Fetus in fetu

[nimbus]

Incredible images. The world is a strange place. Some of the comments question the legality of treating this condition in some states.

Teaching NeuroImage: Intraventricular Fetus-in-Fetu With Extensive De Novo Gain in Genetic Copy Number

An intraventricular fetus-in-fetu, a malformed monochorionic diamniotic twin, was identified in a 1-year-old girl with motor delay and enlarged head circumference (Figure 1). After surgical removal, whole-genome sequencing revealed identical single-nucleotide variants in the host child and...

n.neurology.org

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Sad to think about this happening to this poor girl and her family. Not an uplifting way to start the morning.

FYI- I would spare yourself looking at more pics/comments on twitter... It is crazy how people see this happen to someone else and their immediate thoughts are “how can I spin this for my own political/personal gain.” There is some truly hateful and divisive people out there.

 

[2Fast2Des]

That is wild, has anyone else seen this condition before in other body areas? This is the first time I'm hearing\seeing about something like this. Props to the surgeon to get this out, the human body never ceases to amaze me.

Regarding the whole abortion thing, I think it is a valid concern to bring up especially with level of dedication the right wing nut jobs who so clamor for the rights of the unborn, even in incest, rape or mothers health or wishes be damned. I'm curious to see what the Republican stance on this procedure is and if they would prosecute or allow this

 

[Fpg1245]

Incredible images. The world is a strange place. Some of the comments question the legality of treating this condition in some states.

Teaching NeuroImage: Intraventricular Fetus-in-Fetu With Extensive De Novo Gain in Genetic Copy Number

An intraventricular fetus-in-fetu, a malformed monochorionic diamniotic twin, was identified in a 1-year-old girl with motor delay and enlarged head circumference (Figure 1). After surgical removal, whole-genome sequencing revealed identical single-nucleotide variants in the host child and...

n.neurology.org

Should have carried her brain tumor child to term the way god intended. #warriorsforchrist

 

[Dr. Rude]

Can the one year old be prosecuted for murder?

 

[Fpg1245]

Can the one year old be prosecuted for murder?

No but the surgeon who did the case might

 

[TexBlazer2106]

No reasonable religion would deny treatment to this child. For extreme cases like this and others where the condition is a true threat to life, then the treatment for that condition whether it directly or indirectly affects the unborn fetus is acceptable.

The issue comes in deciding what’s a true threat to life and what is an acceptable risk, which varies from case to case and is often difficult to determine.

 

[Southpaw]

No reasonable religion would deny treatment to this child. For extreme cases like this and others where the condition is a true threat to life, then the treatment for that condition whether it directly or indirectly affects the unborn fetus is acceptable.

The issue comes in deciding what’s a true threat to life and what is an acceptable risk, which varies from case to case and is often difficult to determine.

Consider how many in history have died in the name of religion. At its core no religion is reasonable.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

No reasonable religion would deny treatment to this child.

The far right religious zealots and fundamentalists are not reasonable.

 

[chessknt]

No reasonable religion would deny treatment to this child. For extreme cases like this and others where the condition is a true threat to life, then the treatment for that condition whether it directly or indirectly affects the unborn fetus is acceptable.

The issue comes in deciding what’s a true threat to life and what is an acceptable risk, which varies from case to case and is often difficult to determine.

The problem is that the right insists on legislating this restrictively and with extreme punitive measures but doesn't take the time to clearly delineate every single edge case and scenario where the laws should not apply. I personally don't think it is possible to describe every scenario in advance because medicine is complicated and weird but that onus is on the ones legislating medical care in to a crime, too bad they don't feel the same way.

 

[anaesthetic]

How do we know that this intraventricular fetus wouldn’t have become the president of the United States?

 

[Dr. Rude]

How do we know that this intraventricular fetus wouldn’t have become the president of the United States?

They still have the potential to be a hospital administrator.

 

[Fpg1245]

They still have the potential to be a hospital administrator.

Will likely have the IQ for it

 

[2Fast2Des]

They still have the potential to be a hospital administrator.

Who said they aren't? Brainless and heartless

 

[Fpg1245]

This whole thread could be a South Park episode

 

[Dr. Rude]

This whole thread could be a South Park episode

 

[BLADEMDA]

The far right religious zealots and fundamentalists are not reasonable.

