VICTOR REPPERT SAID:
“Add to this the fact that many embryos die in the early stages of pregnancy, indeed, most conceptuses are unfit to survive and are killed in the womb, and this seems to be part of the design plan. If every fertilized egg is sacred before God, then why is God systematically killing so many of them? It seems George Tiller had nothing on the Almighty as an abortionist.”
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/08/abortion-and-reppert.html#533644449432539243
i) In a fallen world, everyone dies sooner or later. You have human beings who die at every stage of life. Miscarriage. Infant mortality. Men and women cut down by cancer in the prime of life.
If that’s supposed to be an argument for legalizing abortion, then that’s an argument for legalizing infanticide and (adult) homicide.
But if Reppert refuses to take the argument that far, then what’s the point of his comparison?
ii) There is also an obvious difference between letting nature take its course, and preventing nature from taking its course by terminating a pregnancy.
iii) If we’re to take Reppert’s argument from analogy at all seriously, then he has no problem with George Tiller’s profession. Yet Reppert resents my accusation that he’s a front man for baby-killers. Well, which is it?
iv) At the risk of stating the obvious, the Creator and Judge of mankind has a right to do some things which you and I don’t have.
I used to be impressed by Ph.D.'s.
ReplyDeleteNot so much anymore. I used to think that possessing a Ph.D. signified high intelligence. Reppert has a Ph.D. and his arguments just don't exhibit the intelligence that I formerly associated and credited Ph.D. holders with.
Disabusing myself of this notion has been a good thing. And it's not just Reppert. James McGrath is another.
I think one of the phrases that's applicable is "learned idiocy".
Yeah, Reppert is way behind.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, this point is one where Dr James White gets it wrong.
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteWhen I read that statement by White I was under the impression it was in response to those making the claim that all children, in utero or before the 'age of accountability', who died automatically went to heaven. White's point was that if that is true then what is so bad about abortion since it would then guarantee entry to heaven for those aborted. That statement is part of his broader reasoning against abortion and Arminianism.
wamalo,
ReplyDeleteYes, you're right that that's the context around White's statement.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that it's a bad argument, an argument ad incredulum. Maybe that is indeed the case; so what if that means Heaven is populated with tons of miscarried and aborted children?
I'm not saying White doesn't rock. I'm just saying that in this tiny point, we see an example that he's not perfect.
TUaD,
ReplyDeleteYou said it, about McGrath. Exactly.
My wife was ranting about this the other day.
ReplyDelete"Did you see what Victor Reppert posted about abortion?" she asked.
"No," I said. "What is it this time?"
She gnashed her teeth a bit. "He's saying that if God lets so many embryos die in the womb anyway, what can be so bad about abortion."
I blinked. "Wha...huh? So...what can be so bad about being a serial killer then?"
"I know! How can someone who teaches philosophy be such a complete...idiot!?"
Except I didn't draw that conclusion. I said that I didn't know what to make of that. I also said that it might show that God has a greater interest in the life of fetuses beyond a certain point than he does with fetuses before a certain point.
ReplyDeleteEisegesis again.
It's not eisegesis, its following the argument to its logical conclusion. The fact that some fetuses die in the womb no more sanctions abortion than the fact that some people die of heart attacks in their twenties sanctions homicides of 20 year olds.
ReplyDeleteBut I was very specific about not drawing that conclusion, and I was very specific about saying that I didn't know what to make of this. If I had intended to draw that conclusion, I would never have said "I don't know what to make of this."
ReplyDeleteAfter a certain point in the womb, natural processes result in birth. Before a certain point, natural processes result in most conceptuses being spontaneously aborted. I speculated, in one response, that God might be showing an interest in preserving life beyond a certain point that he does not show prior to that point.
What is more, our interest in preserving all human life means, if technology advances far enough, that we would have an obligation to preserve the lives of all these conceptuses, maybe my moving them to test tubes or something to guarantee that they survive. If we allow them to die when we could save them, wouldn't that be a failure to save human life?
Let me repeat my views on abortion, in case people don't know what I have said. There are two conceptions of the career of humans which strike me as being positions a reasonable person could take. A reasonable person could take the view that the career of life of a human is defined by biological identity, which goes from conception to death. How one defines death on this view is difficult, since the brain death criteria used at the end of life would, if applied to the beginning of life, would say life begins with "brain birth," when brain activity begins.
