God, ‘If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, “The God of your fathers has sent me to you,” and they ask me, “What is His name?” what shall I say to them?’ God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel: “I AM has sent me to you.”‘”
Jesus refers back to His divine timeless nature when he addressed the Jews in John 8:
John 8:58, “‘Very trulyI tell you,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I AM!'”
To simplify all created things must exist in time to some degree since there can be no subsequent or prior without time, and if the created heavenly things and beings were not created, then they would share a place with God which cannot be. So either set, whether in meta-time or our timeline, are ultimately dependent on a timeless First Cause though they differ regarding the presence of intermediate causes.
Can’t it be said the spark that set off the Big Bang existed outside time too? It can, but ironically enough for those who use this argument, it appears it was borrowed from theists, and clearly points to a supernatural origin of the universe. The strict philosophical materialist and the naturalist would be hard-pressed to admit the existence of such a supernatural origin, which is why, I suppose, this argument isn’t very popular, though it does spring up from time to time. It is far from being prominent, however.
Going back to The Causal Argument of Sets, it does one last thing by implying any law which is found in nature, must have been given or impressed upon nature by a Law-Giver. As we see causality as a law within the timeline set, we can fill the brackets with any law you please, laws of mathematics, logic, physics, gravity (as one physicist said laying all of existence at its feet), etc. These universal laws must be attributable to some cause, which denotes the intelligence found in the First Cause. The attributes of omnipotence and omnipresence aren’t ruled out either in the Causal Argument of Sets but are suggested or implied by more thought exercises.
To close out it suffice to say the first two of Aquinas’ ways do rather well in prompting us to behold some of God’s ways.
“[I]n the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulated and put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; for we enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil. For the Almighty God, Who, even as the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? In the bodies of animals disease and wounds mean nothing but the absence of health; for when a cure is effected, that does not mean that the evils which were present——namely, the diseases and wounds——go away from the body and dwell elsewhere: they altogether cease to exist; for the wound or disease is not a substance, but a defect in the fleshly substance——the flesh itself being a substance, and therefore something good, of which those evils——that is, privations of the good which we call health——are accidents. Just in the same way, what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good. And when they are cured, they are not transferred elsewhere: when they cease to exist in the healthy soul, they cannot exist anywhere else.“
–Augustine, Enchiridion: On Faith, Hope and Love, xi.
Augustine’s words require some careful examination and maybe, for contemporary ears, restatement or clarification. Certainly, and without much need of clarification, we have him discussing the appreciation of good in its absence, just as one may take light for granted until plunged into darkness. While this point is made and included in many partial answers to the problem from evil, overall it lacks any real place in a systematic answer to the problem from evil, for the problem addresses the existence of evil proper, rather than merely how it is relative to good.
Augustine says it is the nature of God by definition so much so the heathen or unbeliever acknowledge, He exercises a supreme power over all things. In complete unity with this omnipotence, would He necessarily be supremely good, and given such, it is reasoned, God would not allow anything evil among His works or in creation (a lengthy topic, but we constrict ourselves to only addressing Augustine’s immediate statement in Enchiridion). Augustine implies this would be the case, but says God can remain absolutely good with evil being present in the world only if evil can produce good, or which can be concluded from good arising from evil, good transcends evil.
Though one may state this like the former is a relative argument, and it fails in the same way as saying we can’t appreciate good without evil might, it differs since it is not of the same nature to say one arises out of another but is more accurately recognized and appreciated, only that they exist in complete contrast to one another while remaining linked in common experience. Speaking of one without reference to its opposite, in this case, would be like arguing over the physical properties of a coin without taking into account its sides.
Augustine posits this is not only affirmatively so, the case of good transcending evil, but evil itself isn’t a separate creation, but only the absence or privation of what is good, perfect, orderly, and godly. He metaphorically applies these principles to health and the soul, and using this metaphor a greater allegory is found in his words. Keeping in mind it is of the nature of metaphor to be an imperfect illustration, Augustine refers to disease or wounding of the body (which has its kin in the malformations of the soul) and says they’re not so much substances in themselves regarding the whole goodness of the body, for such would be foreign, but rather the absence of it. Ill-health is the absence of good, perfect health. Although one might be tempted to say wounds and disease have meaning in producing both a physiological and psychological effect and refute him on these grounds, Augustine is thinking more metaphysically as it regards the whole nature of the body. The substance of the creature is good, which we call health, and the absence of this good is the disease or wounds found in or experienced in the body, which we call illness or injury.
To give some historical context, so one may not stumble upon the words, medicine at the time of the Greeks and Romans was in its infancy, and many held illness was caused by an imbalance of the four humors, called humoral theory, and medical treatment often aimed at balancing these humors. The individual humors themselves consisted of choler (yellow bile), blood, phlegm, and black bile. Given this, we see how the historical context adds to the metaphor and how Augustine equated ill-health with a privation of substance.
If we are cured of disease and wound, it is removed from us, that is in a sense of a proper cure, and it no longer dwells in the body. The same is true with the soul. The disease or wounds of the soul, when properly treated, no longer dwell in the soul and reside in some hidden corner, but are negated within the soul, just as an injury or disease can be negated in the body. This is allegorical to the ultimate Cure which is Christ and our eternity with Him, where our soul will be healed, evil and infirmity tossed away, no longer affecting us or threatening us with effect. Even the world itself will, according to doctrine, be made anew free of these privations.
This is an element which the atheistic materialist or naturalist can’t grasp since there is no remedy, no treatment, and ultimately no cure for the evil and its effects as experienced in the world. Such is the weight of their conclusions, for if such is true, then evil, or what is perceived as evil, has a power which cannot and will not be erased. It is etched upon the cosmos, and if it ceases to be at all, this will only occur because no personalities exist to perceive it. However, if Augustine is right, then the pain, suffering, and ill-effects from the existence of evil, can and will be cured without lingering effect, and this is the world into which we can step and enjoy as a pure and incorruptible being in a new body within the dwelling place of God.
“But know this, that in the last days gr times shall come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, raiders, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, PUFFED UP, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.”—2 Timothy 3:1-4
Considering the subject matter of my last post, I find it quite irresistible not to say something about this issue. This entry might very well be considered a companion piece of the former post. It is somewhat a curious matter, this day in age where depictions of Satan and his cohorts are somehow still considered “cutting edge.” Truth be told, it has become nothing more than a stereotypical performance trope which all manner of artists have displayed as a background or partnership with their art. Sam Smith is but only a recent example . Instead of being groundbreaking or interesting has only shown himself to be foolish. (I decline to show images both because I am assured you have already seen similar things, and, well, why?)
The banality of this display is made evident in the wide range of artists who have depicted such things, some more explicitly than others. We think back to the 70s and 80s with the likes of AC/DC whose horned homage still dons tee-shirts being sold to this very day. We think of, more recently, Billie Eilish who has depicted herself as anti oil-covered fallen angel. We can point to Ke$ha who has purportedly made comments about having “sexy time” with ghosts and whose videos are loaded in satanic imagery.
Further back, we may recall the tales of the great blues artists of old selling their souls at a crossroads in Mississippi for musical talent, such as is told of Robert Johnson and Tommy Johnson. Though regarded as myth Robert Johnson did write at least a few songs about it and the tale persists to this day. It has been a sentiment parroted by the likes of Jack Black and Tenacious D, as well as Bob Dylan. Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin was a well-known practitioner of the occult, even going as far as buying the Boleskine house, the former home of infamous occultist Aleister Crowley on the shores of Loch Ness, which was eventually gutted by fire and awaiting restoration at last check. This is just to name a few.
Boleskine House (circa. 1912)
Yet, this we might be stretching our examples a bit, since there is a great difference between influence, and slight allusions, to explicit depictions. The devil is featured on Tenacious D’s album cover, and others are just as explicit and still others guided in symbolism and metaphor. Even in the cases of those who have revealed they “sold their soul,” it is sometimes hard to tell with what sincerity they mean it, if it is some metaphor, or a complete ruse. Certainly, Sam Smith does not view metaphor as nearly a stupid enough course of action to take at the Grammy’s. Apparently, the stupidity was still unsatisfactory and he sought to double-down with his Brit Awards outfit pictured at the beginning of this entry.
The Christian should be wary of taking too much offense at this kind of foolishness, and as I have wrote before I think we can approach this is a logical way which exceeds the boundaries of religion, belief, and goes to pure logic. This is the approach I suggest we take when rebuking these things, the logical one. We recall Christ’s prayer and His words, “…they know not what they do.” This is the case with Sam Smith and others, for it is not of a religious knowledge they are ignorant of, but in their zeal to mock God and celebrate evil, they don’t know what it entails, or what is its eventual logical end. It is time we reveal to them what they actually do.
Whenever these things occur in the future, and they will by some foolish person thinking they are trampling on sensibilities, we should point out their flawed logic. At risk of repeating myself, here is where all this is faulty, and how these satanic performers might be corrected of their ways, for what they do, when logically taken to its end, I would hope, and assume, would even disgust them.
In a sense, the people who depict Satan and worship him onstage are more logically foolish than those spiritual satanists, who, by the way, weren’t impressed with Sam Smith’s exhibition. I’d imagine it is quite difficult to disappoint the God-hating crowd with a God-hating performance, but somehow Sam Smith managed. Like it or not Satan, even if he doesn’t exist, impresses upon one a certain definition, that being, Satan is the source of all evil and the personification or anthropomorphism, if you prefer, of the ultimate evil. It’s obvious many who take pride in bringing Satan onstage are just trying to mock or rebel against God, which a person can do for in this sense God is quite libertarian. Unfortunately for them, they haven’t thought through this enough.
Whether you believe Satan is a spiritual concept with no extant reality, or you believe he is a force which can tempt man to do horrible deeds, in a way, it scarcely matters because despite which side you take Satan is a logical concept, insomuch as Satan is a valid concept, or cogent being. Even if you don’t believe in the reality of Satan, you know what is meant when someone says the name or word “Satan.” The fact this is understood implies a certain defintion.
Conceptually, even if Satan doesn’t exist outside the mind, he exists within it and has the defining characteristic of being the “source of all evil.” Yes, Satan rebelled against God which is a fact that might draw people to the concept, but it goes beyond this. Being the source of evil is where people like Sam Smith get in some logical trouble.
People usually avoid this logical conclusion by picking and choosing what they think the devil is responsible for, regarding evil, and what he is not responsible for. In essence, they put limits on the evil Satan relishes in and exhibits. It is much like saying, yes, Satan might be for lying, stealing when necessary, but Satan surely doesn’t stand for murder. He doesn’t stand for horrible things like rape, and abuses towards children, and animal cruelty. In this they essentially and illogically say, “Satan is better than that.” This contradicts because if Satan is the source of evil, then he can’t be better than anything else because it implies something is more evil than Satan, but this goes against the concept regardless of religiosity.
A person might be able to argue the only record we have of Satan is the Bible and just because the Bible says as much, it doesn’t follow this is the case. The issue with this excuse, let’s call it what it is, rests in the fact they are using the term Satan and the imagery used in the Bible, employing the concept where they deem it fit or desirable, and they become unable to separate themselves from the Bible so quickly.
Consider it is not only the ultimate evil being and his attendees which are depicted in these displays, but accompanying fire, brimstone, smoke, and tormented souls. All these are the very same concepts found in the Bible and, if you are not a believer in literal hell, it is not the case it can be removed from the Bible, for even to the hell denier, it must be admitted it comes from Biblical depictions, or perhaps, at times, works which expanded on what is told in the Bible, such as Milton’s Paradise Lost and Dante’s Divine Comedy.
There is quite the paradox between using the Scripture to mock it or deny it, especially while using concept of Satan or demons. We are quite right in responding by rolling our eyes at such attempts at offense to traditional sensibilities, as if we were still living in a Puritan age and never encountered such “artistic displays.” There are a couple things worth remembering though. One, we remember when these things occur, God is quite capable of defending Himself. He will be glorified. Second, we must not forget to pray for people such as Sam Smith. “…They know not what they do.”
Approach the subject logically and anyone from a practicing satanist to a person who claims such but is not spiritual, to a person making the devil hand gesture at a rock concert, to someone who wears horns, to someone depicting hell on stage, all must fall under the weight of the logical concept of Satan. Even these people will ultimately admit to some great evil beyond their view of what is morally permissible, and if they have such a position, whatever it may be, then there they fail to really capture what Satan is and despite mocking God, reveal a self-mockery which is inescapable.
I would suggest a good starting point in showing their fallacy is finding a place of agreement concerning something absolutely evil. I hope all men would have the capacity to determine within their worldview something non-permissible and detestable. Even if you have to go to a extreme to find this agreement, any person who says “so-and-so is wrong,” has a stance which is not consistent with Satan or satanic symbolism. In fact, it is quite at odds.
The moment an individual who engaging in satanic symbolism says “this is wrong,” they find themselves at odds with Satan himself. For, the concept of ultimate evil which Satan personifies allows for all things evil. If someone’s conception of evil, says something is not permissible, then it attempts to mix a degree of good in with ultimate evil (Satan), and ultimate evil cannot have any degree of good, for it doesn’t meet the characteristics of such an evil.
Contradicting yourself is worse enough, but it is even worse to give glory to such a being and his character. Contradiction isn’t the worst thing, for glory to the ultimate evil is far worse, whether intended or not. These are the two true logical ends we find ourselves at. One, the foolish self-contradiction. Two, glorifying ultimate evil. It is not enough for one to deny they are praising ultimate evil, for it exists in the depiction of the concept alone.
Religious arguments will always apply directly and only to the believers, but logical arguments are applicable to everyone. Of course, it is the case these both have validity, but logic in this way can be said to have a wider scope. This is why we should present the logical argument in opposition to this boring trash, rather than try to produce any religious argumentation.
In browsing some of my old writings, I found a reply which I apparently had written to someone asking what amounted to “Why non-spiritual satanists weren’t taken seriously?”, or something of a similar nature given the implications from the text of my answer (I don’t recall the exact original question). Since I had mentioned in the text it was written around Halloween, I thought it might be worth posting in this blog simply for this connection alone. One thing I didn’t mention in the original body is what we should mean by “take seriously”? From the Christian perspective, all lost to the enemy are to be taken seriously, because they have not brought themselves before the Savior for the forgiveness of sins and such is serious and tragic matter. Further, true satanism is something which can pose a threat, both in regards to forms of spiritual warfare and more pragmatic reasons, for those who claim the name of Satan are known to have done horrible deeds and the annals of criminal justice attest to this. So, by saying “not take it seriously,” we mean more from a rational level than anything else.
