Dawkins and Singer
I found this one and it's a dooozy. Here's the dynamic duo thinkin about the poor animals and infanticide in the same discussion. Yes animals should be taken care of better, but because of our silly artificial boundary between homo sapiens and chimps, we can't at present kill one year old babies.  I'm hoping they are really crazy so God Almighty doesn't send them to the lowest part of Hell. What a pair !

Remember to hold you nose, because these two are full of it.

I made it to 40 seconds, then I closed the vid.
Just awful.
So having the ability to feel pain and suffer is what gives a being rights?  So what happens when their beloved Science finds a way to cure all suffering and pain?  Do we lose our sense of personhood?  Oh, wait, that's never going to happen.
Bad ideas. Bad philosophy. Pain should not be a decision in whether something is moral to kill or not. This is a very novel and dangerous idea. Think about just anesthetizing a human, an animal, any sentient being, and then you do them in. There, no pain! These guys are so deep in demonic delusion that they don't even think straight anymore. They can't even step outside themselves and see how clinically they treat human lives. I assume they believe humans are just matter, so all is permitted. Certainly Dawkins thinks that all is matter. But they wear nice clothing, talk pensively, and have positions of power. Read Ideas Have Consequences by Richard M. Weaver.
These guys aren't the only two. This type of thinking is pervasive. Obama is a prime example, he said deciding when conception occurs is over his pay grade. He is supposed to be a lawyer, and is incapable of critical thinking ? The HHS regulation points to it as well. The Fox Biz. News bunnies all have to twist their minds to agree with the Bishops, as an issue, while simultaneously extolling the virtues of contraception.  To use the new parlance, I can't see how in the natural order of things, we can walk back these diabolical notions.

It's so odd that a philosopher would get trapped into thinking that the only things that are real are material.  At least Dawkins' background is in biology, so I'd expect that from him, but I just don't get it from philosophers.  And really, even a scientist should be wary of basing anything on that, considering just how much we know we don't know.  We have two incredibly successful physical theories that don't work together.  In fact, even if we found the one equation that described how everything worked and moved, we still wouldn't necessarily be any closer to discovering why anything moves.  I mean, think about that.  We don't even know why anything moves.  And we are willing to put up that extremely lacking collection of knowledge as some kind of justification for our positions on whether or not we can kill people?
Good post, professor Graye.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Hey, pray for the guys that they change!

Ideas Have Consequences is one of the best books I ever read. One thing many people simply don't think about or don't care about today is that ideas do in fact have consequences, very serious consequences. Dawkins and Singer are both simply nuts but sadly the garbage they espouse is pretty mainstream. The ideas of these men will be shaping this culture for a long time short of divine intervention.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)