The other view is to see the life of a person as a series of mental states, which means that taking the life of the person before mental states begin is morally different from interrupting the series of mental events. (Which, BTW, is what killing a sleeping or comatose person would do). This does comport with the "brain death" view of death. It has the disadvantage of making the beginning of life more difficult to define.
My point here is that each of these views has advantages, and neither of them seems provably wrong. I can't resolve the question conclusively one way or the other. I haven't endorsed the second criterion, I have just said that it's one of two plausible options. As I see it, we are in a position of reasonable doubt. Maybe you think you can dispel this doubt with some great argument. But so far, it seems to me to be above my pay grade.
But here the Deer Hunter argument comes into play. If you're deer hunting, and you are in doubt as to whether something is a deer or a person, don't shoot. (Maybe I should call this the quail hunter argument, in honor of Dick Cheney). So if someone is wondering whether to get an abortion or not, I would say that you may turn out to be killing a person, so without a very powerful moral reason to abort, don't do it.
When it comes to the legal side, however, I remember that we don't put people in jail if we can't prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We are willing to let people loose who have killed someone, if we aren't sure. Then I have to ask what effect it would have to actually outlaw abortion. If we knew for sure that all abortion were homicides, that would be one thing. But in the light of reasonable doubt concerning the status of the fetus, the attempt to discourage abortion should be through moral persuasion rather than the coercive power of government. In a different world I might see the legal situation differently, but under the circumstances, this may be the best we can do.
I wish the issue were clearer and easier than it is. I know for some of you this is an easy question. Maybe I am overlooking the obvious in some way. But that is how I see it.
You wrote "At the risk of stating the obvious, the Creator and Judge of mankind has a right to do some things which you and I don’t have."
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying that your God's a hypocrite & that's ok because He's God.
Trouble is in what sense can God be righteous if He's a hypocrite?
Another good question might be that given Jesus' attitude to hypocrites wouldn't that include himself as well? Or was Jesus dislaying hypocricy there?
I must stress that I'm not asserting any of this. These are the implications of your ideas - not mine.
Shocking aren't they?
You wrote "At the risk of stating the obvious, the Creator and Judge of mankind has a right to do some things which you and I don’t have."
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying that your God's a hypocrite & that's ok because He's God.
I wonder if you could explain the reasoning that gets you from "the Creator and Judge of mankind has a right to do some things [by merit of his being the Creator and Judge] which you and I don't have" to "God's a hypocrite". Show us the logical inference that leads from the former premise to the latter. You are, after all, clearly much smarter than we are. We need it spelled out.
Parents are able to stay up late while their children aren't. THE HYPOCRITES! How dare they set a bedtime for children that they do not observe for themselves! And furthermore, what's the deal with saying you can only have ice cream if you finish eating your string beans, yet big brother eats ice cream whenever he wants just because he lives off in his own apartment somewhere. THE HYPOCRITES!
ReplyDeleteClearly, there is great evil in the world indeed!
Darn! My theism has been foiled again... Why are atheists so shmart?
ReplyDelete@ Red Monkey
ReplyDeleteI'm not an atheist so your remarks don't apply.
@ Peter
You wrote "Parents are able to stay up late while their children aren't hypocrites". I agree. But the whole point is that childrens bodies suffer far more from sleep deprivation than we do. We all suffer for late nights by the way.
So, if this analogy held God is being hypocritical but denying it to us for health reasons & not moral reasons? Doesn't make sense sorry.
You continue "And furthermore, what's the deal with saying you can only have ice cream if you finish eating your string beans, yet big brother eats ice cream whenever he wants just because he lives off in his own apartment somewhere".
And big brother suffers for it. Big brother's cholesterol will rise & he will begin to resemble a beach ball in shape. Once again you seem to be saying that the reason for God stopping us from using hypocrisy is health reasons while his body can take the punishment. Really? Why didn't Jesus mention any of this? He condemned it from moral grounds.