I regret not knowing the exact circumstances for which I wrote it, but given its length, maybe its on Quora or Reddit somewhere? Anyways, all this being said, here is my answer the question posed:
There are a few possible answers that I would like to briefly address here concerning the lack of seriousness given to those who consider themselves satanists. As of late, I have noticed that the Internet in particular has been riddled with apologists who in some degree adhere to the teachings of Satanism. We are told, of course, that there are at least a couple different kinds, a spiritual one, which asserts the reality of the being known as Satan in the Bible (among other places) and a humanistic one where it denies such a spiritual being exists. Now, when I said that it has appeared as of late, I don’t mean in the sense of the Halloween season which is currently underway at the time of this writing, I mean within the last few years. So, with the prominence of satanic apologetics becoming more prominent, this is an ever more important question to consider, and in order to do so, I would like to do it in a way that it addresses the question independently of religion that it might be applicable to all, but at the same time, since Satan is referred to as a spiritual being and mentioned in religious text and the writ of religious leaders, we can’t completely divorce it from religion either. I only mean to address it as logically as possible without having to appeal to religion.
The Goshawk, illustration from Dante’s Inferno by Gustave Dore (c. 1887)
When we ask why it isn’t taken seriously, we need to ask in what way because there is a small distinction that must be made here. Does one mean why society in general doesn’t treat it as a serious threat, implying a reality, or why people who practice it aren’t taken seriously though they may view it otherwise as a mere myth? Simply, where the satanists determines the truth value to lie regarding the concept shifts, a bit, the application of the term “serious.” A satanist who is a naturalist asking why they aren’t taken seriously, as opposed to a Catholic or Christian asking why satanism isn’t taken seriously, imply a different scope to the question, and I will try to address both.
First, before I focus on Satanism itself, it may help to reference an element which arose from religion and paranoia and how that might have played a part in the lack of seriousness applied to Satanism. During the 1980’s, a trend swept through the United States of America, or perhaps the world, that my young self was quite unaware of at the time. It appears there was a social phenomenon referred to by some as the “Satanic Panic” and through faulty practices of hypnosis, mesmerism, and psychological methods, many “repressed” memories of satanic abuse were “uncovered” by by the application of these methods. Throughout the US some were quite convinced that there was a satanic conspiracy that reached down into the very social fabric of our every day lives and accounts of satanic abuse experienced by children were frequently reported. It destroyed families and produced trauma to those who supposedly experienced it in such a degree that took years to heal from after the truth came out, for it was discovered that much of this “satanic panic” was nothing more than fabrications constructed by the mind under suggestive states by leading questions and subconscious prompting. How this may lead to how satanism is approached rather non-seriously, is that those who might recall this, may now, by remembering this period, regard any claim of satanism or satanic practices to be suspicious, false, or plain ridiculous, and this would regard the social aspect of why it isn’t taken seriously. With this historical context in mind, we will move on to some of the more intrinsic difficulties with satanism and the conception of satanism which may void it of any serious regard.
I once had a discussion with a man who claimed satanism and in the midst of our conversation declared that evil spirits and their leader(s) aren’t limited to the Holy Bible which, of course, specifically mentions Satan, but are found throughout all religions and beliefs. He attempted to dance around my objections, which I will share, but the man was quite right, in a way. In declaring this, his argument was that the vast plethora of evil beings out there among different belief structures somehow suggested that Satan doesn’t have a set definition since “he is found through all religions” or “not unique to Christianity.” Yet, when we regard the name Satan, it cannot be removed from historic biblical doctrine and text and this concept has truly carried on into the present day. When we regard Satan or the devil, even if we don’t see it as a reality, we understand the concept, with its biblical origins, and this becomes an important element in reviewing this question. The concept is clear, that Satan represents the greatest extent of evil, and all those evil things which we see in the world which make us wretch, it is this that concept stands for. If Satan is the father of all evil (whether in reality or conceptually) then he stands for all the most horrific things the human mind can paint: murder, torture, rape, and child abuse in which there are many terrible and heinous forms. I could extrapolate some of these evils even further, but I shudder to do so and will only say that the grossest mistreatment that the human mind can conceive would be attributed to Satan by analytical definition. That is what the concept means and has meant for generations, for millennia as a matter of fact. This means attempting to change the analytical definition of Satan is against logical thought and history alike, and this is why the one person I talked to could only appeal to other forms of evil beings rather than the devil alone. In addition to all the horrible things already referenced, Satan to has had, in accordance with all this, the title of the “father of lies,” in that he is a inherently deceptive being or concept. We should make note of this too.
Lucifer, etching from Dante’s Inferno by Gustave Dore (c. 1887)
We have discussed what the name or concept implies and means so we are ready to move on to the beliefs of satanism. Here, again, we are confronted with the two forms: humanistic and spiritual. Although this is a weighty distinction, it isn’t too relevant considering our next point, because we only have to rely on the analytical analysis of the concept of Satan alone. Many articles have been published recently that speak of the satanic Bible and how it is greater in morality than the Holy Bible. For the sake of argument we will, for now, concede that as a possibility, as absurd as it is. Satanists state they are against murder, torture, rape, child abuse, for equality and liberty, and all those wonderful things of which nobody in their right mind would raise disagreement. They’re just like us right? We all want those things too right? What a great and fantastic belief structure they must have and what a wonderful group of people they would be to be around! Right? Well, if this is truly the case, really the case, then why apply the name Satan at all to your belief structure? Why would you take the name of a concept that is clearly counter to everything you stand for and apply it to yourself?
This would be like me starting a philosophical movement which promoted philanthropy towards the Jewish people, spoke out against genocide, opted for peace and capitalistic prosperity, embraced immigrants of all genders, races, and beliefs, and sought and taught to seek peace with all neighbors whether it be in country or neighborhood, and then gave a name to my worldview, labeling it “Hitlerism.” Peace! Love! Prosperity! Hitlerism!
I believe this plays a large part in why people don’t take satanism seriously, the name and the views are glaringly contradictory and that is the case whether you believe that Satan is a mere concept or believe that he is a real and present being. This is why it doesn’t take a religious person to find satanism to be absurd proposition and not regard it with any real seriousness. In addition, and due to these contradictions, there is a skepticism that the more humanistic form of satanism is really as secular as they say. To put it in another way, as mentioned before the devil is regarded as the “father of lies” and deception. Being the case, one could reasonably suspect that any worldview named after him would have an element of deception within it. Thus, there might be those who are wary of what satanists say their aim is and suspect that it might go beyond the common explanations and satanist apologetics. There is even the possibility, given the structure, organization, and psychology behind certain cults and belief structures, that the initiates might not even understand themselves the true inner workings. This goes beyond paranoia, and is objectively seen in cults around the world, the suppression of the true doctrine to the initiates until they are built up to a certain level of “enlightenment.” I think that one may be quite justified in warning the humanistic “satanist” to forgo satanism for a doctrine of just plain boring pure humanism.
To add perhaps more credibility to this is the adherence of ancient satanic and occult symbolism which is still found in satanism, even the more humanistic or naturalist forms. Why such spiritual symbolism would continue to be practiced and observed in light of the lack of a spiritual world, or spiritual belief, seems at the very least paradoxical to the objective observer. It strikes a person as disingenuous when someone says they don’t believe in the true form of spiritual satanism and then mutter incantations within a pentagram surrounded by candles at every point. Yet, this is still not the full reason why satanists aren’t taken seriously.
Perhaps our last aspect is this, since many satanists suggest and proclaim themselves to be mere naturalists and humanists, its a presupposition they have on their own that they represent the only true form of satanism. The truth is that despite the “Satanic Panic” of the 1980’s, that many detestable crimes are done in the name of Satan by self-proposed satanists. A Google search will provide evidence of this as would, perhaps, binge watching shows like the Forensic Files. Now, one may raise argument that they don’t belong to the church of Satan or they aren’t true satanists because their beliefs and practices clash with the creed of humanistic satanism, but this ignores the contradictory nature of their own practices. Simply put, the satanists who act in accordance with the concept or belief in Satan are more, for lack of better terminology (I hate giving such people any sort of credit), logically coherent with Satan than the naturalists who use the same namesake. If one wants to be taken seriously concerning their values, and they are a self-proclaimed satanist in the humanistic and naturalistic sense, then my advice is this: drop the name. By taking that name you are opening yourself to contradictions (at the very least), some of which have been expressed here. One might say it only means to symbolizes a rebellion against the concept of God, but if that is true then pure humanism does the exact same thing and that desire alone doesn’t justify taking the name of Satan. If you want to rebel against God don’t take the name of a being which God has declared is going to lose in the end. Even if you don’t believe in its literal truth, it is ridiculous from any angle which you approach it.
Fall of The Rebel Angels, etching from Milton’s Paradise Lost by Gustave Dore (c. 1868)
To close I find it quite interesting that those who hold a belief in satanism are so quick to say that those who raise these issues are so “ignorant,” when at the very face of the title, and the name they apply and take on upon themselves, it presents such great contradictions and issues that they themselves are apparently ignorant or blind to.
There are many aspects about the so-called philosophical Problem of Evil which confront the Christian and a whole book would have to be written in order to answer the objections posed by the argument against the validity of Christianity. One philosophical argument suggests, partially due to and concluded by inferences upon Christian apologetics, God, if He exists must have traits of evil since evil exists. Though rejected outright by Christian theology, in an extra-biblical sense we ask how such an idea may be defeated. It can be countered on the grounds of the destructive power of sin and evil. God, and even the idea of God, necessarily brings being, while evil destroys being. Therefore, God cannot be evil since He is pure Being.
When examining evil and sin it cannot help but be observed they have corrosive properties on everything they touch, and because God, again brought being, and is greater than destruction in the world, and even decay, and because nobody will argue creative properties are lesser than destructive ones, it cannot be a part of God, if His nature is the great-est, which God must be by definition. Of course, God in His prominence does destroy things, or commands them to be destroyed, but though destruction be a thing God is capable of, it doesn’t necessarily indicate a destructive nature. God doesn’t destroy merely for the sake of destroying, but concepts like justice, and we understand justice is good, has a destructive or limiting property imposed on the thing which has done wrong. Justice somewhat implies this attribute. Something can evoke justice and remain good. God certainly cannot be innately destructive for we exist.
Since sin, evil, goodness, and holiness exist, and sin and evil are the lesser of these things, then what do we suppose happens when evil and goodness encounter each other? What occurs is not a democratic process. Ultimately, one must succumb to the other, or be destroyed, and this, in short, is how and why a Holy God can exist and not be in conflict with the presence of evil and destruction in our world. In another sense it refutes the infamous meme suggesting God exhibits or brings people unto His wrath because He arbitrarily demands obedience under punishment in this life or beyond. This meme fails in characterizing God accurately, and He does not demand as much as plead with us to come to Him.
This air of pleading is found prominently in the words of the Apostle Paul:
“Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
2 Corinthians 5:20
We need to point out this flaw whenever possible. It is through Christ we are reconciled and saved from the fate which will result from our uncleanliness being confronted with the utmost holiness. One will win out. Like two forms of matter, they cannot occupy the same space, and democracy will not be a factor. In order for our sinful nature to be washed away so we may dwell with a Holy God in the hereafter requires a cleansing of ourselves as provided by the blood of the Lamb.
Before I even begin to get into it, I want to point out this entry will both recognize and acknowledge certain circumstances when the popular criticism of “thoughts and prayers” might be warranted, but will primarily be a defense of “thoughts and prayers.” The idea there is something inherently wrong about offering “thoughts and prayers” is a idiom we are frequently confronted with nowadays from the headlines of newspapers to memes. Despite the concessions I’ve made, the overall air of the phrase is done mean-spiritedly rather than offering any real critique. When more material from the source of this mockery is available, this oft becomes evident by additional evidence.
If we assume the mockery to be non-existent motive, then it is usually used to impress upon anyone offering their cares in the form of “thoughts and prayers” a certain level of guilt which may make them change their tune on whatever issue is at hand. As if to say, “Your thoughts and prayers are useless, and something more about this issue needs to be done. Your thoughts and prayers haven’t changed anything and your inaction has lead to the issue becoming prominent in society.” Maybe, then, the target who feels guilt or pressure for what they have not done and will swap sides.
This method is, at least, conceptually accurate and one of the elements which makes it so is, often, those who pray and who believe prayer to be a powerful force in the world differ from the progressive society we find ourselves in. It is neither far-fetched in practicality due to the Christian Progressivism and Unitarian ideas creeping into the Church. Christian houses of worship are getting more and more progressive because they, in part, have been heavily influenced by progressives. It is my contention the impression of guilt upon people does, indeed, sway them as does the appeals to emotion which spur it on.
These are generalities of course, but the fissure between Progressivism and Evangelicals can be denied. As Progressivism moves forward, Evangelicals become a bigger and bigger threat. Hence, the other outcome of attacking “thoughts and prayers,” namely, to furrow the brows of those already against the people who engage in these practices. It is interesting the comfortable camaraderie people find under banners of hate. No matter what side of the aisle you fall, it is trustworthy observation. It should be noted such a method isn’t used to just present disagreement, but to vilify and make any opponent the object of utmost scorn. Unlike the concept of a “dog whistle,” where proponents get the message loud and clear while going unnoticed by others, the message is said loud and unblushingly by all.
Those motives aside, the real issue with “thoughts and prayers” and those who criticize it, is it represents a misconception on how it works to being with. Admittedly, if you see a person get injured, say, right in front of you and you swan off to keep from getting your hands dirty, or because you have something better to do, the criticism is warranted. However, in the broadest sense, it isn’t how “thoughts and prayers” work among Evangelicals. There are numerous studies which show faith is one of the determining factors in helping people, both with volunteer work, and with donations to charitable causes. Given this, faith being such an important element to increase the probability of one giving and helping, the Evangelical, or say more generally someone of faith, doesn’t have the view on “thoughts and prayers” which is assigned to them.