The big question is who gets to decide the qualifications for "far right"? I can tell you that many on here are "far left" by my definition. So, it's quite ironic that "far left" members get to call everyone who disagrees with them "far right." Most Christians and Americans are moderate in their views.

 

[vector2]

Near total bans, many with no exception for rape or incest. Those are policies which 75% of the American people disagree with. But let's keep pretending they're "moderate" lol

 

[patriot6]

Consider how many in history have died in the name of religion. At its core no religion is reasonable.

Facism and communism as features of atheistic regimes have resulted in the death of many as well.
Perhaps religion isn't the common denominator in all the atrocious acts throughout human history.
I think the common denominator is people -- religious or not. Doesn't matter.

 

[patriot6]

Regarding the whole abortion thing, I think it is a valid concern to bring up especially with level of dedication the right wing nut jobs who so clamor for the rights of the unborn, even in incest, rape or mothers health or wishes be damned. I'm curious to see what the Republican stance on this procedure is and if they would prosecute or allow this

It only took us three posts to get to the partisan comments. People will use this strange case as justification for access to abortion on demand, which is the termination of a healthy, viable fetus. It's frustrating when pro-choice members form their arguments around incest, rape, mothers' health, or in this case "fetus in fetu". The reality is that these situations account for a surprisingly small, near insignificant portion of the abortions in this country. Why do they hide behind these tough realities as a justification for abortion? Well, probably because the termination of a healthy baby is also a very difficult reality -- one that many, including myself, do not support. Regarding this case, there is no reasonable opposition to the definitive treatment provided here. If there is opposition, you're right that it's from the "nut jobs" whose opinion is loud, but wrong.

 

[Dr. Rude]

Near total bans, many with no exception for rape or incest. Those are policies which 75% of the American people disagree with. But let's keep pretending they're "moderate" lol

View attachment 367342G

Government just small enough to fit in the bedroom.

 

[vector2]

Facism and communism as features of atheistic regimes have resulted in the death of many as well.
Perhaps religion isn't the common denominator in all the atrocious acts throughout human history.
I think the common denominator is people -- religious or not. Doesn't matter.

You're missing the point.

When a secular person commits an atrocious act based on naturalistic reasoning/morality, we can all logically agree that that person alone is responsible.

When a religious person commits an atrocious act in the name of his god, and then claims that his moral reasoning is based on unverifiable, non-falsifiable, supernatural claims, then there is no empiric way to demonstrate that he alone is responsible. Because faith is a non-reason based belief that can exist despite facts or evidence to the contrary.

That's what makes the latter intrinsically more dangerous. Stalin is an dingus, but we all know he's just a man. A Spanish Inquisitor, otoh, is a vessel of the almighty creator put on this earth to rid humanity of evil. Who are you to question God's will?

 

[patriot6]

You're missing the point.

When a secular person commits an atrocious act based on naturalistic reasoning/morality, we can all logically agree that that person alone is responsible.

When a religious person commits an atrocious act in the name of his god, and then claims that his moral reasoning is based on unverifiable, non-falsifiable, supernatural claims, then there is no empiric way to demonstrate that he alone is responsible. Because faith is a non-reason based belief that can exist despite facts or evidence to the contrary.

That's what makes the latter intrinsically more dangerous. Stalin is an dingus, but we all know he's just a man. A Spanish Inquisitor, otoh, is a vessel of the almighty creator put on this earth to rid humanity of evil. Who are you to question God's will?

Great post, thanks. I do believe the majority of religious acts of violence were performed by incredibly selfish, power hungry individuals who deflected blame by invoking some sort of holy, divinely inspired mission. They're next level psychopaths. Imo, the inquisition (for example) is not an example of the inherently flawed idea of religion(s), it's proof that people suck and will use any ideology to further their own goals. Christian orthodoxy does not result in the slaughter of thousands of heretics. That's the result of human nature orthodoxy.

 

[vector2]

Great post, thanks. I do believe the majority of religious acts of violence were performed by incredibly selfish, power hungry individuals who deflected blame by invoking some sort of holy, divinely inspired mission.

Again, you can't prove this. It's just your opinion. And if you have enough people of X or Y faith-based belief who disagree with you, then there is no recourse - at least not any based on logic or evidence - that makes your thesis that they're just being selfish any more true than their thesis that they are, in fact, actual vessels of God sent here to cleanse.

