Saturday, January 13, 2007
The vote on use of baby humans for spare parts...
January 11, 2007. As predicted, the U.S. House approved a bill today that would encourage taxpayer funding of human embryo experimentation, but came nowhere near the two-thirds majority needed to override President Bush's promised veto. Click here to see where your Congressman is on the vote of 253-174 (the pro-life vote is "no"). Gore and Kerry would not be so affirming as President Bush's firm commitment to prevent the taxpayer funding of experiments that use human lives as spare parts. On this one we have to tip our hats to the President and hope he continues to wisely use his veto pen to protect innocent, young, human lives from being intentionally destoyed and such destruction funded by tax dollars. It is shameful that the 'yes' vote was as high as it was. Shameful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I hope the series National Geographic is airing showing unborn children in the womb gets more notoriety. The footage they had of triplets bonding and interacting with one another was amazing.
It's a little hard to argue that those babies are just "clumps of tissue."
I'll just keep this short. You are being extremely misleading when you say "baby parts." You are intimating that the research would involve visible features like arms, legs, etc. This is false and you either know that are or simply ignorant of basic scientific fact. Stem Cells are a grouping of approx. 416 cells that is "small enough to fit on the head of a pin." (1) Within this clump of cells there are no discernible features or nervous system (hence, no pain).(2) It is nearly impossible to distinguish between an embryonic cell and other human cells (a skin cell for instance). As Lee M. Silver put it in a letter to the National Review:
"(you claim)that a human embryo is a human being, while other clumps of human cells are something entirely different. Rather than continuing to debate this claim in prose, it is useful to take a more visual approach, as illustrated by comparing the two pictures below. Both show color-enhanced scanning electron micrographs of clumps of human cells. But before they were frozen for microscopy, one clump was a normal embryo, while the other was a bunch of embryonic stem cells. According to your logic, one clump was a human being, while the other was just a confined group of proteins, DNA, and other molecules. So tell me, Which one is which?"(3)
Go here for the two photos:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDk5ZTE4MjBiMDFmZjc0M2EyNjE0MDc2ZjA4YmRmN2U=
Moreover, the embryo's that would be used will be garnered from in-vetro clinics that will discard them.(4) This is your argument:
X will die if legislation Y is passed or not.
X has the potential to cure many diseases.
X is "sacred."
It is immoral to "kill" something "sacred" even if it has potential positives.
---------------------------------
We cannot use X, because it is immoral.
(I won't go into how it doesn't matter if we use it or not, it is going to "die" anyway. I'll say this one more time: YOU, SHOULD, BE, WRITING, DIATRIBES, AGAINST, IN-VETRO, CLINICS, NOT, STEM, CELL, RESEARCH; IF, YOU, BELIEVE, THAT, DISCARDING, EMBRYOS, IS KILLING, A, HUMAN, BEING, THEN AMERICAN, DOCTORS, COMMIT, MURDER -IN GENOCIDAL PROPORTIONS-, EVERY, YEAR!)
This is a moral issue for me too however, and this is how the issue is rightfully framed.
X will die/be discarded regardless of legislation Y.
X has the potential to cure debilitating and painful diseases.
There are NO negatives to using X.
There are potential positives to using X.
Whenever there are potential positives, and no potential negatives; one should take that action.
-------------------------------
One should support utilizing X, and support passing legislation Y which makes that utilization possible.
Your post is misleading and false concerning the philosophical issues, the scientific issues, and the political and legislative issues. You are wrong and you should retract what you said.
(1) "Forward Medicine!" by Harvard Professor Jerome Groopman in The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041101&s=groopman110104
(2) "Stem Cells: The Power to Divide" in National Geographic Magazine
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0507/feature1/
(3) Letter to the editors of National Review from Lee M. Silver "Embryonic Issues
(4)"Science Fiction" by Michael Kinsley
http://www.slate.com/id/2145168/
Just another reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Proteus-Effect-Cells-Promise-Medicine/dp/0309089883/sr=8-1/qid=1169853832/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5844031-3220755?ie=UTF8&s=books
P.S. everything I said equally applies to solameanie's strange sleight of hand in which he compares embryonic stem cells to "triplets bonding and interacting with each other." What? Huh? Obviously those aren't bundles of cells, no one ever said they were! But embryonic stem cells are; they are smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence. (referenced from National Geographic)
In conclusion, as Lewis Black has said: "They're frozen. They're frozen. They're frozen."