Let us say you yourself were homeless and a person came up to you on the street and asked you for money. You might respond, “My friend, if I had anything at all I could give you I would. But I myself have no money.” An understandable reaction since you are limited in what you could do for the said person. Sometimes in life too we are limited by proximity and nearness to be able to do anything of any physical help or worth. It just the nature of things. For instance, at the time of this writing hurricane Ian just swept across Florida and now is making landfall in South Carolina. I myself live on the west coast, and am quite limited on my power or what I could do for anyone there at this time. I can’t take them into my home. I can’t feed them. Provide shelter or any of the rest. I could certainly donate to the cause and give to those charities who are proximate to the event, yet I can’t be there to help. Nor can millions of other Americans.
If a person yet has faith and believes in the power of prayer, they might be offered up so God may protect, bless, and heal the land. Even if you aren’t a religious person, you certainly know prayer is engaged in by believers and when there are times of helplessness, as if your actions won’t or can’t change anything, then prayer is logically where the faithful would go next. One can debate the worth of prayer until they are blue in the face, but it doesn’t change the fact people engage and do so when they are not near to an event. I might go so far as to suggest, in this context, there is a relationship between proximity and prayer.
The practice of blessing is something to consider on our next point. Many people within the Church have their children blessed by a pastor or priest. This is a very common practice but even though it has prayer as a part of the ceremony, nobody would rationally think it excludes action. The child still needs to be reared up correctly, nourished, cared for, instructed, and all the like. Children are a lot of work and the presence of prayer and blessing doesn’t remove responsibility in any degree, nor is it expected to. Using this example, we see one of the errors made when people mock “thoughts and prayers,” for there is no extant evidence of there being a disjunction between prayer and action. “You either use prayer or you use action,” is not a valid characterization of the beliefs of those who pray and it is evident it is a logical fallacy (false dichotomy).
To the faithful, prayer and action go hand and hand. Prayer supplements action. Some Evangelicals pray over their day before they get out of bed. It doesn’t mean they don’t swing their legs off the bed and plant their feet firmly on the floor and take care of responsibilities, it just asks a blessing over their day so the results might surpass the efforts. This, in essence, is a common formula to prayer, that whatever our object of worship, by their hand a greater output may be experienced by what we can input. Such as, “Lord may this letter (or paper) be effective,” or “bless the work of my hands.” Yet, this always just applies to the silly faithful who are incapable of changing anything right? Not so much because the term also includes thoughts which is a consideration extending beyond faith to normal human experience.
(Hopefully you plant your feet on the floor and it is not one of “those” mornings.)
From the position of an atheist this should be rejected outright. The suggestion thoughts go apart from action is irrational, absurd, and even unscientific. Often times we have to think on issues before we find the best and most correct way to respond. Sometimes, we actually have to pause an action to give it thought so we may not do the wrong action or go about something the wrong way. It in no sense removes action from anything. So, both on the basis of prayer and of thought, we have a complete misunderstanding of the nature of both.
I did say, however, there is a part which is accurate. This is written unto the faithful though and I don’t think the secularist would have much use for it. First, the idiom “thoughts and prayers” used as a message of concern where there really is none is dumb. Some who mock “thoughts and prayers” are those who have seen it hash-tagged enough to where it just got annoying and a tool of gaining clout. Again, dumb. Let’s put in a Christian context where it might also be an accurate criticism.
Some who mock it are not going after thought as much as they are going after prayer, but since Christians are supposedly not very deep thinkers anyway, attacking thought appeals to them. This aside, let us say you have a dear friend whose family member is in the process of passing away. Or, it doesn’t even need to be a friend, just any acquaintance. They ask you, “Please pray for so-and-so” and you agree affirming to them you will “keep them in your prayers.” Then, let us say, you do not. Not because you are spiteful or anything, you just forgot with being busy, or you just didn’t have so much invested in this person passing on so it skipped your mind. As terrible as it may sound.
We can make all the excuses we want, but to say you are going to pray for someone, and you don’t, is wrong. In the end you gave someone your word you would do something and you didn’t. It is in this kind of context criticism against “thoughts and prayers” becomes applicable. It becomes a platitude which you ultimately shrug off. Indeed, I have no doubt people have used this as a platitude before, and it has a part to play in the mockery it has become.
In addition, you ever notice how even among the secular community, you still occasionally get a request for prayer when they are in dire need? It is a fascinating thing where someone will mock prayer at one time and ask for it another. Notice the main target of this “mob” against “thoughts and prayers” is generally the ones offering them, not the ones asking for them. If someone approaches me Online from across the country and asks for our prayer, should we say, “I can’t pray for you because I can’t do anything for you.” Of course not. Such a response would lack compassion.
This is another thing the secularists have a hard time understanding: Prayer is often an expression of compassion. Many suggest through “thoughts and prayers” we just don’t care. This is a faulty assumption because though you might conclude prayer has no value, it is not universally concluded. Those who do find prayer an appropriate response, often pray for the needy and those terrible events which confront our world and act in accordance when they can. Yet, I can’t discount, as mentioned above, the “hash-tagging” of the phrase, which is the spiritual equivalent of putting a countries flag on your profile picture when they’re facing some crisis. “Hey, look at me, I have a Ukraine flag behind my head. I really care!” It is a horrible thing to use to get clout. However, if you are sincere then more power to you. Likewise, avoid “thoughts and prayers” hash-tagging (as a platitude it needs to be removed from people’s vocabulary), but if sincere keep those thoughts and prayers coming.
It is our conclusion then, the criticism of “thoughts and prayers” is irrational based on the elements within the phrase. It is absurd because neither thought nor prayer necessarily remove action or effort. Not only this, but there is nothing wrong with offering “thoughts and prayers” when a person is unable to provide effort due to not being proximate to the event, but still has great concern. These are somewhat irrelevant though since much of the criticism itself isn’t really an argument as much as it is mean-spirited anger being expressed over disagreement, which can function as a means to get clout in and of itself.
“I attack ideas, I don’t attack people – and some very good people have some very bad ideas.” –Supreme Court Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia
Recently, Governor Cuomo of the state of New York signed into law the so-called “Up-To-Birth” abortion bill and in its wake, Alabama and Georgia have voted to ban the practice of abortion. Although the subject of abortion has never left us and continues to be a volatile dividing topic which threatens to fracture, or perhaps, completely destroy friendships and other relationships, the controversy surrounding the issue has been pushed to the forefront of the public consciousness by these events. It has also revealed that within the pro-choice camp there are, indeed, varying degrees of permissibility, with these degrees usually separated by trimester (i.e., abortion is permissible if done within the first, or second trimesters, etc.). In fact, it seems, there are those who are pro-choice who are quite squeamish about the law signed by Cuomo, and it as at least on this foundation the two opposing sides can, perhaps, find a bit of common ground on an issue which generally allows for none. At the same time, there are pro-life people hesitant on bills like the one Alabama and Georgia have passed and other states are considering.
The signing of the Reproductive Health Act, January 2019.
No doubt about it, it is a divisive issue, and in beginning, to make this essay perhaps a bit more agreeable to the critic, I would like to begin by highlighting a couple of things I am seeking to do in my examination of it. I assure the reader that it is my intention to examine the issue and not people. Being pro-life means a lot of challenges are thrown your way, some more valid than others, and I would be quite dishonest with myself and with whoever might take up this essay to say that I haven’t found myself sympathetic to a person’s plight in some circumstances. Truly, there are individual issues, (which I will address), where it might be easier, or rather, quite certainly, it is easier, to critique the issue than to be actively confronted with it. If my exploration of abortion or any resulting subjects that arise from it seem cold, let me assure the reader it is not the case, and I would implore those interested to remember that I am exploring in a philosophical way the issue itself and not the people. I have absolutely no interest in going after people on a personal level. After all, concerning those who have had an abortion, it is a course of action that cannot be changed, for it has already occurred, and all change must reside in the present and future. This is why I am much more interested in ideas themselves than the people who may hold those ideas and making them a target. Of course, it can be hard to separate the person from the idea because it is people who hold the ideas. Regardless, it is my goal to achieve this, as much as possible, in this work.
There are many ways in which people justify their positions, but not all are applicable. I recall a TV show in which a character expresses that she is pro-life and is answered by another saying that they had no idea she was the religious sort. She denies this and asks if you have to be religious to believe that an unborn child represents a life? He responds by saying there is a correlation. This, I would agree, is accurate to some extent, but as the show points out it is not necessarily the case. The point is, not all people are religious, so when approaching the issue to the general public, one finds an appeal to religion to be lacking. Simply, a non-religious person is not going to be swayed by any religious argument and might be put off instead.
Also, one cannot claim to be objective and not look at the side which holds their position. In doing so, it isn’t as if there haven’t been atrocities committed in the name of the pro-life movement. First off, if you walk into an abortion clinic and murder people, either the patients or the practitioners, you have absolutely no business applying the term “pro-life” to yourself. You are anything but and represent a direct and horrific contradiction of the pro-life view. We also need to perhaps question our methodology in promoting the pro-life position.
Colorado Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Lewis Dear Jr.
Do I mean we should just sit on the sidelines and remain silent and limit our criticisms to blogs? I would hope it is obvious this is not the message I intend to put forward. In an effort to refute the challenges and ideas to the pro-life view, I hope to show by addressing the critics that there is a rational basis for the pro-life position, which may produce a bit more good than screaming insults at people in or outside a clinic, merely waving a sign, or trying to block people from entering. I don’t wish to devalue anyone protesting or their passion for the cause, nor am I attempting to paint such protests with a wide, broad stroke, but in my view the more we can back up our position with understanding, the more effective our protests or demonstrations will be. Abortion is a horrendous disease within culture, and we need a powerful vaccine to this particular action, and it is here with the idea we should start, for it is much more efficient to go after the cause of a disease than the surface symptoms of something already caught. Our attack needs to be as narrow spectrum as possible to get at the virus itself. We can’t stop the tide of evil by merely setting up a breakwater.
On The Fringe
Simply addressing the challenges to the pro-life position isn’t enough to produce a case for it. The view needs to stand on its own rational foundation, and I will get into that, but I find that the challenges represent some of the greatest hindrances to accepting the pro-life view. Again, I will address these, and perhaps others I hear during the process of writing this, but here are some examples that are cited to the pro-lifer as a challenge:
A.) Rape
B.) Incest
C.) Birth Defect
D.) Life of Mother
E.) If Outlawed . . .
F.) It’s my body
G.) Bundle of cells
H.). None of your business
Conservative speaker Ben Shapiro pointed out at a Q and A session that these represent fringe issues of the whole and don’t represent the majority of abortions. This is true, but does that mean it is a sound rebuttal? Well, that might be a little more complicated.
The father of the discipline of logic, Aristotle, proposed the principle ofnon-contradiction. This law, in short, says that anytime a contradiction is present, this represents a falsehood or fallacy within the whole of the argument.
Ayn Rand sums it up eloquently and concisely:
“To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.” –Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand Reader, p. 260.
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” –Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 152.
This is likely the view that is taken by pro-choice people when they offer these challenges, that is, they attempt to show a contradiction somewhere in the thinking of the pro-lifer and thus, by necessity, prove that it is false. It certainly might seem to work, for if the pro-lifer says that abortion is not permissible, but admits that it might be so in some other case, in the critic’s mind, it represents a contradiction and it invalidates the whole pro-life argument. So, in that case, and according to that point-of-view, no, it isn’t a good rebuttal.
Yet, how a pro-lifer may regard it is a bit different, and in this sense, it is a sound rebuttal. In truth, contradiction is much harder to prove then one might suspect, particularly on a philosophical level. Yes, there are simple forms, like when one contradicts their statements in an account or personal anecdote, then we can easily determine they are lying, but in issues like this, it becomes more problematic. The reason why is that in order for a contradiction to exist and be applicable, the particulars need to be virtually identical. One of the ways the charge of contradiction is overcome is to show error on the part of those making the charge that the circumstances are similar or the same. Simply pointing out major differences in situation A from situation B is often enough to validly and soundly counter the charge of contradiction.
It is on these grounds that Ben Shapiro’s rebuttal was sound, that these are differing circumstances, and are so individual and relatively rare that they represent fringe issues that don’t reflect the vastness of the real circumstances surrounding the majority of the practice. Shapiro addressed this by asking the woman bringing the question if she would agree that in the majority of cases it was wrong, to which she would not agree because she wasn’t willing to limit abortion to the exception to the rule. Therefore, Shapiro reasoned, her line of questioning was simply an excuse. So, in a very real way, how effective this answer by Shapiro is, and those who utilize it, really comes down to your own personal philosophy on contradiction and its relation to truth. However, I seek to build a case for the pro-life view by appealing to both, so I will too address the individual cases which are often cited by pro-choice people, as well as admit that when we talk about abortion, these represent minute fringe circumstances which do not appeal to the whole and don’t represent a contradiction to the pro-life position.
On “In The Case of…”
This is probably the area that gets the pro-lifer in the most amount of trouble and gets the most ire directed their way. To be completely honest, it would be much easier to take the position like I discussed in the last section and write off these fringe examples as inadequate to justifying the whole practice, because some of these can be quite uncomfortable to discuss in both a philosophical way and as a sympathetic human being (by the way I am not suggesting that this was what Shapiro was doing, for I believe he has answered the individual circumstances in other cases). Truly, the pro-life view isn’t unfeeling, for if they were, we would have to ask why these “fringe” examples are so often pressed towards pro-lifers? I suggest part of the reason is because it does make us uncomfortable, and pro-choice people know it does, and if it makes us uncomfortable and invokes feelings, then just like others, we are not unsympathetic to these challenges. What the pro-lifer position believes though is that just because we are sympathetic to someone, or something, it doesn’t mean that a resulting action is justified or right. No, just like law and morality, we need to admit that emotion and rationality are not always in sync. It seems clear that emotion and action can indeed be opposed to each other. This is not said to so much a devalue an emotional response, but rather it is the question of whether it is rational that the emotional response is carried out in action? Either rationality is reined in by emotion, or emotion is by rationality.