 

[vector2]

Idk, seems like lots of people blame society and environment for atrocious acts these days. Democrats aren’t exactly the party of personal responsibility and “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” as you guys like to make fun of republicans for.

I think you missed the salient part of my post.

Which is namely that it matters whether whatever "thing" is to blame is based on naturalism or is based on unverifiable, unfalsifiable faith-based claims.

If we humor your partisan example for a minute, let's say some hypothetical dem says poverty is partly to blame for crime. Regardless of whether that claim is true or not, it is a testable, empirically-verifiable claim. You can't say the same about Koresh believing he was God's vessel put on earth to set up a polygamous Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem by way of Waco.

 

[MirrorTodd]

The big question is who gets to decide the qualifications for "far right"? I can tell you that many on here are "far left" by my definition. So, it's quite ironic that "far left" members get to call everyone who disagrees with them "far right." Most Christians and Americans are moderate in their views.

lol bro, you throw "woke" around here like it's candy.

 

[nimbus]

You're missing the point.

When a secular person commits an atrocious act based on naturalistic reasoning/morality, we can all logically agree that that person alone is responsible.

When a religious person commits an atrocious act in the name of his god, and then claims that his moral reasoning is based on unverifiable, non-falsifiable, supernatural claims, then there is no empiric way to demonstrate that he alone is responsible. Because faith is a non-reason based belief that can exist despite facts or evidence to the contrary.

That's what makes the latter intrinsically more dangerous. Stalin is an dingus, but we all know he's just a man. A Spanish Inquisitor, otoh, is a vessel of the almighty creator put on this earth to rid humanity of evil. Who are you to question God's will?

For example….

Calif. man accused of running over and fatally stabbing doctor has no regrets, claims he is Jesus Christ

In a rambling jailhouse interview, Vanroy Evan Smith, quoted Bible verses and said people would think differently about his alleged crimes if they knew he was the “King of Kings”.

nypost.com

 

[patriot6]

For example….

Calif. man accused of running over and fatally stabbing doctor has no regrets, claims he is Jesus Christ

In a rambling jailhouse interview, Vanroy Evan Smith, quoted Bible verses and said people would think differently about his alleged crimes if they knew he was the “King of Kings”.

nypost.com

Yeah, after reading that article, I can also conclude that religion is the problem. The point of that tragic story is not that guy’s untreated psychosis; it’s that we need to cancel Christianity ASAP. 🙄

 

[nimbus]

Yeah, after reading that article, I can also conclude that religion is the problem. The point of that tragic story is not that guy’s untreated psychosis; it’s that we need to cancel Christianity ASAP. 🙄

The problem is that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish religious zealotry from psychosis. When I was a 2nd grader in Catholic school being indoctrinated for my first holy communion, none of it made any rational sense. But I did not have the wherewithal to question or challenge it at the time. So I went through with it.

If the real Jesus Christ actually returned to earth today, he would more than likely be considered psychotic.

 

[vector2]

Yeah, after reading that article, I can also conclude that religion is the problem. The point of that tragic story is not that guy’s untreated psychosis; it’s that we need to cancel Christianity ASAP. 🙄

Is the most famous actor on the planet (who happens to be worth 10s of millions of $ + still gainfully employed) also an untreated psychotic?

After all, he's the number 2 in a religioncoughcultcough that believes depression isn't real, dyslexia isn't real, autism isn't real, and that "Xenu, an extraterrestrial ruler of a "Galactic Confederacy" brought billions[6][7] of his people to Earth (then known as "Teegeeack") in DC-8-like spacecraft 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them with hydrogen bombs."

 

[patriot6]

The problem is that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish religious zealotry from psychosis. When I was a 2nd grader in Catholic school being indoctrinated for my first holy communion, none of it made any rational sense. But I did not have the wherewithal to question or challenge it at the time. So I went through with it.

If the real Jesus Christ actually returned to earth today, he would more than likely be considered psychotic.

1.3 bil Catholics in the world.

Is the most famous actor on the planet (who happens to be worth 10s of millions of $ + still gainfully employed) also an untreated psychotic?

After all, he's the number 2 in a religioncoughcultcough that believes depression isn't real, dyslexia isn't real, autism isn't real, and that "Xenu, an extraterrestrial ruler of a "Galactic Confederacy" brought billions[6][7] of his people to Earth (then known as "Teegeeack") in DC-8-like spacecraft 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them with hydrogen bombs."