I look forward to reading your response.
Devin, a unique DNA human person is a person no matter how small. A unique human DNA human on the end of a needle could be a developing human who could have the cure to your purposeful ignorance.
Lots of important stuff can happen at the end of a needle. If a woman is pregnant 9 months with a child and one is a boy and one is a girl and you do not have the instruments to determine, would it be fair to say that it is a non-issue because a smarty pants prof. said, "tell me the difference"?
I'll go back to my quote from 'Horton Hears a Who' and you can go back to scientific complex obfuscations. If it were your wife, you were having trouble conceiving but wanted to have your own offspring, those cells would make a huge difference to you because you would know what they mean. "They are frozen" and "They are frozen" means nothing to me. Frozen embryos have been thawed, implanted, and brought to term and you also know this.
Devin, did you know you too are going to die someday and such is quite certain and you will be "discarded" I believe is your word. But your organs could prolong Richard Dawkin's life if utilized right now and he is very mature and bright you know.
Devin, sorry if I apparently misled you about any specific body part(s). I wouldn't want to mention a specific 'part' and be incorrect.
Unique human DNA (not the mother, not the father) which if protected and nourished will be the same human being, in continuity with the baby, toddler, teen, adult, and senior, is who I am talking about, not any particular limb of said human being.
By the way, isn't a stem cell a 'part' of a tiny 'part'? And if it is so small (by your repeat assertion that smallness minimizes significance in the clumps of human tissue and the size of a pinhead or a dot at the end of a sentence), doesn't that make it too insignificant for you by your references?
Do you know how small the HIV virus is? Small. What in the name of anything decent or rational does THAT have to do with anything? I can only think of one thing. The impact of your argument. Re-read lifeguard7 and start again with that pin head logic. I may have missed something because it was too hard for my eyes to see it.
Oh yes, for the record I am also lifeguard7. I couldn't get my new google login to work on my post so went with that and it worked. Whew, got it figured out now. Wouldn't want all those "National Geographic" and 'form of the argument' and "The New Republic" (nice of you to toss in the "National Review" for photos) and Michael Kinsley and "Slate" references to go under appreciated.
"Devin, a unique DNA human person is a person no matter how small. A unique human DNA human on the end of a needle could be a developing human who could have the cure to your purposeful ignorance."
No, it isn't a "person" in any relevant philosophical sense. It certainly is a biological human. But then again, as scientists have pointed out, almost all human cells are (or will soon be) potential human beings.
"Lots of important stuff can happen at the end of a needle. If a woman is pregnant 9 months with a child and one is a boy and one is a girl and you do not have the instruments to determine, would it be fair to say that it is a non-issue because a smarty pants prof. said, "tell me the difference"?"
This has no relevance to the debate. I'm not sure what it matters if an embryo has XX or XY chromosomes (becuase there isn't even a nervous system at this point, there are no sex organs Joe)and why that matters if embryos are truly in the moral realm. But I'm sure you can enlighten why you brought this up.
"If it were your wife, you were having trouble conceiving but wanted to have your own offspring, those cells would make a huge difference to you because you would know what they mean."
Haha. It's funny that you brought this up, becuase I guess I'll have to make my point AGAIN. (Note: YOU DON'T HAVE TO RESPOND OR READ ANYTHING, AS LONG AS YOU FINALLY RESPOND TO THIS POINT.) Under your logic, mothers using these embryos (which you claim are so important to them) are all MURDERERS. Each time in-vetro fertilization occurs, excess embryos are thrown away with the consent and knowledge of the mother. Every time, Joe. These embryos are being thrown away legally, and with consent from Mr. Bush. You still have not given a reply to this. I'm still waiting.
"They are frozen" means nothing to me. Frozen embryos have been thawed, implanted, and brought to term and you also know this."
Joe, it was a joke! Do you know who Lewis Black is? Funny guy. You should give him a listen.
"Devin, did you know you too are going to die someday and such is quite certain and you will be "discarded" I believe is your word. But your organs could prolong Richard Dawkin's life if utilized right now and he is very mature and bright you know"
I had forgotten that I was going to die, but thanks for reminding me, Joe! All joking aside, I find Dawkin's quite dogmatic and his delivery screeching but his message sound. That said, I see no problem with someone discarding me after I die (what do you think burial is?) and using my organs to save a living person's life (sparing there family and themselves amazing heartache).