Concerning this, it is rationality that should have authority over emotion. We see the dangers and unreliability of emotion all around us, and even in our personal lives, we can think of times where emotions have got the better of us or led us astray, or where we regret an action that was promoted or prompted by emotion. Again, this is not saying they don’t have value, or even that emotions always imply error, only that to rely on them solely is a mistake. Yet, don’t people also make mistakes being adherent to strict rationality? Absolutely, but this is because rational people make mistakes in determining what is rational, for while we can identify mistakes in the pursuit of what is rational (i.e., as Rand said, we can have a faulty premise), with emotion we cannot. We can only identify it when it hurts us, others, or doesn’t produce the end we desire or anticipate. Thus, while mistakes can be found in determining rationality, it is not the rational that is at fault, but our misunderstanding of it and our own miscalculated errors. Emotion, on the other hand, can be inherently dishonest and wrong. At times.
So it is on the basis of rationality that we appeal. To do otherwise is generally because the view can’t be defended on rational grounds. If you can’t provide a defense on rational grounds, then often it is the case that the next method of justification is to shift the burden of proof and where it lies.
On Defense and Building a Case
M. C. Escher, “Bond of Union,” 1956.
When offering a defense of a particular viewpoint or issue, or attempting to construct a proof of that view, there are numerous methods that one can appeal to or exercise. The first is what can be referred to as the classical. This defense simply seeks to first determine a proof for an element upon which all other subsequent issues rest. Yet, there are other ways proofs are constructed.
There is the evidential, which seeks to prove something on the basis of pure, empirical evidence.
There is the experiential, which seeks to prove based on someone’s experience. However, it must be remembered that philosophically this approach is generally considered unreliable and represents what’s called the anecdotal fallacy.
There is the historical, which seeks to prove a case based on the historicity of a particular subject.
There is the presuppositional, which seeks to prove based on first making the assumption a view is true and then pointing out either its flaws or its validity. This is also called systematic consistency presuppositionalism. In the science of logic, we can refer to this as a form of indirect proof.
Now, certainly, I think all these will find their place in the construction of my argument, but if I had to classify my attempt, I would classify it as classical and henceforth, we should start with the element upon which many of the others rest. This is presenting a case that the unborn is a life. It should be noted too that these constructs and methods are used on the pro-choice side as well.
On The Life Inside
I was reading a debate online one time and, as I recall, a pro-choice woman was defending her pro-abortion stance, and ended up saying something like the following: “I didn’t give this thing permission, it is merely a parasite stealing my nutrients.” To the pro-lifer, this would almost be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. I don’t recall if the pro-life person offered the fact that even a parasite is a living thing, but regardless it represents how some pro-choice people view that life inside. A parasite. Indeed, I have seen this argument a number of times on Facebook and message boards. We see in that such a statement, great efforts are made to not only avoid referring to it as a life (“thing”), but also deny its value (“parasite”). It may be argued that some people who have abortions fear this “thing” will continue to be parasitic once it is born, not biologically, but to their lives in some degree. It isn’t a powerless and dependent child, but a mere parasite.
Crepidostomum cooperi
It is the case that biological, familial, or social dependency doesn’t equate to something being parasitic. For one, parasites are invading creatures, living creatures, that do not share the same biological makeup of the host. You do have creatures that can absorb another of its species, I believe there is an angler fish that does this, but in these cases it is an independent being prior and then becomes biologically dependent, even losing some of its organs and mobility in the process. It is not a growing, developing thing, but something being enveloped into another. A baby is a growing developing being, which when carried to term will become independent, in a biological sense, and continue to increase in independence. As much as anything can become independent anyway, for we are all dependent beings in some regard.
8 weeks
Now that we got the idea of a fetus being a parasite out of the way, let’s move on to offering proof of life. In order to do this, we have to ask the question: What is life? There are a number of ways people approach this question, there is both the scientific and the philosophical. I read a work by one woman doctor, who was pro-choice, that made the admission that it appears by science that life begins at conception, but said it wasn’t that easy, that what determines a life is based on what a person believes is a life, or it represents a philosophical question and not a biological one. While reading it, I must admit that I was almost impressed with her candor on the subject. Many scientific works have been written to support the idea of life at conception, or life approximate to conception.
The American College of Pediatricians stated in 2004:
“The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception–fertilization….Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species of homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception.” —When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004.
Also:
“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” –G. & M. Kaluger, Human Development: The Span of Life, p. 28-29, 1974.
We see in the earlier example, the woman who declared the unborn to be both a thing and a parasite, that this both deny the personhood of the unborn, but also devalues it at the same time while removing its humanity and or personhood. It could be said that the even more basic foundation of the pro-life view is that all life is valuable. It doesn’t devalue but promotes value. In fact, in the pro-life position, pure living existence is beyond worth. I am not saying that we do not attribute value to lives based on the actions of a person, I am saying that the conditionof living in and of itself is immeasurably valuable. This is applicable here because of the different philosophical ideas on what defines a life, and in order to address these differences as a whole, we will need to appeal to a life’s value, and on this, we will build the case based on potentiality and actuality.
Yet, on a biological basis, the pro-choice doctor is hard-pressed to, by biology alone, science alone, disprove that life isn’t exhibited in the developing body. As a National Geographic video entitled “The Biology of Prenatal Development” declared:
“Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization.”
The critic, or those undecided on the issue, may ask about the development and if this presents a challenge? When asked what a life is, one word that is thrown around, is that in order for something to be a life, it needs to be a sentient being. I’ve seen many pro-choice debates and arguments which state that sentience must be achieved before the term life can be applied to it. This condition, analytically, or definitionally, suggests the following:
1) Independence
2) The ability to perceive or sense
3) The state of being self-aware
4) The desire for self-preservation
5) Intellectual capability
6) Mobility
As we can see, to refer to something as a “sentient life” would be a bit of a tautology in this context. Sentience implies life. So, if one asks what makes a child a life, and the answer is life (aka. Sentience), well, that doesn’t really answer much. It sounds better in a rhetorical sense, rather than providing insight into what life is. Yet, in it, they suggest that these sentient characteristics aren’t found in the developing life of a child. We should address each of these to see if this is a worthwhile response to the question of what is life?
1. Independence I believe is something we have already touched on. Whether something is independent or dependent isn’t quite enough to determine if it is a life or not, simply because, to some degree, all things are dependent. The philosopher William Rowe came to the conclusion that there were at least three forms of being. There were impossible things (things that couldn’t exist because of the law of non-contradiction, i.e., a triangle with four sides), there were cogent things (things that can either be thought to exist or thought not to exist; possible things), and finally necessary things (a thing that must be). In the latter case, you leave the realm of strict philosophy and more into theology and for this reason, we won’t get into that, but needless to say, the cogent thing, the category of which we all belong, does imply dependency. Only a necessary thing can be completely independent. A true sentient being cannot be completely independent, but rather must be dependent, as the other characteristics of the condition show. For instance, much of our intellectual capabilities exist a posteriori, that is derived from experience, and therefore even our knowledge is dependent, to a vast degree, on experience and the world around us.
What about it being biological independence that is implied? Several years ago, I was unfortunate enough to get very sick and I wound up on dialysis due to the shutting down of my renal function. Would this unpleasant experience, in which by use of an umbilical and machine filtered my blood, have made me any less of a life? Certainly, we might ponder how such a frequent treatment might affect one’s life, but we can’t say they cease to be less of a life than anyone else who isn’t dependent on that treatment. Conditions for life, don’t negate the condition of life.
Earlier in the essay, we also touched on whether a living thing can exist within another living thing, and it is clear it can. Much of what we discuss in this aspect is not so much life but mobility and how that mobility suggests life. To use myself as an example, when I was ill I spent a number of weeks immobile and unconscious. This didn’t negate my life or its value proper, nor would it anyone else. In fact, doctors and nurses work tirelessly to preserve life in such circumstances rather than abandon it. I hope the reader can see that I don’t mean these as direct comparisons, but mean them to show that dependency is a condition of life, and in some circumstances, necessary for it. Rather than independence suggesting life, it often seems that the more dependent a living thing is, the closer to pure being that life exists. Knowledge, wisdom, and experience are the things that we pile onto the tabla rasa of pure being or life proper.
2. The ability to perceive or have sense perception has been long acknowledged by the scientific community and a number of studies have been done which provide some startling proof of the unborn’s ability to sense and perceive. In fact, it has been long held that frequent reading or certain types of music can be beneficial to the development of the unborn. This is a prime example of some pretty well-known facts about the perception and sense that is found in the life in the womb. Yet, again, we find instances where an inability doesn’t negate life. A person in a comatose state, for instance, isn’t declared a non-life, rather we do all we can to preserve it. This critic might say though, that like the angler fish, it was at first sentient and then lost its independence, and it is desirable that it be restored to the state it already achieved. However, I hope the reader can discern that I am making the argument that an unborn child is analytically and empirically sentient.
3. The state of being self-aware is labeled as number 3 is almost interchangeable with number 4, that is the desire for self-preservation. The reason why is because when a being is self-aware, self-preservation is often evidence of that awareness. I believe it may be a whole other long topic to discuss the levels and degrees of self-awareness, but in a general sense, these two things go hand and hand. While we understand the basic principle of self-preservation, it remains the case that preservation is not an independent condition achieved by self, but often a dependent condition by which other things are utilized to achieve preservation.
4. The desire for self-preservation. There have been many people that have been pro-choice and shifted their views to either pro-life, or in some cases, come to admit that the subject isn’t as black-and-white, or cut-and-dry, as they first made it out to be. Often times these shifts are experiential. An avid opposer of Planned Parenthood, the organization that performs the most abortions per year in the United States, changed her opinion on abortion after watching one being performed. Her account says that while sitting in on the procedure and watching it on the monitor, she was quite struck when the unborn child drew back from the instruments that were being used to dismember it, as if in fear and pain. This account has been parroted by several ex-practitioners of abortion, who have come to denounce it. This provides some anecdotal evidence that the unborn are self-aware, have an instinct for self-preservation, and indeed, sense and perceive.
5. Intellectual capability is often an attribute used to characterize a quality or value of life, rather than life itself, or life proper. In this way, it is often used in a relative sense, but, again, it doesn’t say something is not a life because of a lesser capability, but only assigns a primarily subjective value to it. In the vast majority of cases, a need for self-preservation, and sense, or perception, are used as evidence to denote an intellectual property to being, or a being. However, this is not always the case, as many may say that a tree or plant lacks intelligence, but does seem to be geared towards self-preservation. Yet, in this case, nobody really concludes that botanical things don’t represent life either. One thing we can be reasonably sure about is that intellectual capability isn’t only revealed by what something knows, but the ability to attain knowledge. As the experiments with music and reading, and the whole process of living life show, in fact, is that our intellectual faculties are understood by our ability to learn rather than anything else. That a sentient life must have intellectual capability only means that it have the ability to learn, and this is certainly the case, especially during the latter portions of carrying the child to term.
6. Mobility also seems to be implied by those arguing sentience. Yet, along with some of the other characteristics, the state of being immobile only applies to a quality of life, rather than life itself. Many people and things are hindered in their mobility, but live fulfilling lives, and this certainly wouldn’t be the case if they ceased to be a life altogether. In fact, one could be justified in saying, in general, young age and old age are both characterized by a lack of mobility. This doesn’t mean that it is invaluable or ceases to be, rather we teach the young to walk, and we seek to prolong the mobility of those who are becoming feeble. It is the case, again especially in later portions of pregnancy, that the life inside becomes increasingly mobile and active, much to the mixed delight and, honestly, the discomfort of the mother. The child’s mobility eventually outgrows the womb.
You may notice that I am now referencing portions of pregnancy rather than as a whole, but again I have shown that these characteristics, or rather the lack of them, don’t negate life, but at the same time, we do associate life with them. That is why even in the pro-life group, the nearer to term a child is aborted, the more horrendous it becomes. With the signing of Cuomo’s “Up-To-Birth” abortion bill and the blocking of the bill which would make mandatory medical care for a child of a botched or unsuccessful abortion, it becomes actually harmful to the arguments of the pro-choice camp. Indeed, it seems like most of them are completely thrown out the window. A mere choice cannot empirically shift life to a non-life, or a non-life to life. All the choices we make in life are not judged simply on the choice, but how these choices correspond to reality. Choice doesn’t change reality, you’re either correct or you’re not. I find it increasingly true that those backing this bill, and opposing the mandatory medical care for those who survive abortions, is to toss aside the arguments that the pro-choice group has spent years, decades, in fact, formulating.
For these reasons, when a person says that an unborn child, or fetus, or whatever you would like to label it, must be sentient to be considered life, I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that it is sentient, and thus, by their own measure, a life.
On Scientific Backing
Although I have quite railed against independence being necessary for something to be considered life, one cannot help also appeal to these definitions, that is, to both debunk in adherence to, and apart from. To explain further, I find it to be faulty on the basis of the general (i.e., independence isn’t a condition of or for life) and the specific (i.e., it can be shown that independence is applicable to the unborn). For those who might critique me and say that am contradicting myself, I should point out that the former, the general, is a classical or evidential answer, while the latter is a presuppositional form. I would also direct the reader to my previous section on building a case to explain the paradox.
So, in order to further clarify, we should make a distinction between the quality of independence and being individual. These are two different things. A thing can be a singular, individual (not necessarily a person), but be dependent at the same time. This goes to show that individuality doesn’t equate to independence, and dependence doesn’t equate to non-individuality. Certainly, an individual life has certain characteristics which distinguish it from other lives. Of these, we can apply form and mass, and matter, or can appeal to more scientific evidence for individuality, particularly when it comes to living organisms, like genetic makeup, and DNA. Also, when concerning the more complex organisms, organs, skeletal structure, and cellular composition. In addition, individuality can be shown in causality, that is cause and effect. For instance, that which may affect the mother might not affect the newborn, and that which may affect the newborn might not affect the mother.
If one suggests that individuality must be exhibited in order for something to be independent or be life, then this is both shown on the philosophical level, and on the scientific level. It is immediately at or approximate to conception that the unborn has its own individual genetic code and DNA.
“The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.” —National Geographic, “In The Womb” (Video).
It is a matter of 5 ½ to 6 weeks when the child’s heartbeat can be detected.