Jesus seemed to think that hypocrisy was a very big deal [try reading Matthew 23:13-39].
try reading a vernacular version to gain the full impact & then apply the words just to yourself & see if you can still assert that hypocrisy is no big deal.
http://www.huntington.edu/godspell/devos/Day13_Alas_for_You.pdf
@ Dominic
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "I wonder if you could explain the reasoning that gets you from "the Creator and Judge of mankind has a right to do some things [by merit of his being the Creator and Judge] which you and I don't have" to "God's a hypocrite". Show us the logical inference that leads from the former premise to the latter.
Nothing simpler Dominic.
The logical argument goes thusly:
p1. Those who set a standard of behaviour they have no intention of following [or who don't follow said behavioural standard] are, by definition, hypocrites.
p2. By asserting that "the Creator and Judge of mankind has a right to do some things which you and I don’t have" the writer is asserting that God has set a standard of behaviour which he neither follows nor intends to follows.
Conclusion: God is a hypocrite [p2 is valid. I would argue that it is not].
Sorry that last post should have read [if p2 is valid. I argue that it is not].
ReplyDeleteBy that standard, any employer is a hypocrite; any parent; any monarch; anyone, in short, with a position of authority or even of difference to anyone else. That's a rather odd view.
ReplyDeleteWas it also hypocritical of God not to give Himself tithes during the Old Testament period? Or to expect His people to march around Jericho, something He didn't do Himself?
Expecting God to act the same way He commands humans to act generally leads to absurdity, because He is not just a bigger stronger human: He has differences of kind, not just degree, to humans and as a result, vastly different rights, rules and abilities.
p1. Those who set a standard of behaviour they have no intention of following [or who don't follow said behavioural standard] are, by definition, hypocrites..
ReplyDeleteAre you genuinely this simple-minded, Chris, or do you just take amusement in trolling Christian blogs? Ignore the "health reasons" mentioned by Peter and others. Consider a policeman. Is he a hypocrite because he has a right to put me under arrest in certain circumstances, when I have no identical right to do the same thing to him or others? Consider a judge. Is he a hypocrite because he has a right to enforce certain kinds of punishment on any given person (up to and including death in some cases), while any given person has no equivalent right? Consider a parent. Is he a hypocrite for setting a standard of behavior for his children which prohibits them smacking their siblings, while he does not hold himself to that same standard?
As Smokering pointed out, P1 is false by merit of its tacitly assuming there's no such thing as legitimate authority. But, in fact, there are plenty of instances in which a legitimate difference in behavioral standards, rights, or responsibilities exist between people. And if so between people, who are all created equally, then how much more between people and their creator. Maybe you're an anarchist, but your personal shortcomings are no basis for an argument against the truth of Christianity. Sorry.
@ smokering
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "By that standard, any employer is a hypocrite; any parent; any monarch; anyone, in short, with a position of authority or even of difference to anyone else. That's a rather odd view".
Me "I don't see what your answer has to do with mine? For example does a general expect those under him to obey their superior officer i.e. himself - yes. Is he in turn expected to obey his superiors? Yes.
You continue "it also hypocritical of God not to give Himself tithes during the Old Testament period?"
Me "If there were a superior God then it would indeed be hypocritical for god to demand tithes & offerings from humans because he was there God & not, in turn, give tithes & offerings to a superior diety.
You continue "Or to expect His people to march around Jericho, something He didn't do Himself?"
Me: Irrelevant since an action is NOT a standard of behaviour. If someone insists on a standard of behaviour which one is not prepared to undertake oneself that is an act of hypocrisy. Look up the dictionary definition.
You conclude "Expecting God to act the same way He commands humans to act generally leads to absurdity, because He is not just a bigger stronger human: He has differences of kind, not just degree, to humans and as a result, vastly different rights, rules and abilities".
2 points:
Your just agreeing with my first post where I asserted that the writer was implying that God was a hypocrite but it was ok because he was God.
2) Writers in the bible DID assert that God was righteous. That means that they did judge God by a standard. Now Jesus was the one who gave God's standard. If God himself refuses to meet that standard then, according to his own standard, he is a hypocrite.
By the way God should be more righteous than any human standard NOT less. God is, after all omnibenevolent. To argue that he cannot even meet human standards is to imply that the God that you worship is not the true God.
I'd be a might careful there sparky!