He’s not a paranoid schizophrenic murdering people in intersections. But scientology is strange, I’ll give you that.

 

[Dr. Rude]

Is the most famous actor on the planet (who happens to be worth 10s of millions of $ + still gainfully employed) also an untreated psychotic?

After all, he's the number 2 in a religioncoughcultcough that believes depression isn't real, dyslexia isn't real, autism isn't real, and that "Xenu, an extraterrestrial ruler of a "Galactic Confederacy" brought billions[6][7] of his people to Earth (then known as "Teegeeack") in DC-8-like spacecraft 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them with hydrogen bombs."

Counterpoint:

He is fantastically successful and talented.
He doesn’t appear to age.
He hasn’t been in rehab (that we know of).
He hasn’t been accused of assaulting anybody.
He looks amazingly fit.
He gets amazingly hot women.

It Makes me think of converting to Scientology.

 

[vector2]

1.3 bil Catholics in the world.



He’s not a paranoid schizophrenic murdering people in intersections. But scientology is strange, I’ll give you that.

Do you know anything about Scientology? I suggest watching the documentary Going Clear on HBO if not. Really good. But the tldr version is that near-kidnapping and brainwashing people against their own families is part of their MO. It's not exactly benign.

Also, what do you think about Scientology being a tax exempt religious organization?

 

[Southpaw]

Yeah, after reading that article, I can also conclude that religion is the problem. The point of that tragic story is not that guy’s untreated psychosis; it’s that we need to cancel Christianity ASAP. 🙄

Even if one were to conclude religion isn’t the problem you’re greatly underestimating the hold it has on this country, a major political party, and the news org that caters to it. The Republican position on abortion with regard to rape and incest are perfect examples. Like making an 11yo cross state lines for an abortion after she was raped. And a state AG publicly shaming the physician who cared for her without fear of consequence.

 

[NumTacos]

The problem is that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish religious zealotry from psychosis. When I was a 2nd grader in Catholic school being indoctrinated for my first holy communion, none of it made any rational sense. But I did not have the wherewithal to question or challenge it at the time. So I went through with it.

If the real Jesus Christ actually returned to earth today, he would more than likely be considered psychotic.

Serious question, and honestly curious. What makes you think that if the historical Jesus returned today that he would be considered psychotic?

 

[TexBlazer2106]

I think you missed the salient part of my post.

Which is namely that it matters whether whatever "thing" is to blame is based on naturalism or is based on unverifiable, unfalsifiable faith-based claims.

If we humor your partisan example for a minute, let's say some hypothetical dem says poverty is partly to blame for crime. Regardless of whether that claim is true or not, it is a testable, empirically-verifiable claim. You can't say the same about Koresh believing he was God's vessel put on earth to set up a polygamous Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem by way of Waco.

You seem very comfortable in your atheist/agnostic perspective (like many on this thread) and those often work well for individuals or a small group. I've seen your posts on other forums and think you're an intelligent person. The problem with your "rational scientific" approach is that you really have no comprehensive set of ideals that you strive toward, or at least not any that you can claim authority over others with. Yours is the contrarian view, using circumstantial evidence in examples provided (a person identified as X and committed atrocities therefore X must be bad) to act as proof of faulty ideals. Then you present a scientific methodology to argue against circumstantial evidence as if it presents your side with validity? It's not even worthy of naming it a straw-man argument.

The truth is, nobody here is really qualified to speak here with authority on any of these things. We are people of material sciences not philosophical ones. We can (and should) give our opinions but in a constructive, not destructive way and certainly not with condescension. Philosophy and Theology are studies that are not valued at all in today's "Information Age" but they would be the ones to help find where humanity should go.

 

[chessknt]

You seem very comfortable in your atheist/agnostic perspective (like many on this thread) and those often work well for individuals or a small group. I've seen your posts on other forums and think you're an intelligent person. The problem with your "rational scientific" approach is that you really have no comprehensive set of ideals that you strive toward, or at least not any that you can claim authority over others with. Yours is the contrarian view, using circumstantial evidence in examples provided (a person identified as X and committed atrocities therefore X must be bad) to act as proof of faulty ideals. Then you present a scientific methodology to argue against circumstantial evidence as if it presents your side with validity? It's not even worthy of naming it a straw-man argument.