Sure, we can distinguish life apart from such complex organs, but they are certainly attributed to human life, and it is this life which quickly becomes apparent. It is an interesting subject because in a world so devout to science and the pursuit of it, in certain areas, it becomes chiefly ignored for the sake of things like “choice.” However, I recall I said that I would refrain from making this about people and just about the issue itself, so I will depart from this particular train of thought because I perceive it might lead up into the opposite.
On Arguments Against The Pro-Life Position
Julio Ruelas, “Critica“, 1907.
I suppose it is difficult to address the whole of these opposing sides, pro-choice and pro-life, in such general terms. One must recognize that it is likely that people of the pro-life view, and the pro-choice view, disagree with certain aspects of those arguments which are used by the side that they are aligned or associated with. As I said, it is sometimes hard to address people and ideas separately, and I really don’t like having to paint a whole group of people with one broad brush stroke. So, if I have characterized anyone who reads this and they are thinking, “This isn’t me at all,” I could only ask for your patience and to share your individual thinking with me in the comments, but I only ask that you might be respectful as I have tried to be.
It would be quite unsound for me to think or say that I believe I am going to answer every argument out there against the pro-life position. I am not that prideful, nor delusional. I have heard many clever arguments against the pro-life position, but I believe that the ones I offer here are the most applicable. What I mean is that is quite often those clever examples are reducible to these issues which I will address, but, again, to make the suggestion that these are all the arguments out there would be quite a gullible and suggestion. If anyone has any further arguments, I would be most open to hearing them.
Once more, before we get into it, I understand how easy it is for me to sit at a keyboard and talk on these topics without ever having set foot in the shoes of those who have endured these oft brought up examples. My sympathies, in a number of these examples, are quite profound. Further, I must mention that an exploration of these issues kind of surprised me, in that the ones I thought were going to be easy to refute, became quite difficult, and the ones I thought would be difficult, ended up being a little less complex than I had imagined. All and all an exploration of these issues brought a few surprises.
On The Case of Rape
It should be evident to the reader by now that I won’t adhere to the “fringe circumstance” argument that Shapiro used to address one of his questions. I do believe it has some validity, but this is primarily to ones who have already been convinced on the soundness of the pro-life argument. To those not convinced, these are issues that need to be addressed. Out of these, the case of rape is a large and looming one.
I was somewhat pro-choice at one time but held that it shouldn’t be used as a form of birth control. I haven’t completely abandoned that position, in that, I have ideas that have carried over from one side to the other. I recall and still hold to the idea that the consequences of the committed abortion would fall greatly upon the rapist rather than the victim. For instance, I believe those found guilty of rape are punished way too lightly for us to be called a “civilized” society. Not only do I want increased punishment for rapists, but if a pregnancy resulted, I think they should be punished twice over. I bring this up because I hope that it goes to show that I am not completely unsympathetic to the plight and torment that such victims may have to go through. Far from it.
Indeed, the impregnated victim of rape could perceivably consider that child an unwanted token of a horrific event in their lives, and would not, therefore, be treated as wonderfully as a child deserves. This is at least one argument I have heard regarding this tragic example, and in it are a number of elements I think might be the case, but notice that implicit in it is the idea that children deserve to be treated in a moral way. The argument goes beyond this, of course, but it is interesting to note that it admits to the value and worth of a child in declaring that it deserves to be treated in a certain way.
Yet, this is only one aspect. Another says, that because the child was conceived during an unwilling, and unlawful, and traumatic event, the victim is justified in terminating the pregnancy through means of abortion. This is chiefly an appeal to emotion. Why this is the case is that it implores us to understand the decision by appealing to our sympathies. Yet, in our emotional understanding of the decision, does this mean the decision is rational? It does not.
Here is where the classicalproof comes into play and it comes down to the following. If the unborn represents a life, then it is not rational and, sorry to say, unjustifiable. If it does not represent life, then, well, frankly, most abortion is justifiable. I sought to show, albeit in brief, that on both a scientific and philosophical basis, it is reasonable to conclude that the unborn are analytically alive. Thus, it would be unjustifiable. Allow me to explain further.
Given that the unborn represents a life, it has a certain intrinsic value, this is why the rape victim is a victim, because her life too has intrinsic value and it is not just the body that is harmed when someone is raped, but all elements of their lives. It is their future that is victimized and I, again, would like much stricter penalties on those who commit rape than we currently have. A brief period of time in prison, a release with flyers going out to the community doesn’t seem like enough, and I think this is an issue where we could all agree. That being said, an attack on an innocent party doesn’t facilitate or rationally excuse another. In the case of these examples, you wind up with, essentially, three parties. The rapist, the victim, and the unborn. That the woman is victimized doesn’t justify the harming and victimization of another innocent party. The stealing of one parties innocence doesn’t necessitate or excuse the trespassing of another.
I think we have a pretty moral understanding of this. We make concessions when a victim attacks the perpetrator who victimized them, but we don’t when it is an outside and innocent party. A woman whose life is victimized by a rapist, going after her rapist and taking his life, sorry to say, I am not going to be too sympathetic toward him on that one, but if she murders his children, well then I am going to say that is not justifiable in any sense. It just comes down to this, if you are a victim then you deserve all the sympathy and all the help in the world, but it doesn’t give you the justification nor right to harm innocent life. What to do about the child once it is born? Well, those are issues that raise some difficulty, but difficulties don’t allow for the harming of innocent lives. They need to be tackled on their own and I would suggest that the issue of what one does with a child, an unwanted child, is an issue that extends past abortion, but to suggest abortion is the only avenue is quite disingenuous.
It also isn’t universal that women who have been raped abort their children. Now, this can’t be considered a pro-life argument per se, it’s an anecdotal fallacy, but it does show that support, advice, guidance, and help to those in such a terrible situation may be available, and practical, to those who need and may benefit from it.
On The Case of Incest
In all likelihood, and for good reason, the following this one will make most people squeamish. Yet, it is worth addressing because, not only does it include a couple other of the arguments we will visit, but also, its a subject that has been increasingly popping up due to the “love is love” movement, if you will, becoming increasingly prominent in today’s society, which, I hope makes the reader just as squeamish. No, I am not talking about LGBT or how they may use the term, but people who have taken it to justify great perverse examples which I would prefer not to get into here. Yes, they do make me that squeamish.
This argument is actually an amalgamation of other arguments. For one, in cases of incest, rape is often considered as its cause by those who are proponents of this argument. The other is from birth defect, and as we have addressed the first, the second one is where it gets tricky. I will save some of it for addressing birth defects as a singular issue, but there is no doubt that incest can produce birth defects. Yes, no doubt. I once heard a law professor speaking about how it was some sort of rumor or falsehood that incest can produce such deformities. I don’t know how studying law makes someone an expert on such things (by the way I am not an expert either), but it flies in the face of genetics and history.
Indeed, when one looks over the monarchy governments over the course of history, it becomes apparent that some were deformed by the close intermarrying of bloodlines, many monarchies believing that the bloodlines needed to be as pure as possibles, which led to deformities both in body and mind. This seems to be the focal point of the incest argument, that of physical or mental deformities. I will seek to show that these don’t justify abortion on their own, but neither does the cause. It may seem grotesque to some, but the product of intermarrying or otherwise, still remains a life, and the extinguishing is unjustifiable. Yes, that life still has value. Yes, it is still a life. Thus, it is not justifiable to terminate it because of source, victimhood, or condition. We get into some of these deeper in the next section.
On The Case of Birth Defect
Recently, a mentally handicapped man sat before the Senate and testified passionately that his life was worth living. It is sad that a handicapped man had to testify to that, to remind people, to show people, to inform them that his life, despite his handicap, had value. That he was not worthless. That he enjoyed his life and contributed to the life of others. This is echoed by actor John C. McGinley known most famously for his roles in the movie Office Space and his role on the TV show Scrubs. Though his mission is different, namely, the removal of a certain offensive term from the public lexicon. He hasn’t expressed an opinion on abortion, but his love for his mentally handicapped son is shared by many families in his circumstance. His mission is a good one, and one I have changed my view on over the years. Simply, I used to have a “words don’t hurt” mentality when it came to such things, and I justified it through scholastic adherence, but I have since then shifted my thoughts on it. I may write on it someday.
This is the danger we reach when we see birth defects and determine that that life has a lesser value or absolutely no value. Many families who have children who are handicapped, while they admit the challenge, also declare their love for their special needs sons or daughters. Challenge and difficulty don’t negate value, sometimes it actually does the opposite. I find slippery slope arguments sometimes to be fallacious but we do need to ask if this is permissible and allowed, then where does it end? This represents a problem I have reached with trying to iron out the pro-choice view, in that it is incredibly blurry. This permissibility of the hazy can lead to things beyond the pro-choice argumentation. We literally have people advocating now for the death of sentient, independent, and individual, living beings. Again, this completely does away with the arguments we are examining.
Not to get too far off track, when we say or allow that a deformity means that something doesn’t have a right to live, that is very dangerous territory, and in my mind, quite wrong. Since “sentience” has no place anymore in determining whether some live or die, at what age outside the womb is the permissible? Although we are getting quite good, that is science is, at detecting birth defects inside the womb, what about if one only becomes apparent at birth? Is it justifiable then?
I just find it hard to look at someone handicapped either mentally or physically and think their life isn’t worth living. Yet, in the case of abortion, when it is justified because of this line of reasoning, that is exactly what we are doing, we are predetermining that their life has a lesser value than those without handicap, and then it needs to be asked, where the line is drawn? In addition, how is it affecting those who are handicapped now when we argue on this basis that it is better that they should not have been born?
As I have revealed, there were a few surprises when examining the individual issues raised against the pro-life view. This is one of them. I, for some reason that I can’t honestly articulate, thought this would be an easy one to address on a philosophical level, but it turned out to be a bit more difficult than I thought. Particularly, because one needs to show that a contradiction doesn’t exist in their view when included within a whole argument. Further, it raised some philosophical issues which I didn’t expect. That being said, let’s move into it.
In the strictest sense of the term, here is one condition where I am “pro-choice.” I want to make this clear because I have heard some pro-life arguments which declare that it is not permissible to abort in such a circumstance. I am pro-choice on this issue because of the reasons I will share, but also because I can’t say that a mother in unjustified or wrong in giving up her life for her unborn child as some mothers have done. I recently read about a mother who denied herself chemotherapy because it would terminate the pregnancy, but in doing so was giving herself a death sentence. Such loving sacrifice I couldn’t ever say was wrong, it is the ultimate and I can’t help but find it honorable and find it worthy of the highest accolades.
Yet, should the life of the mother, if threatened, be bound to die because of the life of their unborn child? This is where it gets tricky, and I believe we will present another element to this question later when we discuss potentiality and actuality, but here we will just appeal to ideals. I must admit to the reader that by ideals I mean an idealism. I am somewhat of an idealist in that I do think morality is objective. I also share in the views of some of the more famous idealists like Martin Luther King Jr. who I cite because of his idealism concerning the inherent rights of man, which are applicable in this discussion and it is here where I would like to begin on answering the question concerning the life of the mother.
When I began to examine this question I felt like I was in sort of a stalling tailspin for a while in that I didn’t know what direction I would go, except into confusion. Yet, eventually I found my footing and some even ground concerning the intrinsic rights of man, or as some may say, all living things. What are these intrinsic rights of man that idealists frequently cite? Further, what rights are exhibited in behavior like self-preservation? As you may recall, we touched on this already when discussing sentience. The most basic right that life has, which it strives to grasp hold, is the right to live. The right to life. This is indeed the most basic right to any living creature. The conflict, of course, comes in when the right of one thing to live conflicts with the right of another.
This is exactly what we find happening in the case of where the mother’s life is threatened by the life inside. We find that the mother’s right to life is in conflict with the unborn’s right to life. What do we do in such situations? How do we determine which one has the greater right to life? We should face the facts and realize that we all probably encounter this conflict more than we would like to admit. In the foods we eat is one example of how we experience in our normal everyday lives this right to life. It is when pondering the general rules which govern such right to life interaction where things become difficult. There are general principles, but no real rule, which allows for the pro-choice position in this circumstance. In fact, if we consider the one anecdote I provided, then it seems to add more credibility to this principle.
This principle may seem silly in how simplistic it is, but often right to life decisions are governed by principles relating to chronological order. Simply, if a thing has a long-established right to life, then when in conflict with another right to life, the former takes precedence over it. This is not always the case, however, and other elements come into play. For instance, the greatness of a thing might overpower the right to life of another, which in other circumstances may have a presiding right to life. A younger lion may overtake an older gazelle because of might rather than any right to life, not that the animal kingdom would have any concept of that. Despite this, I believe there are certain principles at work in the world, in general, which are metaphysical and which, when analyzed, can provide insight into human behavior and ethical questions.
Even Darwin denoted these metaphysical principles, in his Origin of The Species, and his exploration of the survival of the fittest. Yes, in his view, it was fitness, aka. greatness and might that precipitated his survival of the fittest principle. Also, but not always, what is more fit to protect its life is often more developed, in which age can be a factor. So what governs conflicts between rights of life is fitness and chronological factors. In these aspects, the mother is justified in preserving her life, but only in as far as she is living, not the condition of her life. The anecdotal evidence which I brought forth, shows that if a woman believed her life wouldn’t extend much past the child, then she is justified in viewing the child’s right to life above her own.
In the end, making difficult decisions in these circumstances is justifiable because the mother’s right to life preexists the one of the unborn and, as heart-wrenching as it is, should be given the choice to prolong her life in such a tragic situation. To some degree, I think this might surpass the abortion argument though. I mean, really, how many of these situations take place at a Planned Parenthood rather than at a hospital? I can’t say it never happened, but I am willing to bet that these incidents don’t occur at Planned Parenthood.
On The “It’s My Body…” Argument
This argument isn’t a particularly good one. I would hope that this answer to the pro-life movement is less literal and more figurative, in a sense saying just, “it’s my choice.” Though this argument too is not a very valid reason for terminating a life, it at least attempts to make the morality of such a position relative, while the former “it’s my body, my choice” argument is tainted by absurdity. This is easily rebuked by utilizing principles of identity. From the pro-life perspective and the view that the child represents a life, it is the life of the child that is terminated and not the life of the mother. This alone indicates that there are separate lives, or if you prefer, bodies which should be regarded.