"Devin, sorry if I apparently misled you about any specific body part(s). I wouldn't want to mention a specific 'part' and be incorrect."
Let me just have a little thought experiment. If someone told me "there are baby parts on the table!" What would I think....hmmmm..... Oh Yea! Something as small as a period! Please, Joe. You were purposefully misleading and you know it.
"By the way, isn't a stem cell a 'part' of a tiny 'part'? And if it is so small (by your repeat assertion that smallness minimizes significance in the clumps of human tissue and the size of a pinhead or a dot at the end of a sentence), doesn't that make it too insignificant for you by your references?"
What? Clarify.
"Do you know how small the HIV virus is? Small. What in the name of anything decent or rational does THAT have to do with anything? I can only think of one thing. The impact of your argument. Re-read lifeguard7 and start again with that pin head logic. I may have missed something because it was too hard for my eyes to see it."
Fallacy. The HIV virus itself is small yes; its EFFECTS, not so small. A stem cell, small. It's potential effects on curing diseases, pretty big. The negative moral effects (the embyro's will be thrown away anyways): none.
Okay. 1.So, I didn't particularly understand any of your arguments, mostly becuase I think you are simply relying on a theological concept of ensoulment at conception, but won't come out and say it. 2. You didn't respond to any of my main points (embryos thrown away anyways, they have no discernible "baby parts" etc.) 3. Next, you make a bogus point concerning size. I clarify why I emphasize size right now:
Size gives us a basic guideline of organisms moral "personhood" or "moral worth" (don't take that term the wrong way). For example, we should be much more concerned about not causing a dog harm then causing an ant harm. But it is not becuase of the size (a "little person" is just as morally important as Yao Ming) but size denotes (usually) a level of consciousness (sp) and awareness an organism has. The size of an embryo is simply to show how un-human it is (unlike what solameanie characterizes as "triplets bonding").
Also, I'm perplexed by your snide comments about my sources. I know that you just love amateur people who send you inane newsletters that like to claim Darwin was an alien, and that Mary and an Angel came down and took there family pictures...or whatever they claim. But, for the most part, The New Republic and The National Geographic are revered by...you know...people who like cogent commentary, not faith. But, of course, they have had tons of articles to criticize, but YOU OFFER NO CRITICISM. You simply dismiss them becuase THEY ARE, not for WHAT THEY ARE. After all, I seem to remember you referencing one of your points to a museum tour guide. I wouldn't criticize my choice of sources...
I would really like you to read the Kinsley piece (you don't think your going to go to hell just for considering it, do you? haha, come on, that was funny.).
Devin, I'm fine with sources when they are accurate and not selectively employed to build a case. E.g. humor promos that are wrongheaded and wronghearted, and pictures from a conservative source to buttress a liberal source article.
I believe IVF destruction of extra fertilized eggs (smallest new human beings) is morally wrong. You want to push the envelope and put it on Bush and call it murder, have at it. I believe in a post snowflake children world that societal ignorance is beginning to catch up with what many Catholic scholars have been telling us all along. No, I am not Catholic and am not considering becoming one.
Lastly I believe you said that any human cell could become a human being and of course you are speaking of cloning and stating that because such is only a 'potential human', a category sadly used in a now rightly out of print book called "Brave New People", that potential humanity is not a reason for special treatment of a group of unique human cells. And you asked for clarification.
OK, you are correct in your chosen limited application. But the hypothetical human clone, from a fingernail of the original for instance, is very much a genetic copy (again hypothetically speaking as we do not have human clones brought to term yet that I am aware of) of the original parent's DNA.
When I say unique human being and unique human DNA I am referring to the fact that like the fingerprint, each person ever conceived from one male sperm and one female egg, has a unique DNA which has never existed before and never will exist again. This makes it (actually him or her) different from any old clump of human cells.
Now perhaps hypothetically speaking the exact human DNA and person can be replicated could we clone a human being. I do not think such is wise or good. I believe they (human clones, again hypothetically speaking) would be regarded as second class products as per the movie 'The Island' or bred for performance in second class status like the movie 'Gattica' or used for spare parts as per stem cell clone and kill or the football player in 'The Island'.
Human cloning is evil. I'll stand by that. I believe in a post snowflake (formerly frozen human embryo's from IVF implanted and brought to term) world that intentional destruction of leftover IVF embryos is evil. I'll stand by that as well.
You ask if I believe the human soul enters at conception. I will respond with a question. Did you recently start believing in a human soul? Tell me about that.