@ Dominic
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "Are you genuinely this simple-minded, Chris, or do you just take amusement in trolling Christian blogs?"
Me: Isn't it amazing how I can respond respectfully & you insult me. What can I say but I forgive your rudeness, arrogance & hypocrisy & turn the other cheek.
You continue "Consider a policeman. Is he a hypocrite because he has a right to put me under arrest in certain circumstances, when I have no identical right to do the same thing to him or others?"
Me: No right in your country to make a citizen's arrest eh? But your point is irrelevant. Arresting someone is NOT a standard of behaviour - obeying the law is. Police are expected to obey the law just like everyone else.
You continue "Is he [a judge] a hypocrite because he has a right to enforce certain kinds of punishment on any given person (up to and including death in some cases), while any given person has no equivalent right?"
Me: Once again holding a professional position is NOT a standard of behaviour. Obeying the law is & a judge is expected to obey it just like everyone else.
You continue "Consider a parent. Is he a hypocrite for setting a standard of behavior for his children which prohibits them smacking their siblings, while he does not hold himself to that same standard?"
Me: Yes. In that situation the parent would be a hypocrite. Just like he would be a hypocrite if he told his son "don't steal" & then stole from someone else.
You continue "As Smokering pointed out, P1 is false by merit of its tacitly assuming there's no such thing as legitimate authority".
Me: p1 implies no such thing. Authority MUST obey its own rules or becomes totalitarianism. e.g. police who enforced the law but were not themselves bound by it would be enforcing the laws of a police state.
You continue "But, in fact, there are plenty of instances in which a legitimate difference in behavioral standards, rights, or responsibilities exist between people".
Me: At the moment you haven't provided any legitimate examples of such.
You continue "Maybe you're an anarchist, but your personal shortcomings are no basis for an argument against the truth of Christianity".
Me: Ad Hominem & petty.
Is that the level of discourse you maintain on this board? To just insult anyone for the great crime of disagreeing with you?
Sorry Chris, you're obviously confused. Why should God be held to standards of human behavior? Is God a human?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if you just keep obtusely insisting that the same standards apply to God as he decrees for humans, I'm quite happy to concede that God's a hypocrite by your definition. Since you've given no argument for your assertion, and since your opinion counts for nothing in the eyes of God or his people, your peculiar definition of hypocrisy isn't a major concern.
@ Dominic
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "Sorry Chris, you're obviously confused".
Me: You can't seem to give up the cheap shots can you?
You continue "Why should God be held to standards of human behavior? Is God a human?"
Me: But God was held to a standard. He was declared righteous by the prophets. Did they get it wrong too?
You continue "On the other hand, if you just keep obtusely insisting that the same standards apply to God as he decrees for humans, I'm quite happy to concede that God's a hypocrite by your definition."
Me: 2 points
1) It's the dictionary definition not mine.
2) I applied human logic to your concept of God. By implying, as you now do, that logic cannot be applied to God or his communications what you're saying is that God's word can mean anything or nothing. After all it's all illogical.
You continue "Since you've given no argument for your assertion,.."
Me: Yeah funny about that. See I gave a logical argument which you all responded too. Now your writing that my argument never existed. Try rereading the thread sparky. I've given nothing but logicaql arguments.
You conclude by writing "and since your opinion counts for nothing in the eyes of God..."
Me: Now you're claiming to know how God himself feels about my arguments. Impressive.
You continue "or his people,..."
Me: So now you're the spokesman for the entirety of christendom? I didn't know I was in such exalted company. You should have told me.
You conclude with "your peculiar definition of hypocrisy isn't a major concern".
Me: Um sparky. Not to disrupt your scorn or anything but I got my definition of hypocricy from the dictionary. You might try using it sometime. The way it works though is when it defines a term & someone or something meets that definition then the term can, justifiably, refer to them.
See ya sparky. I'll tell ya what. I'll leave now & you can claim victory ok?
But God was held to a standard. He was declared righteous by the prophets. Did they get it wrong too?
ReplyDeleteNice try. Why don't you have a crack at acquiring a kindergarten-level understanding of Christian moral ontology before you post again? I'm sure you feel great dancing naked around your blazing strawman, but no one else wants to have to see that.