One way to approach this is to address the issue while appealing to philosophical theories concerning the nature of form and of identity, or how we can differentiate between individual forms. One way we do this is by noting the differences between one form and another. It is the case, of course, that pregnancy does affect the nature of the whole, i.e. the mother, but this doesn’t necessitate that both the child and the mother are made up of the same substance regarding body and form.
Let us say, for example, that one wishes to demolish a wall inside their house to expand a room. Well, the demolishing of that wall, although changing the overall layout of the house, doesn’t cease to make it a home. It is an individual structure, which, given that there is sound construction, doesn’t negate the house itself. So, yes, while pregnancy does affect the body of the woman who is pregnant, this doesn’t mean that the child is a part of that body alone.
In fact, how often is it the case that women can produce children without any sexual contact? If pregnancy is a manifestation of the body of the mother and is not merely a cause of effect to the mother’s body, then we might be justified in asking whether or not virgin births and pregnancies should be more commonplace?
The bodies are certainly linked, and the critic might approach this and ask why if the bodies are not one and the same then why the death of one can bring about the death of another? Doesn’t this, given my train of thought, imply that the bodies are one and the same because of the sharing of effects? To take the home and wall example again (as poor as it might be), to knock out a wall from inside the home can indeed be often done, but one must take into account the construction. If one knocks out the wrong wall, which is internally necessary for the house’s sound construction, then the home might become unstable and collapse. Still, just because an effect is similarly shared, doesn’t mean that the wall and the home are one.
Obviously, too, there are structural differences between a wall and a house which provide distinguishing characteristics to imply that one isn’t the other. This is too the case when it comes to child and mother. The child has its own internal organs, its own DNA, its own chromosomes, and various other differences which distinguish it as an individual from the mother. To suggest otherwise is quite a twist on sound logic, biology, and science as a whole. Yes, the body of the child exists within a body, but it is not equitable to that body in which it exists. Both have separate identities. In short, it is not the body of the mother which one is addressing, but that individual body which is being terminated. If mother and child shared the same exact substance, then both would be terminated by the abortion.
On a Business That is None of Yours
This one has been refuted by the pro-choice movement itself and organizations like Planned Parenthood which while saying its none of anyone’s business other than the mother’s and their doctor’s (abortionist), at the same time they demand taxpayer-funded support, which pulls just about every taxpayer into the debate. While many might support or not care where their tax dollars go, it does justify the opponent of abortion to join in the conversation. To say it is none of anyone’s business doesn’t negate the fact that we are demanded to pay for it, and until each person has to cover their own expenses, or people can opt out of having their tax dollars to go to such a cause, this argument is a strongly invalid one.
Let us suppose this is the case though, that our tax dollars are not used and you can opt out completely of anything that supports or goes to the cause, would it still be none of anyone’s business, particularly the business of men? That men can’t make judgments on the practice is said as a method to silence opposition, but its not particularly a good argument, since boys too are terminated in the womb, and men are paying for it, and have an active part in the creation of a child. If it is none of the business of men to make judgments on abortion, then the child is none of our business at all. To follow this to its logical end would mean the end of all child support being paid by men and all responsibility would fall on the woman. Of course, we would not dare say such a thing or suggest this course of action, because men share in the responsibility for children and it very much is our business.
We also have to ask whether or not we can approach any moral question if we are not directly involved? This is akin to cultural relativism or ethical relativism except in hyperdrive. These questions usually concern cultures and civilizations far removed from us and then ask if the actions they take or the ideas they have can be judged by another culture? For instance, do people in the United States have a right to judge practices like female genital mutilation as is done in areas within the Middle East? If we don’t then are we justified in granting asylum because of such practices? If we are cultural relativists then we would either need to practice stringent isolationism or embrace lawlessness and anarchy on both an international and domestic scale.
Yet, the “none of your business” argument suggests a cultural relativism within one’s own culture. This is why it’s a hyper-cultural-relativism and denies the existence of objective morals whatsoever, which is wholly unrealistic. When we follow these principles to their logical and eventual end, we find that we certainly wouldn’t want to live in a world where this is the case. We want men to not be “deadbeat dads” (there would be no such thing in an ethically relative world), we want them paying child support and taking care of their offspring, we want a world where we can question morality objectively that we may apply laws, which would not exist if we didn’t believe in such objectivity. No, as a non-aborted citizen, we do have a right and responsibility to make moral questions and examine these questions as they confront us. Therefore, it is on these grounds that this is a paper thing argument which falls apart under the lightest of scrutiny. It really doesn’t have any more logical weight than just telling someone to shut up.
On The Right To Judge
This argument is strongly related to the last but has at least one more distinction. It assumes that one can have their own moral beliefs, but even in the presence of these views, one cannot pass judgment on a person who does otherwise. It is somewhat self-defeating though.
For instance, a person who declares that a person is wrong in daring to judge another for a particular practice is doing the same thing they’ve declared shouldn’t be done. Pretty much in the same breath. Simply, to say one is wrong to pass judgment is judgment and indicates the absurdity of this statement even on a very subjective level.
On “A Bunch of Cells”
One of the questions that concerns both science and philosophy is the question of identity, and there are numerous ideas concerning the complexities of life and matter and how it is manifest within a singular identity. In the strictest of terms, for instance, life within the womb is a bunch of cells, but then again, so are all living things. Not only this, but we can even go beyond this and say that all living things are made up of energy. An analysis of the matter of which life forms are comprised, to the quantum level, is indeed scientifically useful, and philosophically useful, but it doesn’t negate life. Life is a complex unity of energy, cells, genes, chromosomes, DNA, chemicals, elements, all working in unison to allow life to thrive. To say a person is a just a composition of cells and the genetic code isn’t necessarily untrue, but it is an examination of the particulars of which make up life, not of the definition of it.
In fact, I would suppose that to say we are just an amalgamation of cells is a bit of an analytical statement, and is presupposed in the definition of life. This is not to say that all form is living because it is made up of cells, for such a statement would be quite ridiculous. It is to say that cellular structure and composition is a necessary part of life, so it doesn’t really add anything to the argument at all, since “bundles of cells” can be both living and nonliving. It amounts to that the child is not a life, which is already the argument anyway, and it ignores the other particulars, DNA, chromosomes, genes, organ development, and others which present further evidence of life.
As a side note, we do know that certain forms of life represent colonial organisms, or ones that are considered a singular being, like the so-called flying spaghetti monster (Bathyphysa conifers), a siphonophore, which is an organism made up of a cluster of individual organisms called zooids. A more famous example is the Portuguese man o’war. One would be forgiven for considering this creature to be a jellyfish, but a jellyfish represents a single multicellular organism, while a siphonophore, is an organism made up of a colony of individual organisms. All this just is mentioned to show that a “cell-cluster” is both to be expected in a life form, and isn’t enough to negate the presence of life. A general principle of life within biology and science is that life is multicellular, this usually only applies to the more complex forms of life, but there are even singular cells which represent life, called unicellular organisms (single-celled organisms). They are considered by science to be the oldest form of life and contains things like algae and plankton. It is quite obvious that we cannot compare human life to algae or a zooid, but one cannot say that based on a cellular cluster it doesn’t represent life, nor, even, a single-celled organism.
Bathyphysa conifers
In relation to this the 6th edition of Patten’s Foundations of Embryology says:
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”–Bruce M. Carlson, Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 1996.
On Assuming The Negative
When we look at abortion from a broad perspective, one is often challenged with the question, “When does life begin?” This is a reasonable question and in argumentation, it is used to either defend one’s position or argue against the other side’s position. In other words, it is both used on the offensive and the defensive side of the argument. Yet, we all use it to solidify our own position on the issue because it is so integral an element and by asking it we agree that this is more than a relative issue, but an objective one. Now, again, there are few places where there is room for compromise on abortion, but one that we find often is found here. When it comes down to it, many simply say they do not know where life begins, and as pro-life as I may be, at least this is an honest answer. None of us are truly omniscient, nor can we remember the exact moment upon which life or consciousness was given unto us.
This is the question we reach with this line of thought: Is it reasonable then, that since we do not know where life begins in the womb exactly, that we should, therefore, not consider it to be life, and treat it as non-life? To me, this is quite an unreasonable approach. As a whole, when we say we do not know when life begins, is to open ourselves up to the possibility that it may be a life, as opposed to those who flatly deny it. Since we all know the value of life, and the possibility of life is there, then why would we assume the negative rather than the positive? It seems to me that if you value life, then you would at least want to side on the side of caution that you may be, indeed, terminating a life, rather than since you cannot know, decide that it is worth discarding or terminating. Indeed, it could be said, if we were to even accept that it does not represent life, that life is so valuable that even a developing life deserves to be protected.
On The Positive and Absolute Value of Choice
At this point, one may argue that it is choice that is the deciding factor, but this too falls apart under scrutiny. Just because someone has a choice to do something, doesn’t make the choice correct, moral, or rational. Driving down a two-lane highway, I have the choice to veer off into the oncoming lane and hit another car, to both end my life and take many others with me. I give this example, not as a direct comparison of abortion, but rather to show that it is not choice that presents us with absolute freedom and a positive value upon making any choice, but rather the context of that choice and the situation within which it is regarded and applicable. The truth value, moral value, and rational value doesn’t exist in the presence of choice itself, but in the choice taken. Yet, in the pro-choice movement, there is present the presupposition that the presence of choice indicates a positive absolute value in the expression of it. Yet, our common life experience empirically shows that this is not the case and saying a choice is correct simply because of the presence of choice is a poor one. Though I do believe there are those on the pro-choice side that understand this and use other means to make a case for abortion, at the same time, it is presented as a general companion to the movement, rather than a necessary component of it.
On Pure Being Through Causality
Throughout this essay, we have touched on some of the scientific backing behind life and its origins, but there too is the philosophical side to address when it comes to life being manifest in the womb. This part represents more the metaphysical principles behind the science and more general philosophical categories, but it may be of some use to those who aren’t so quick to dismiss philosophical elements and argumentation.
It is not in dispute that those who have life generally have the ability to create life. This too, is a principle of causality, that an effect of a cause will, in some part, have semblance with that cause. An effect will resemble the cause, and this applies to things like life. Two living things coming together to create an effect, that living nature is presented onto that effect. This is all that is meant when it is said that life begets life. No matter what your cosmological viewpoint, this cannot be denied, and although some might question whether it is a necessary principle, the fact that it is such a looming one is beyond dispute.
Well, what does this have to do with proving life is in the womb? Well, it cannot be deductively and without room for doubt be deemed true (deductive logic being hypothesized to be only represented in pure mathematics and pure propositional logic), but it can be used in the inductive toolkit for defending the pro-life position, that the child within the womb represents a life because the child’s causes are life, and that life is communicated unto the unborn.
This does present us with a snowball effect of philosophical issues. For instance, that not every time man embarks on creating an effect, if you will, does it end in expressing life. If I build a chair, I am not creating life, but only form. If I make a clock, I am only creating form and function. I may produce something that makes movement, or in the case of robotics, even mimics life, but it is not life. Further, sometimes the desire and actions that bring life, for various reasons aren’t enough to actually bring it into being, nor is the life always carried to term. Yet, in the latter case does that mean it never existed at all?
Briefly, so why don’t a chair or clock resemble life by these philosophical theories? Notice, they aren’t the product of natural processes, like child-creation, for instance, rather they are produced by the mind and by action and in this way they really do have a semblance. They have an aesthetical resemblance and one that fits our desires for function and use. They resemble our plans, our ambitions, and what we find aesthetically pleasing. In this way, they do take on a resemblance, but we are quite unable to impart life unto these things, unlike in the case of a child, upon which we impart life.
On Potentiality, Actuality, and The “Unanswerable” Argument
A few months ago, I was presented with a pro-choice argument that was touted to be unanswerable by anyone who has a pro-life position. I am not the only one in this regard that when approached by someone who says they had something “unanswerable,” it immediately piques our interest and we immediately embark on seeing it is really the case. Sometimes they aren’t very interesting or challenging, and sometimes very, and sometimes you learn new things, and sometimes you don’t. While in particular, this one was very creative and clever, it wasn’t particularly difficult, but, in my case, it actually helped me iron out a pro-life position.
Many of you have probably seen it so I would like to paraphrase a bit here, but leave all the rational parts intact. Suppose you were a pro-life person and were caught in a burning building. In one room there was a two-year-old girl and in another, there is a room full of a thousand zygotes and both are of equal distance away. You only have time to run and grab one before the building collapses taking everything inside with it. Which one do you go get? The zygotes or the child?
Clever, right? I will admit it. It is. Yet, this doesn’t mean it’s correct. First, it represents a kind of logical fallacy called argument from consequences. In it, a hypothetical scenario is introduced where both consequences are undesirable (i.e., if one leaves the child then the zygotes are burned up, if one leaves the zygotes then the child is burned up). Then those offering the scenario ask the person to make a judgment call based upon it. Further, the scenario is perfectly structured for one to make a singular choice, in that both are of equal distance apart, you can only grab one, so on and so forth.
We put this in another context with the same logical operators and we see it’s not particularly rationally effective. Suppose you were a pro-animal person (who isn’t?) and were caught in a burning building. In one room there is a kitten and in another room there is a puppy and both are exactly the same distance away from you. You only have time to run and grab one before the building collapses taking everything inside with it. Which one do you go get? The kitten or the puppy.
Obviously, this differs in that the kitten and puppy both represent life, while the pro-choice person is trying to argue life. However, this shows another element though, that the original scenario is also fallacious in that it is an appeal to emotion. It also becomes apparent in what it seeks to do. For instance, if one says, “I would grab the kitten,” then the person offering the challenge could declare “Aha! Then you hate puppies!” Just because one pushes for a judgment between consequences both undesirable doesn’t really show the exact reason why either is undesirable.
Unlike the kitten and puppy though, which may have a bigger judgment call element, this one does seem more obvious. Obviously, we would all grab the child. Due to this, the critic says, “Aha! Then you agree that zygotes don’t represent life.” This is the thing that helped me iron out my position, and let me explain.