Your beliefs:
1. Mothers who use in-vetro fertilization are quasi-murderers.
2. Bush is hypocritical for not pushing to make in-vetro fertilization. And, becuase of his tacit support, he is enabling a quasi-genocide.
3. The intellectual heft of Christianity comes from Catholocism, but you chose to stay away from "logos."
4. You get easily offended if a heading of an article says something "wrong-hearted" (what are you even referring to?).
5. And you get mad when anyone uses the National Review for anything "un-conservative."
I don't believe in a soul (I don't know why anyone would); I was simply saying why none of your arguments make sense: mainly becuase you are working under the assumption that little cells are ensouled (sp) at conception but not coming out and saying it.
So, we've now established that you should support jailing in-vetro mothers, oppose Bush for a more conservative president (possibly one that wants a theocracy?), want to identify yourself with an intellectually bankrupt group, and are very sensitive about sources (that must be why I never see you use any).
Thanks for confirming you are completely out of America's realm of acceptance ("SJT").
I think saying that I think something is murder when I never said that is not helpful. Do you believe 2nd hand smoke or too much fat in a diet hastens death? Should these 'murderers' who smoke and sell certain foods be up on charges? And should you be committed for trying to commit suicide by allowing yourself to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke and eating foods high in fat and sugar? Ah but if you KNEW is was a genuine, immediately killing poison and you profited from keeping others ignorant and consuming...that would be different, would it not? Are you aware that murder is different from homicide? Are you aware of the fact that ignorance and motive are factors for such determinations? Hope so. "Quasi" might have been intended by you to soften the word 'murder' and 'genocide' which you repeatedly use and I do not.
I do believe that Christians have different views about the soul or uniqueness in the image of God of human beings. I suspect you'd like to know all about these differences so we can put ghosts on the ends of pins too but let me suffice it to say that your life has far more value than you think. Much more.
My view, since you ask is that 'the image of God', or the human soul, or that which is unique about humans and human capacities (still being discovered but including a capacity to have a meaningful relationship with God) happen when the human becomes a unique human being with unique human DNA which is at conception.
As science gets more advanced we discover more about the 'simple cell'. Have you seen the Harvard flash movie of all these processes in a simple cell yet? It is amazing. Same with the developing human child inside his/her mother. Have you seen the BBC's 3-D ultrasound documentary yet? Fabulous. We discovered when the finger prints emerge, when the heart beating apparently begins, when there are detectable brain waves and such, many of which are happening before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
I rather believe as science gets more advanced that we will discover more complexities in early human life as we have discovered about the simple cell. Tell me you do not need a source for this obvious statement.
Building on that last paragraph I find it odd that while science discovers what we intuitively knew all along or at least before 1973 and Roe and such, e.g. that babies in utero are human babies and worthy of protection and rights, society by apparent reasoning from science, treats human life before birth, LESS human all the time.
This is not at the core about science alone. You are correct about that. It is about your value as a human being from your conception onward. I'm trying to affirm its dignify and you seem to be trying to dignify it by making it worthless when tossed at conception with no consequences or afterthought or as an extremely valuable commodity for someone else.
Believing in your value and your soul (if you will) I do find it very sad, and it is hard for that not to come across as indignation responding unemotionally to your positions. I believe in your right to hold those beliefs. And inspite your repeated suspicions about all Christians and me, I am not interested in a theocracy and you know this. I am hoping your viewpoint (is it OK to call it one of atheism?) is not legislated (oops it already is via the unelected high courts) into law. I'd like people to have freedom to choose and express their beliefs. OK then, having it legislated I hope it is overturned and individual States get more input into the matter democratically. I am very much hopeful that you and your viewpoint do not force me to pay for these human trashings and or commodifications with the money I make from my work.
Disagreement on the above has led many to demonize Bush when I'd rather critique his pros and cons without the demonization. Yes, I would like a President a tad more conservative than Bush in the following ways. I think he could use the 'bully pulpit' more on the culture of life and I think he could do more to limit the size and spending of government. I have not regretted voting for him rather than the alternatives we were given.
Bush aside and the issue of human dignity back center stage, I think I can only count on opposing such human commodification for others or cast-aside views of human dignity in the theater of ideas and in the public square with debate, with reason, with prayer and at the ballot box. This blog is part of that continuum. Frankly and honetly I rather like your willingness to engage the ideas and yes I'd like to see you become more friendly toward a Judeo-Christian position on such matters and yes even come to faith in Jesus Christ as your savior as well.