The truth is, nobody here is really qualified to speak here with authority on any of these things. We are people of material sciences not philosophical ones. We can (and should) give our opinions but in a constructive, not destructive way and certainly not with condescension. Philosophy and Theology are studies that are not valued at all in today's "Information Age" but they would be the ones to help find where humanity should go.

Too bad the religious people don't actually follow this advice. Essentially every lay person with no philosophical or theological training is told that they can divine the will of God by reading the bible but in reality they are programmed by the interpretation of their pastor, someone who often has little to no formal training either (catholic churches being a major exception). They then apply this 'knowledge' with an authority and vindication they have not earned to the rest of society as a whole.

I would guess that the vast majority of Republicans cannot coherently conjure biblical arguments against abortion and even gender affirming care even if they could cheat and look up the answers. Instead we get this pig headed insistence that God absolutely wouldn't want X or Y done (but in reality it is just because that person doesn't agree with the decision but invoking God sounds much more convincing) and then they turn it in to a law. They have to frame it as a horribly flawed moral argument because we can't openly state that Republican Jesus is actually writing our laws but the end result now is we are seeing huge swaths of the country lose access to an entire aspect of modern medicine for no coherent reason. It is infuriating and the contagion is real--it is not inconceivable that by 2030 homosexuality could be outlawed in parts of this country.

 

[TexBlazer2106]

Too bad the religious people don't actually follow this advice. Essentially every lay person with no philosophical or theological training is told that they can divine the will of God by reading the bible but in reality they are programmed by the interpretation of their pastor, someone who often has little to no formal training either (catholic churches being a major exception). They then apply this 'knowledge' with an authority and vindication they have not earned to the rest of society as a whole.

I would guess that the vast majority of Republicans cannot coherently conjure biblical arguments against abortion and even gender affirming care even if they could cheat and look up the answers. Instead we get this pig headed insistence that God absolutely wouldn't want X or Y done (but in reality it is just because that person doesn't agree with the decision but invoking God sounds much more convincing) and then they turn it in to a law. They have to frame it as a horribly flawed moral argument because we can't openly state that Republican Jesus is actually writing our laws but the end result now is we are seeing huge swaths of the country lose access to an entire aspect of modern medicine for no coherent reason. It is infuriating and the contagion is real--it is not inconceivable that by 2030 homosexuality could be outlawed in parts of this country.

I agree with your first paragraph as I struggle with Protestants over those points regularly (sola scriptura). We've gone back and forth over your second paragraph before and I understand your point of view. But really, I don't think elected Republicans care about those issues. They simply use it to further personal gain and reelection.

 

[GravelRider]

Serious question, and honestly curious. What makes you think that if the historical Jesus returned today that he would be considered psychotic?

Nah. He would just be a woke hippy liberal trying to turn everyone into a bunch of socialists.

 

[GravelRider]

My question about the original case is, wouldn’t they have discovered this on routine ultrasounds as part of prenatal care?

 

[vector2]

You seem very comfortable in your atheist/agnostic perspective (like many on this thread) and those often work well for individuals or a small group. I've seen your posts on other forums and think you're an intelligent person. The problem with your "rational scientific" approach is that you really have no comprehensive set of ideals that you strive toward, or at least not any that you can claim authority over others with. Yours is the contrarian view, using circumstantial evidence in examples provided (a person identified as X and committed atrocities therefore X must be bad) to act as proof of faulty ideals. Then you present a scientific methodology to argue against circumstantial evidence as if it presents your side with validity? It's not even worthy of naming it a straw-man argument.

The truth is, nobody here is really qualified to speak here with authority on any of these things. We are people of material sciences not philosophical ones. We can (and should) give our opinions but in a constructive, not destructive way and certainly not with condescension. Philosophy and Theology are studies that are not valued at all in today's "Information Age" but they would be the ones to help find where humanity should go.

As far as nobody here being "qualified," this is an medical internet forum with a long history of off-topic posts, so I don't think anyone here is assuming anyone else is a professional philosopher. That being said, my bookshelf is filled with as many books on history, economics, and philosophy as it is with books on the material sciences, so while I'm certainly not an expert, I have put a couple decades of thought into developing a worldview, and I'm as entitled as any other layman here to share what I think.