I noticed that it is zygotes alone. It’s not women impregnated who have this stage, all thousand of them or whatever you would like to say. There is indeed a dependency of life on the mother at the zygote stage and that cannot be denied, nor has any pro-life person, as far as I know, tried to deny it. This goes back to the beginning of the essay, if dependency negates life. It does not. If you take a dependent thing and demand it be independent, it’s going to die. The greater the dependency the more fragile it is in independence. So how does it apply here?
It applies because it presented into my mind a distinction between potentiality and actuality. In the scenario, when we are confronted with the young child, that represents both actuality and greater independence. A zygote shows a potentiality in that without being within the womb of a mother, it cannot continue to develop.
J. Clark says:
“Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum, and a much smaller sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into a complex…structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection.” –J. Clark, The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in The Human Body, p. 99, 1985.
If left to its own devices, if not protected, then it is a death sentence. Therefore, it is dependent on the mother, and since the mother isn’t there, it is a thing that represents a potentiality relatively more than the actuality found within the child.
Yet, as I have stated, both consequences are regrettable and tragic. Due to this, then, we can see that even if, to go back to the section Assuming The Negative, potentiality deserves to be protected. For instance, if you are to ask the pro-life person if it was him in a burning building with zygotes if he or she would grab them, you may find more people opting to do so (I refrain from saying this absolutely because of the judgment call, for one’s own life is still to be taken into account within such a situation and I can’t speak for everyone). It shows that there at the very least there is a value in protecting the potentiality for life as well as it’s actuality, thereby, to assume the negative isn’t rational.
So yes, while clever, and I actually have to give some respect to the question, it doesn’t do what it seeks to do, and it helped me iron out my own position, not just concerning the challenge itself, but my pro-life stance in general.
On The Charge of Sexism
The charge that abortion is symptomatic of sexism doesn’t stand up either. The reasons for this are, first off, that there are pro-life women too and it actually is quite demeaning to say that women who are pro-life are only so because they have given in to the power of men. This, while not sexist (because you can’t be sexist towards your own gender right?), it is demeaning to say that because someone doesn’t agree with your viewpoint, they are weak, can’t think for themselves, ignorant, or stupid. In that regard, with that kind of treatment, it’s hard for me to see how such a charge champions for women. It can’t. The process of tearing down will never lift up.
Yet, let’s for a moment even assume that is true. Let us just give that to the pro-choice position. Does it still hold that there is proof of sexism? No, because the pro-choice side, if you will notice, doesn’t push to only save male children, but wishes to do so despite gender, from both female and male pro-lifers. It is not a sexist position, but a rational and moral one which no gender can claim hold of.
On The Pro-Life View Being a Religious Position
Yes, I had to touch on religion eventually, but I will keep this argument in context. This is an attempt to label pro-life people as religious in order to give it sort of a mythical quality to the non-religious pro-choice group. See the problem there? This one is refuted because there are religious people who are pro-choice. There are groups that don’t believe in religion and are pro-life. Among these are groups like SPL (“secular pro-life”), which is of the greater atheistic pro-life movement, as well as even pagan pro-life, the latter only being mentioned because a lot of those who argue that pro-lifers are religious are referring to Judeo-Christian theology. Yet, while it is the case that many religious people are pro-life, that in itself doesn’t make it an irrational position, andy more than people declaring murder should be made legal because the religious believe it shouldn’t be.
The fact that it is not religious is exhibited by the wide range of beliefs and views of individuals who hold to the pro-life position. Some, of which, I have been privileged to talk to. The other reason that people push the religious angle to discredit pro-life, is because if they can put a religious label on it, it is easier to evoke the separation of church and state and say that it is unconstitutional to impose restrictions on abortion on the grounds that it would be imposing something religious, like it is some mystical religious practice or something to believe an unborn child represents a life and should be protected as such. Questions of morality, choice, life, what constitutes life and what protections it should receive is in no way religious, as I hope this whole essay is evidence of.
On The Women Seeking Abortion Will Be Injured or Die
This oft-repeated argument goes as follows: If abortion is made illegal, then it would force women who want abortions to do so through illegal means, which are less safe and can lead to injury or even death. While this is certainly a sad consequence of banning abortion across the board, it sidesteps the fact that these things happen with current abortions. Interestingly, it is hard to get numbers on such incidents because it is not legally required that abortion clinics provide them, whether it be death or complications. In addition, when a death occurs it is characterized as maternal death and not one necessarily resulting from abortion. Some deaths are caused by the anesthesia, medical conditions, and the surgical procedure itself. In addition, the risk of cancer is said to increase. Abortionfacts.com states:
“Approximately 10% of women undergoing elective abortion will suffer immediate complications, of which approximately one-fifth (2%) are considered life-threatening. The nine most common major complications which can occur at the time of abortion are: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock. The most common ‘minor’ complications include: infection, bleeding, fever, second-degree burns, chronic abdominal pain, vomiting, gastrointestinal disturbances, and Rh sensitization.” –David C. Reardon, Ph.D., https://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/major-physical-affects-related-to-abortion
Whyprolife.com says there is even danger in the abortion pill:
“22 women who took the abortion pill have died since 2000. Women who have had surgical abortions have died also. Just to name a few: Antonesha Ross died on May 8, 2009, in Chicago of untreated respiratory complications that should have prevented her from having an abortion in the first place. Ying Chen died on July 28, 2009, in California after an anesthesia reaction that went unnoticed. Karnamaya Mongar died in November of 2009 in Philadelphia after unlicensed personnel administered her sedation medications and oversedated her. Jennifer Morbelli died on February 7, 2013, in Maryland because of an amniotic fluid embolism. Tonya Reeves hemorrhaged to death in Chicago in July of 2012. On February 13, 2013, Maria Santiago died in Maryland of sedation complications. Given the reasons . . . for underreporting, these cases represent an unknown but small fraction of actual complications or deaths related to abortion.” –www.whyprolife.com/abortion-risks-side-effects-and-complications/, 2018.
Indeed, it seems that even deaths which have been caused or contributed to by abortion or labeled as “maternal” rather than referencing the abortion itself as a cause, just as the CDC monitors deaths under the Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System any specifically related to abortion. Further, there are a number of studies that I invite the reader to look up about the psychological effects of abortion in the long-term. I don’t mention these things to indicate that there is no difference between the abortions of yesteryear (illegal) and currently (legal), for I am certain the former was much more dangerous, but we cannot say that abortion is 100% safe either, or without consequence.
Whatever you think about the numbers and findings, it still doesn’t mean that the argument for the health of women seeking an abortion through illicit means is a good one. Whether abortion is safe isn’t that much of a consideration if it is immoral. Let us simplify this argument for the sake of time. If the developing child, or whatever you want to call it, represents a life, then taking that life is wrong (the cases of the life of the mother being threatened by the pregnancy alone notwithstanding). It amounts to infanticide. If it does not represent life, then it is justifiable. However, if it is a life, and is therefore morally wrong, then the fact that someone gets hurt or maims themselves, or dies in the pursuit of doing wrong, isn’t a good rationale for the legalization and approval of that wrong.
On Only The Rich Will Only Have Access to Abortion
I just heard this one and needed to include it to answer it briefly. I don’t think it will take as much time as any of the other challenges because it falls apart pretty quickly. It says that if we make abortion illegal, only the rich can afford it. I may, I hope, not have to explain why this is a bad argument for too long. Let’s put it in another context. We may all disagree on whether drugs should be made legal, but for the sake of illustration, let’s put it this way: Let us suppose that meth is the most expensive drug on the planet (you can probably already see where I am going with this). Therefore only the rich and upper classes can afford to do meth. Thus, it follows, that we should legalize meth on the grounds that it is more affordable for everyone and everyone can do meth. Again, not a direct comparison, but one that emphasizes that if something is wrong, how much someone pays for that wrong, and how much people can’t afford that wrong, is a bad foundation upon which to give your support.
On Progression, Regression, and The Political Pendulum
Abortion has always been a mainstay in the public dialogue, but within my life, I have to say, I haven’t seen it like this before. This is why I decided to write somewhat extensively on it and present all the arguments. One large reason that it has come to the forefront of the political and social discourse is because of how far one side was willing to go, advocating unequivocally for what amounted to infanticide. One thing we notice about society and the political spectrum is that when we press for progression too far, or try to regress into the past too far as well, the political pendulum will sometimes violently swing the other direction. This swing, which is always in motion, can occur over a gradual period of time, or at other times it can be rather abrupt. Due to the fact that it was pushed so far one direction, that children out of the womb, who were independent, or actual and sentient, were subject to choice, not only negated all the arguments pro-choice people were making for years but also shocked those who were in the middle on the abortion issue. If you think about it, that isn’t too surprising. To say that you can slaughter a child born out of the womb because choice overcomes its life is shocking, and that it was testified too and freely admitted, was, in another sense, confirmation of what some of those pro-lifers who advocated for slippery-slope arguments were saying.
There is something to be aware of here for the pro-life group. As I said, this pendulum is always in motion, so it is to likely swing the other way, and may already be starting to as of this moment.
On Alleged Vaccination Hypocrisy [Updated 3/21/21]
This argument is an interesting one, and I did, admittedly, have to think about it for a bit. The argument says the pro-life position is at best hypocritical because many pro-lifers along with pro-choicers have received vaccines. At worst it says the pro-life position is proved false if one receives a vaccine, because some vaccines have stem cells utilized in the vaccine which came from aborted baby sometime in the 70s. Some brief Google research proved this to be true, there are vaccines which are in widespread use which contain stem cells from an aborted child. However, these stem cells are cultured or grown apart from the aborted fetus, and while the pro-choice camp declares it hypocritical, the pro-lifer does not. I found plenty of people saying it doesn’t represent a contradiction, but less explanations why.
While my entry here seeks to be completely philosophical, the Christian nature of my blog certainly wouldn’t escape anyone’s notice. I present a “religious” argument here, but trust the objective reader will see the argument to not be confined to religion, but extend beyond. The religious aspect is almost easier to defend because of doctrines concerning original sin, but I only apply it because I think it accurate on philosophical grounds independent of religious observation (the argument of original sin notwithstanding) for it pertains to the philosophical discipline of ethics and responsibility. I understand the philosophical naturalist may not find any grounds to suggest objective evil exists, so when I say evil I would ask the naturalist to understand it as an ethical consideration rather than something imbibed with a spiritual essence. This being said, I believe we can continue with our philosophical exploration.
It has been put forward there are two forms of evil with two forms of responsibility. The first is referred to as direct evil which has an attending high responsibility, the second, indirect evil which has a low attending responsibility. A philosophical back-and-forth results when we discuss the nature of responsibility and morality, particularly if actions have inherent morality or the effect produces moral value and extent. Lest I be charged with confusing the issue, our legal system(s) do take these things into account. For instance, as horrific an instance it might be, a person convicted of manslaughter or charged with such will generally have a more indirect evil extant in the action, and lesser responsibility, while a person charged with first-degree murder will have a more direct evil extant with a greater responsibility. All these things go into considerations like punishment and sentencing. So our understanding of direct and indirect as well as varying degrees of responsibility are well accounted for in common experience.
The reason we are all exposed to indirect forms of evil, or moral wrongs, is because of the complex chain and branches of causality. Indeed, one might be reaping the benefits of a wrong made long ago. Yes, often times something wrong done far down the chain of causal relationships can transition to good, and partaking of the good doesn’t necessarily justify the wrong. Take our everyday lives for example. Perhaps you have learned some lesson from a bad experience you had, or a wrong choice you made, but you have grown and learned, and when looking back you are almost glad it occurred since the effect has been something beneficial. If it was a wrong choice should you feel shame for it benefiting you in some way? Not necessarily, the argument goes, because it has produced an indirect effect rather than a direct one. If you shouldn’t feel shame for learning from mistakes, though you may regret the mistake itself, how much more is it the case when it is outside the self and your actions?
The thief is not justified when he or she steals someone’s “nest egg”, but should they who are victims of the thief be shamed for accepting an insurance payout to replace it and then some? No, of course not, because there is great attending responsibility concerning the thief, but not to those who may have benefited in spite of the initial immoral action. Yet, if the thief was hired by the “victims” to turn a profit off insurance, then how direct the evil and how great their responsibility. The further separated from the initial action through the chain of temporal causality, the less direct the responsibility. At this point, we could probably be justified in referring to these principles just as indirect responsibility and direct responsibility. The former’s morality doesn’t necessarily imprint while the latter does. With that in mind, let us continue.
It is too so we are not omniscient thus we cannot say for certain whether a person could have gained an effect any other way, or in our example, if the stem cells in the vaccine and the vaccine itself could have come to fruition without something immoral occuring. Making such a determination would be pure conjecture and it does no good to argue about what could have been or what could not have been in light of what is. Taking all this into account, let us rehash the initial question. Is the vaccinated hypocritical in receiving such a vaccination if it is cultured from an aborted baby? The answer is no.
The simple fact is many receive the vaccination in ignorance of it’s origins and ignorance implies a indirect responsibility and thus is less morally reprehensible. The pro-lifer simply needs to be asked if they would agree with a child being aborted for this purpose, to which I suggest the answer would be a resounding “no.” The answer to this dilemma is really quite that simplistic. If the pro-lifer were to say “yes,” a child can be aborted for moving science forward, then he or she would indeed be a hypocrite and really not pro-life at all. Yet, if they say “no,” then there is no hypocrisy because to determine that a vaccination should have originated any other way, or could not be done any other way, is pure conjecture. In fact, evidence points to stem cells being able to be harvested apart from abortions, and if such a means want to be introduced into the vaccination programs, then the pro-lifer would be all for it!
The question posed in such a manner shows there is a indirect responsibility and an indirect evil which the pro-lifer which, at worst, can be leveled against them, but this in no way shows a hypocrisy. In order for moral hypocrisy to exist in such contexts, one needs to show a correlation of both responsibility and moral values, and this cannot be done in the vaccination argument and simple inquiry of whether a child should have been aborted to procure such origins of material would produce enough information, in and of itself, to prove there is no hypocrisy.
On Whether Can You Be Pro-Life if You Were Once Part of or Exercised a Pro-Choice Viewpoint?