Did you grow up in a fundy, bible-belt context in the South and in a school like the one in the movie 'Saved' or something? I only ask because your emails come across to me as mine do to you. Angry. I'm at I.U. on Wednesdays usually in the mid-day. Want to have a Coke sometime? I think we have each others email...
Devin,
Scripture says not to answer a fool in his folly, so I will say only this. It appears to me that you are so busy throwing charges of being misleading and obfuscating the issue that you are missing the heart of what's being said.
In truth, it doesn't matter what you think about the human embryo. What matters is what God says about it. At whatever stage of development, whether we're talking about the first few cell divisions after conception to the ninth month of pregnancy, we are talking about human life. We rightfully disdain the Nazis for making lampshades out of human skin, but seem to have no conscience about what we do with unborn children. If you can't see the connection, I pray that God will open your eyes.
I will not quibble about how many cells it takes to make a baby, just as I won't quibble about how many licks it takes to get to the middle of a Tootsie Pop. Your so-called "scientific fact" overlooks the ethical considerations of all this, which is one of the chief dangers of godless science. A true scientist respects the role of the Creator in His creation. I am sure you will bridle at that statement, but tough.
I just think you statement should be repeated for all to see:
"In truth, it doesn't matter what you think about the human embryo. What matters is what God says about it."
I think your statement: "It matters what God says" is refuted in this essay I wrote:
The concept of faith, being so abstract and yet so attractive, has been written on by more writers than one could count. Some, of course, are better than others; Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" is arguably one of the most eloquent and thoughtful. In the book, Johannes de Silentio (Kierkegaard's pseudonym) writes at length about the troubling story of Abraham, the "anxiety" it evokes in the religious, and the seemingly strange paradox of the "universal" (the ethical) contradictin God's will or demand. On of the most interesting passages comes in the "Preliminary Expectoration wherein Kierkegaard writes:
"If faith cannot make it a holy act to be willing to murder his son, then let the same judgment be passed on Abraham as on everyone else. If a person lacks the courage to think his thought through and say that Abraham was a murderer, then it is certainly better to attain this courage than to waste time on unmerited eulogies. The ethical expression for what Abraham did is that he meant to murder Isaac; the religious expression is that he meant to sacrifice Issac - but precisely in this contradiction is the anxiety that can make a person sleepless, and yet without this anxiety Abraham is not who he is." (1)
This short passage has many claims (both explicit and implicit) and many implications (both positive and negative). The ones I will focus on, however, are: the call to be true to oneself in the criticism of "unmerited eulogies," the division of a single action into two categories (the religious and the ethical), and the concession that if Abraham was not right to be willing to murder his son, no heinous act can be justified by fait. Most importantly this passage shows that Kierkegaard's own bias towards religious faith led him to an untenable conclusion; faith should not be place above (or equal) to the ethical, the logical and moral implications are too grave.
The most positive and refreshing statement in this important passage reflects Kierkegaard's own desire for truth and "the necessity for an authentic individual to stand alone if necessary against 'the crowd.'" (2) Many critics of religion point out the quasi-cultish quality of many of its customs and beliefs; in this case, however, that criticism would be hollow. Kierkegaard makes the simple yet exceedingly important claim that if Abraham cannot be logically shown to be anything other than an attempted murderer, no one should be praising him. "It is certainly better" to acknowledge Abraham as immoral than to "(waste) time on unmerited eulogies," he writes. In other words, religion is not inherently a carte blanch for any behavior, and one should not accept the proposition that Abraham is a "father of faith" simply becuase it is the Church's and the Churchs adherent's strict position. This has many implications for faith and religion. Most importantly, it seems to make the bold claim that the true form of religion is not in institutions and dogmas they perpetuate, but in the individual and his/her reasoning. More evidence of this sentiment can be found outside of "Fear and Trembling," in Kierkegaard's own life. For example, he was a strong opponent of the Danish state church, and even while "affirming a strong Christian faith, (he refused) to take communion from the hands of a priest of the official church." (2) Although one can voice many criticism of Kierkegaard, one cannot claim he was a blind sheep led by the Church's staff.