Regarding having no "comprehensive set of ideals" that I strive towards, I don't think you really thought that through when you said it. Is it your contention that a naturalistic or materialistic worldview is incompatible with having ideals? Correct me if I'm reading you wrong because that claim is just plainly false. Being religious is definitely not the only avenue to a "set of ideals" given that plenty of secular philosophers have developed extensive, internally consistent, coherent ethical frameworks.

However, there is one spot in which you hit the nail on the head. And it is when you stated "...at least not any that you can claim authority over others with." That's actually my precise assertion as a general adherent of naturalism: there is no ultimate authority that anyone, including myself, can use to claim moral superiority over another. And this is where you're imagining strawman and misunderstanding what I said about "people of X or Y faith-based belief..." So let me make the statement again clearly:

If person X with a secular belief system commits an atrocity, other people can easily state that his actions were wrong using only naturalistic or materialistic ethics. He was just some guy being a guy.

If person Y with a religious, theistic, supernatural belief system commits an atrocity, other people do not have the same recourse available. If I say that his actions were wrong based on my secular humanistic principles, or wrong based on a secular sytem of laws/ethics.........so what? The Spanish Inquisitor says God commanded the torture. The Iranian police commander says Allah willed the dozen schoolgirls to burn to death rather than let them out uncovered. Tom Cruise says Xenu commanded the kidnapping/brainwash.

Can you see the distinction here? If person Y is entitled to his own unverifiable, unfalsifiable faith-based beliefs, then how can you say that his atrocity is based on false premises? To belabor the point, you can't. They're unfalsifiable. When you said earlier in the thread that "no reasonable religion" would allow such and such, think for a moment about what exact external criteria we're supposed to be using to decide what's "reasonable" when we're talking about how a supernatural deity wants us to act.

 

[nimbus]

Serious question, and honestly curious. What makes you think that if the historical Jesus returned today that he would be considered psychotic?

If you met someone today who claimed to be Jesus Christ, the son of God, how would you be able to tell that he is the real deal and is not a poser or mentally ill? I’ve never heard of anybody who claimed to be Jesus who was not also considered mentally ill.

 

[Dr. Rude]

If you met someone today who claimed to be Jesus Christ, the son of God, how would you be able to tell that he the real deal and is not a poser or mentally ill? I’ve never heard of anybody who claimed to be Jesus who was not also considered mentally ill.

Simple. He/she/they would have to do some pretty serious miracle stuff. Maybe fix healthcare.

 

[Southpaw]

Serious question, and honestly curious. What makes you think that if the historical Jesus returned today that he would be considered psychotic?

Well, every person in present times claiming to be the son of God has been assumed crazy. I’m willing to bet that plenty of people in Jesus’s day thought he was nuts and had a few screws loose, but Messiahs were common in times of Jesus. There were plenty ‘sons of God’ both before Jesus and after he was crucified.

 

[patriot6]

Well, every person in present times claiming to be the son of God has been assumed crazy. I’m willing to bet that plenty of people in Jesus’s day thought he was nuts and had a few screws loose, but Messiahs were common in times of Jesus. There were plenty ‘sons of God’ both before Jesus and after

how many claim to have rose from the dead?

that's the only thing that keeps me around.

 

[patriot6]

Too bad the religious people don't actually follow this advice. Essentially every lay person with no philosophical or theological training is told that they can divine the will of God by reading the bible but in reality they are programmed by the interpretation of their pastor, someone who often has little to no formal training either (catholic churches being a major exception). They then apply this 'knowledge' with an authority and vindication they have not earned to the rest of society as a whole.

I agree hard with this; biggest problem with Protestantism imo.

 

[Guillemot]

All this bickering amongst ourselves in a time that we should be coming together to mourn the death of a child snatched from its womb by a doctor espousing repugnant, secular, leftist values.

 

[TexBlazer2106]

As far as nobody here being "qualified," this is an medical internet forum with a long history of off-topic posts, so I don't think anyone here is assuming anyone else is a professional philosopher. That being said, my bookshelf is filled with as many books on history, economics, and philosophy as it is with books on the material sciences, so while I'm certainly not an expert, I have put a couple decades of thought into developing a worldview, and I'm as entitled as any other layman here to share what I think.

Regarding having no "comprehensive set of ideals" that I strive towards, I don't think you really thought that through when you said it. Is it your contention that a naturalistic or materialistic worldview is incompatible with having ideals? Correct me if I'm reading you wrong because that claim is just plainly false. Being religious is definitely not the only avenue to a "set of ideals" given that plenty of secular philosophers have developed extensive, internally consistent, coherent ethical frameworks.