Yes! Indeed, many have switched between views, degrees of those views, and jumped back and forth over their lives, and this won’t change. Why this is a question included, is because sometimes people invest so much in a particular view that its either frightening to get away from or they feel hypocritical for moving from one end of the spectrum to another. We often have friends, family, or colleagues we fear we may disappoint or may disagree with us and we are afraid we might lose them. Certainly, it is a fear of mine in writing this. Yet, this isn’t always the case, nor should it be. These views, pro-life and pro-choice, don’t seem to be exclusive ones at all.
I’ll leave it with this thought and paraphrase author C. S. Lewis by doing so, that it is the case that people adhere to progressivism simply because of its appeal that it is progressive. Yet, there is nothing more regressive and stagnant then not recognizing a mistake and refusing to turn around. When one embarks on a journey toward a particular destination, it is not progressive to make a wrong turn and keep going, it leads you only further away, and the only way to really progress is to turn again and proceed back toward your intended goal. If your goal is the truth then don’t let your mistakes keep you from progressing forward.
Thank you all for reading and I hope at the very least this work might present you with the understanding that the pro-life position isn’t arbitrarily foolish, but thought out, explored, and despite the challenges (some of which are gut-wrenching), still stands in the light of its challenges.
Also, I welcome any comments, but because within my studies I have found those who insult, express uncontrolled rage, hatred, and threats to be the most irrational and convincing, all such comments will be ignored. However, I welcome any further challenges or thoughts that I may have not considered and would love to hear your thoughts on these issues.
One of the hidden benefits to debate or conversation with atheists and those who have shifted from more “traditional” doctrines, is within the research it prompts, many overlooked gems can be found. Even among the more “New Atheism” school, if one can transcend the inclination to be offended and be able to reduce the rhetorical arguments to their logical elements, they can be of great value to both doctrinal and historical understanding. One of these regards the oft-cited Old Testament command against the blending of fabrics in garments. This command is generally utilized by critics to imply the absurdity of the Bible, God’s law and the following of His moral or ethical decrees. Before the Christian gets too tripped up by this though, it may be worth keeping in mind the difference between the moral law of God and what is commonly referred to as the ceremonial law of God. One part of the law remains, while another has been done away with through Jesus Christ, but the discussion of this, I am afraid, would extend past the scope of our goal here. This is a fact conveniently ignored by the critics as some of the following images attest.
For example…
And example…
And example…and example….and example…
The command against garments with mixed fabrics comes from two places, both within the Old Testament.
Leviticus 19:19, “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven from two kinds of materials.”
Deuteronomy 22:9-11, “Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together. Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.”
It seems there are four main categories which pertain to answering the question of why this was included in the Scripture or why God decreed to not wearing a garment made of two kinds of material and, perhaps by extension, the commands regarding animals and crops. If one would kindly allow, these are:
Symbolism
Practicality
Reservation
Figurative
I will explain these briefly before we attempt to examine the theories more in depth. Symbolism infers God decreed these things to send a message to the Israelites about greater issues. A nomadic culture focused on agriculture, where any written word was unlikely to be able to be read by all, such messages were important to send through metaphor, analogy, and simile so the common man could understand and find application. Through these means the Hebrew or Israelite was encouraged to not blend things like their God with other false gods, their culture with other cultures, and intermarry with other nations, which would have the result of them falling away from God. Practicality suggests God decreed such things, particularly those which were ceremonial and pronounced a person clean or unclean from reasons stemming from things like health concerns, social integration, efficiency in duty, and responsibility. Third, and most interestingly, is reservation, which I use to refer to the idea God commanded these things to the people because it was reserved, in this case, for say, the high priests, or those who would minister before the Lord. The last, figurative, is the idea these commands were not to be taken literally, and their true meaning would have been understood at the particular place and time, to indicate the command to keep the Hebrews pure from those they were about to encounter in their travels.
The latter is related to the first (inasmuch as I apply the word to the principle), but takes it to the extreme and near supposes the application the Hebrews would have employed and their understanding is somewhat obscured by history. Another point of interest in this brief overview is the observation we can draw seeing the possible validity of all of these, or elements of them, being attributable to an answer. Each of these could have its place in the ultimate explanation, but we should extrapolate the issues which arise when supposing each answer.
Symbolism
We can safely say this one holds a lot of weight among those who seek to explain the ceremonial decrees of God found in the Old Testament. While in a certain context it seems to make sense and be an adequate answer, on the other hand it has a couple pitfalls which can present some difficulty. The New Testament is said to promote this answer through the words of the apostle Paul and the author of the book of Hebrews.
Romans 15:4, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”
1 Corinthians 9:8-10, “Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.’ Is it for the oxen that God is concerned? Does He not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in the hope and the thresher thresh in the hope of sharing the crop.”
1 Corinthians 10:6, “Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.”
1 Corinthians 10:11, “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.”
We briefly note the repetition of this point as emphasis.
Hebrews 8:5-7, “They serve a copy and shadow of heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, ‘See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.’ But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant He mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.”
What these verses show is the decrees of the past were meant and written down to foreshadow what was to come and were very symbolic in nature. The aforementioned pitfall we run into is the question of whether God would command something, judge someone, or encourage judgment among leaders within the social fabric (pardon the expression) of the Israelites, just for the sake of symbolism? While what was being foreshadowed was unquestionably of great importance, the idea this reason was the sole one might leave the theologian feeling this answer isn’t complete. Some may very well conclude the symbolism is an attribute of these decrees and not the lone reason for them. Let us then move on to the next possible answer.
Practicality
While there are many commands made by God in the Old Testament and New Testament where God explains Himself, it must be admitted there are too those passages where the reason isn’t always ironed out to our satisfaction. It might sometimes seem “unfair” God doesn’t explain Himself to our satisfaction, or in particular explain why we ought or ought not do something before we are expected to follow, but if we allow for God’s existence, then any explanation could be seen as an act of graciousness. By virtue of its office, authority doesn’t always need to explain itself (Please note: I am not saying authority has a blank check to do whatever it wants without criticism). I once had an authority figure tell me, “When I tell you to do something, you do it. You can ask why later.” I bring this up because God won’t always tell us why He is doing something, or give us the reason, nor does it mean we cannot know or won’t discover it. Sometimes the reason becomes apparent by following or not following, or if you prefer, consequence often reveals reason.
Therefore, many have embarked to look upon consequence of not following these commands to discern the reason why it may be commanded and it has led to some proposed practical ones. Indeed, the ceremonial unclean foods, at this era in history, presented some great health concerns, such as shellfish (which ironically we will get to in another context) and eating pork. When these were consumed in ancient times, they lead to much more illness and disease than is evident today because of a contemporary increase in safe food handling and preparation practices. The unequal yoking of two different beasts of burden is practical as well as symbolic. You certainly wouldn’t want to put a different or missized tire on your car while going through a nice drive over a mountain pass. Such would be impractical and dangerous. I can’t speak to the danger of two different species being yoked, but I can conceive of it being quite impractical based on size, power, speed, and the inequity of all these.
There has been some extensive work done on the practicality of many commands found in Deuteronomy and Leviticus pertaining to ceremonial law which has practical use and symbolic representation. Yet, how does this pertain to garments made of differing materials? Again, we can see it as symbolic, but does it have a practical reason? As to be expected, there are a number of theories on this, including the garment’s inability to keep a person cool in the climate, to static electricity (linen and wool are both are frequent culprits), to promotion of disease, to difficulty in cleaning and being unsanitary.
The Jamieson—Fausset—Brown Commentary does much to address the practical reasons for why such things may have been commanded and borrows from the classic treatise from Charles Whitlaw, The Scriptural Code of Health: With Observations on The Mosaic Prohibitions, and On The Principles and Benefits of The Medicated Vapor Bath published in 1838. The Commentary reads:
“Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and wollen come upon thee——Although this precept, like the other two with which it is associated, was in all probability designed to root out some superstition [Note: Some materials in those days were assigned to pagan spirits in a form of animism and this belief was found throughout the Ancient Near East], it seems to have had a further meaning. The law, it is to be observed, did not prohibit the Israelites wearing many different kind of cloths together, but only the two specified; and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that ‘wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off electricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister’ [Whitlaw].”
This inability to keep cool, bring about weakness and possibly illness isn’t beyond the realm of possibility, and indeed, the need to keep cool, and the inability of such a garment to do so, is referenced in the book of Ezekiel and provides a good transition into our next possibility. It says:
Ezekiel 44:17-19, “When they enter the gates of the inner court, they are to wear linen clothes; they must not wear any woolen garment while ministering at the gates of the inner court or inside the temple. They are to wear linen turbans on their heads and linen undergarments around their waists. They must not wear anything that makes them perspire. When they go out into the outer court where the people are, they are to take off the clothes they have been ministering in and are to leave them in the sacred rooms, and put on other clothes, so that the people are not consecrated through contact with their garments.“
Reservation
This theory suggests when God gave this command, He was referring only to the common man, and was allowing for an exception which was the High Priest. There is supposedly a bit of evidence for this which we should examine.
Exodus 28:2-8, “And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother for glory and beauty. You shall speak to all the skillful, whom I have filled with a spirit of skill, that they make Aron’s garments to consecrate him for My priesthood. These are the garments that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a shash. They shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve Me as priests. They shall receive gold, blue and purple scarlet yarns, and fine twisted linen. And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and of fine twisted linen, skillfully worked. It shall have two shoulder pieces attached to its two edges, so that it may be joined together. And the skillfully woven band on it shall be made like it and be of one piece with it, of gold, blue, and scarlet yearns and fine twisted linen.”
Cited here is the ESV translation which refers to yarn, which is traditionally made of wool, and linen in the ephod for Aaron or the priests. Given this translation, some have proposed the argument the command was made because such a blend of material was reserved for priests. This isn’t unheard of and it is purported such a law was found among the Hittite people which made certain materials exclusive to their pagan priests. My gut tells me though this may not be the answer. It seems odd for God to command something for a group of people without decreeing the exception. It would certainly lead to charges among the commoner of spiritual impropriety among the priesthood, which would naturally result in a distrust which they struggled with already. In addition, in case you thought there would be no translation confusion, rest assured there is! There is a disagreement between gold, blue, purple, scarlet referring to the “fine twisted linen” or if it regards another material. Further, if it does regard another material, does it mean “yarn” as “wool”? If it doesn’t refer to wool, then what could it possibly refer to? Does it even mean “yarn” at all?
Some Hebrew lexicons, render it as bysuss along with linen and not wool with linen. Bysuss makes a bit of sense, and it is a lost ancient art which supposedly the last person to know how to weave in it has recently past. It is regarded as the rarest textile on earth and is also referred to as “sea silk.” It is of a golden color and highly valuable, and given God’s statement these garments are to be made for “glory and beauty” and sea silk being gold in color, it would certainly fit the context. Sea silk is made of the filaments produced by a species of Mediterranean muscle (pinna nobilis) which in ancient times was woven into gold garments. If Exodus 28 does refer to two substances, it is unlikely it refers to wool yarn, and something else.
Fan mussel-grande nacre (Pinna nobilis)
Yet, looking at the Hebrew interlinear Bible, the passage seems to suggest, or present the possibility, it could refer to one material dyed into different colors, and not a blend (this would defeat any charge of contradiction. Certainly, not wool given what Ezekiel tells us.
Exodus 28:3-8, “And you shall speak to all the wise-hearted whom I have filled with a spirit of wisdom; and they shall make the garments of Aaron to sanctify him for his serving as a priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breast pocket, and an ephod, and a robe, and a tunic of woven stuff, a miter, and a girdle. And they shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and for his sons, even for him to serve as a priest to Me. And they shall take the gold, and the blue, and the purple, and the crimson, and the bleached linen. And they shall make the ephod of gold, blue, purple, crimson and bleached, twined linen, skilled work. It shall have two shoulder pieces at its two ends; and it shall be joined together. And the band of the ephod which is on it, like its work, shall be of it, gold, blue, and purple, and crimson, and bleached, twisted linen.”
LITV
In all likelihood, “yarn” is a bit of an oversight in the translation. Thus, I don’t find the reservation argument to be sound, but I don’t necessarily find it to be impossible either.
Figurative
Honestly, I try to avoid figurative answers wherever possible, because it seems like such a generic excuse to say, “The Bible meant it figuratively.” Yes, both figurative and literal passages exist in the Scripture, but such a answer seems quite cliche and I would encourage anyone interested in the realm of apologetics to forgo this as an explanation whenever possible and stretch their minds and efforts beyond it. A lot of times, as may be in this case, the figurative explanation is akin to saying, “The Bible doesn’t mean what the Bible said.” Therefore, we should use such a explanation sparingly and I think context of book content plays a large part in whether something is truly figurative. For instance, a cited parable, or selection from a poetic or prophetic book is much more apt to have figurative language than a historical account. That being said, lest we follow this tangent to far, let us continue.
The main problem I see with this kind of argument is when we suppose it to be prominent in the Bible, we start to appealing to a form of acognosticism and presses upon us the idea our current generation can’t understand the real meanings within the Scriptures. To adhere to the literary form of Jacques Derrida’s deconstructionism when it comes to biblical exegesis is quite dangerous. All this argues is the Bible was written for those present at the time and we can really have no firm idea what has really been lost in translation and transition between languages and the ages. Of what kind of foundation is this where upon we can have and build faith? A flimsy one. As said, there is a relationship between the symbolic explanation and the figurative explanation. So, as much as it is foolhardy to rely fully on the figurative it is so too with the symbolic. As said before, I cannot conclude God commanded it simply for sake of symbolism, but I can conclude symbolism is reflected in the practicality.
Jacques Derrida
Conclusion
This is really where I think we are left. There are practical reasons why these ceremonial decrees were made, and within these decrees exists a symbolism and teaching which may or may not have been more apparent to the Israelites, but regardless it doesn’t mean it has no worth to us today, or that we cannot grasp it. These lessons, the symbolism behind the decrees, and also their relative uselessness under the blood of Christ is something the Early Church fathers like Paul stressed and extrapolated. Reason, cause, or meaning are not always the same thing. I propose God had very practical reasons to give these commands to the Hebrews, but in them also imbibed great lessons and symbolism which would extend throughout the generations long after the ceremonial law had passed. Even unto eternity.
Brandon Devotional 