Past this one point of agreement, however, I do not see much to revel in; Kierkegaard's division of one event into two different, yet simultaneous interpretations, for example, is logically incoherent and intellectually lazy. He claims that Abraham's actions can be interpreted in two ways: "the ethical expression...is murder" while "the religious expression...is sacrifice." But Kierkegaard's view is, also, that both expressions, through "the absurd" can be synthesized so one can stay loyal to both the ethical world and the religious world; one can please God and keep Issac. I simply deny Kierkegaard's core claim. Behind the eloquent writing, this is just theological obfuscation. One cannot have "A" and "~A." An aspiring murderer cannot fulfill his macabre desires, while leaving his victim untouched. In the same respect, Abraham cannot have Isaac and not have him at the same time. This is a simple rule of logic and theology does not grant Kierkegaard pardon to skirt it. Kierkegaard knows this, and it shows that his faith (not his reason) has led him to this conclusion. One might say that my criticism is invalid becuase in the story of Abraham, Isaac does not die; in the end, Abraham really does keep Isaac and please God! The problem with this is that there are a myriad of other examples in the Bible of people subverting the ethical. In war, children are enslaved and women murdered at God's order. If one adopts tunnel-vision and limits oneself to this one story, the criticism holds. But the story of Abraham is not the Bible, it is simply one story surrounded by others that testify to a God that subverts the universal. At risk of sounding too harsh, it needs to be said that the very fact that Kierkegaard things that, in reality, there are two ways to view the event is intellectually lazy. For example, a rational person could never conclude that when a Catholic takes communion, one way to look at it would be they are eating bread, another way is that they are eating human flesh, and at the same time doing both simultaneously. Transubstantiation is, to anyone unhabituated to Catholic doctrine, absurd. Likewise, there should not even be two categories in this story (murder and sacrifice). "Sacrifice" is a wrod that gives solace to good-minded theists when their God askes them to do something terrible. Are suicide bombers murderers? "No, they are martyrs," supporters would say. Are abortion clinic bombers murderers? "No, they are defenders of the unborn," supporters would say. These are euphemisms based in fantasy - a fantasy that causes Kierkegaard to excuse Abraham from his heinous crime.
Kierkegaard only digs himself into a deeper philosophical and practical hole by conceding that "if faith cannot make it a holy act to be willing to murder his son, then the same judgement" should be placed on everyone else, and at the same time holding that Abraham is (in an albeit complicated way) exempt from ethics. His basic contention is sound - if Abraham is not exempt, then no one is. But when Kierkegaard finally endorses the idea that what Abraham did was something to be in aw of, to be lauded and taken as an example of a "knight of faith," Kierkegaard fails to understand the dire practical implications. The suicide bombers of 9/11 were motivated (in part) by faith and religion. Is one to give them a pass, then, since God has commanded them through scripture and divine inspiration to flay a plane into a building? Surely, No. One might say that my criticism is inept and completely off the mark becuase suicide bombers are not "knights of faith"; they are not like Abraham. But the whole concept of the "knight of faith" is deeply flawed. How could one ever discern who was a "night of faith" and who was not? What faith, in what God, at what time? How would a command (to subvert the ethical laws) be received, and why should the receiver believe it? Should society study each religious fanatic in order to make sure we don't thwart God's will? These practical and simple questions throw a wrench into Kierkegaard's whole theory. William McDonald has written:
"This renders cases such as Abraham's exremely problematic, since we have no recourse to public reason to decide whether he is legitimately obeying God's command or whether he is a deluded would-be murderer. Since public reason cannot decide the issue for us, we must decide for ourselves as a matter of religious faith." (3)
No one can know if Abraham was "legitimately obeying God's command" or was simply crazy, including Kierkegaard. The fact that he concludes so strongly that he was obeying God shows that Kierkegaard's conclustion itself is biased by his own Christian faith. "Public reason" couldn't "decide the issue for" him so he retreated to "the absurd," and ended with an absurd conclusion.
Although "Fear and Trembling" is beatifully written, and the highlighted passage contains some positive thoughts, Kierkegaard's theological position violates common sense and has dire moral implications. Kierkegaard concludes the passage by saying that, "precisely in this contraiction (between the ethical and religious) is the anxiety that can make a person sleepless..." I, however, will rest easy tonight with the comforting knowledge that there is no need for anxiety. Simply take religion out of the equation, one is left with the ethical and that is all one needs.
(1) "Fear and Trembling" by Soren Kierkegaard pg. 30
(2) The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, "Kierkegaard, Soren Aabye," pg. 468
(3) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Soren Kierkegaard
Post a Comment