However, there is one spot in which you hit the nail on the head. And it is when you stated "...at least not any that you can claim authority over others with." That's actually my precise assertion as a general adherent of naturalism: there is no ultimate authority that anyone, including myself, can use to claim moral superiority over another. And this is where you're imagining strawman and misunderstanding what I said about "people of X or Y faith-based belief..." So let me make the statement again clearly:

If person X with a secular belief system commits an atrocity, other people can easily state that his actions were wrong using only naturalistic or materialistic ethics. He was just some guy being a guy.

If person Y with a religious, theistic, supernatural belief system commits an atrocity, other people do not have the same recourse available. If I say that his actions were wrong based on my secular humanistic principles, or wrong based on a secular sytem of laws/ethics.........so what? The Spanish Inquisitor says God commanded the torture. The Iranian police commander says Allah willed the dozen schoolgirls to burn to death rather than let them out uncovered. Tom Cruise says Xenu commanded the kidnapping/brainwash.

Can you see the distinction here? If person Y is entitled to his own unverifiable, unfalsifiable faith-based beliefs, then how can you say that his atrocity is based on false premises? To belabor the point, you can't. They're unfalsifiable. When you said earlier in the thread that "no reasonable religion" would allow such and such, think for a moment about what exact external criteria we're supposed to be using to decide what's "reasonable" when we're talking about how a supernatural deity wants us to act.

Sorry for the delay in response, but I felt like your response deserved a thoughtful reply. Of course you're entitled to share what you think and I made no claims otherwise. I'm also not disparaging naturalism or really any other secular philosophies for their specifics ideals but rather attempting to point out their general shortcomings in the setting of your argument.

I understood what you were saying the first time. It's an argument that naturalistic or materialistic ethics are inherently superior to any "religious, theistic, or supernatural belief system" because it relies on reflections of natural morals who's application can be scientifically studied and applied. Some misinterpreted what I was saying in consideration of authority, for while I'm wary of an individual claiming singular authority, I very much acknowledge an authority in truth. Now it's not my intent to argue in this setting what that truth is or say I'm more familiar with "It" than others, only to say that by participating in "It" then I subject myself to "It's" judgement as far as morals or anything else goes.

In your example, who can judge person X's atrocity, crime, or misdemeanor? What is to definitively say what is right or wrong? To use naturalism (as an example), what authority can a retrospective analysis' regarding group human behavior really have? These are rhetorical questions to drive the point that your person X isn't somehow more accountable because of a secular belief system. For your person Y, from a Christianity perspective, no one (not even the Pope) is perfect or has an "unfalsifiable faith." I would imagine than anyone claiming to have an "unfalsifiable faith" would be a deity in that religion and I'm not sure how today's society would react to that person. Any further discussion I could offer would probably devolve into talking about inter-culture relations.

**It took me a little while to distill the above response, but really the more I read your post I feel like you are making a case for the superiority of naturalistic or materialistic ethics and really, advocating for its authority. I'd have further questions that are germane to the conversation if that is true. I'll leave it at the above for right now.

 

[vector2]

Sorry for the delay in response, but I felt like your response deserved a thoughtful reply. Of course you're entitled to share what you think and I made no claims otherwise. I'm also not disparaging naturalism or really any other secular philosophies for their specifics ideals but rather attempting to point out their general shortcomings in the setting of your argument.

I understood what you were saying the first time. It's an argument that naturalistic or materialistic ethics are inherently superior to any "religious, theistic, or supernatural belief system" because it relies on reflections of natural morals who's application can be scientifically studied and applied. Some misinterpreted what I was saying in consideration of authority, for while I'm wary of an individual claiming singular authority, I very much acknowledge an authority in truth. Now it's not my intent to argue in this setting what that truth is or say I'm more familiar with "It" than others, only to say that by participating in "It" then I subject myself to "It's" judgement as far as morals or anything else goes.

In your example, who can judge person X's atrocity, crime, or misdemeanor? What is to definitively say what is right or wrong? To use naturalism (as an example), what authority can a retrospective analysis' regarding group human behavior really have? These are rhetorical questions to drive the point that your person X isn't somehow more accountable because of a secular belief system. For your person Y, from a Christianity perspective, no one (not even the Pope) is perfect or has an "unfalsifiable faith." I would imagine than anyone claiming to have an "unfalsifiable faith" would be a deity in that religion and I'm not sure how today's society would react to that person. Any further discussion I could offer would probably devolve into talking about inter-culture relations.

**It took me a little while to distill the above response, but really the more I read your post I feel like you are making a case for the superiority of naturalistic or materialistic ethics and really, advocating for its authority. I'd have further questions that are germane to the conversation if that is true. I'll leave it at the above for right now.

Thanks for the reply. There's really just a couple things I want to address.

The first is your usage of the term "superiority" wrt to thinking I believe materialistic ethics is "inherently superior" to anything else. I feel like I stated pretty explicitly that I don't believe anyone can claim any sort of absolute moral superiority over anyone else, so I'm not sure where you got this impression that I think it's inherently superior. Granted, it's obvious I subjectively think it's superior from my particular lens, and that's what I've made the case for. Ultimately, all I did was lay out the fact that secular belief systems, whether "right" or "wrong," are not derived from any greater authority than the human mind, whereas the same can't be said for religious belief systems since they are purportedly derived from a "greater" authority.

Which brings me to my second point: the vast majority of professions of faith or religious beliefs stemming from that "greater" [supernatural] authority are unfalsifiable. At least if we are using "unfalsifiable" in the Karl Popper'ian sense. In fact, I'd say belief in a deity and conviction in the moral principles/teachings of that deity is the sine qua non of faith. There is a mountain of empirical evidence and logic-based arguments which make belief in the supernatural a tenuous proposition, but yet even the astute 13 year old theist can easily retort "well, you can't prove God doesn't exist." And they're right. I can't definitively prove the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist anymore than I can prove Russell's teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster definitively don't exist. Faith doesn't concern itself with whether it's empirically true or false. Which is why my statement that faith-based beliefs are unfalsifiable stands.

 

[TexBlazer2106]

I'm using the term "superiority" to only represent the dualing moral/ethical systems here. I am not attempting to trap you into saying you're superior or claim it for myself. Although I believe you can claim the superiority of a system without automatically saying that you the individual are superior.

In that vein, I think you must be claiming a "superiority" or authority for the naturalism here for which you've explained your rationalization for and I accept its reasonableness. I'm also having a bit of trouble as I'm not defending all theisms here, because while they have similar traits, they differ wildly from each other. Another reason I'm having trouble here is because much of naturalism's tenets were formed, or at least identified, by prominent Christians (St. Paul, Augustine, and Aquinas). I have no issue with natural law because you are correct that we logically know the difference between "right" and "wrong." The differences in our perspectives I'll guess are 1) where does that moral come from, 2) Is it sufficient, and 3) who defines it? I don't think it is sufficient in of itself because it is limited only by our minds, it must come from somewhere and it cannot be proved to have simply evolved itself as an accident over time, and who determines what constitutes the body of naturalism? This last point is very important IMO because I don't know how a naturalist and a Catholic would differ on the initial issue on which this tangent grew from, or many other contentious issues such as homosexual marriage or even gender ideology. I'm just going to guess that some if not most naturalism proponents would disagree with the Catholic position on such issues, but who or what is to mediate infallibly or even with very high fidelity? Who is to say the Greco-Roman natural law is inferior to a jungle natural law where might makes right? In this way I also find it hard to differentiate anyone who has an individual set of morals, be it a naturalism/materialism ethical code, another secular philosophy like nihilism, or a protestant who recognizes no authority other than their interpretation of the Bible. Any of them could claim to be "unfalsifiable" in your described sense above. And I want to stress that I'm making the comparison not dismissing your arguments above but rather to look at them from the perspective of an authority or arbiter or cohesive sense of order. Because while I agree with your premise of naturalism morals, I do not believe they are sufficient.

Lastly I want to address what you said about faith. It's been a large point in your discussions that I haven't really discussed yet and I've realized now that I had to make one of the points above to speak on it. Because Natural Law and reason are not opposed to teachings in the Catholic church faith is not needed in determining them. Faith concerns itself with what cannot be empirically reasoned or proved. It is present in that which is divinely revealed that fills in the knowledge gap. It's that part which gives authority and weight to natural law. Faith is not a carte blanche that can be used as a cudgel to justify fringe beliefs. And that's why I said that no legitimate religion or philosophy can claim as such.