Washington Post | Charles Krauthammer | Nov. 30, 2007
“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” — James A. Thomson
A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan’s Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.
Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.
Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush’s stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president — so vilified for a moral stance — been so thoroughly vindicated.
Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, to borrow Thomson’s phrase, Bush was made “a little bit uncomfortable” by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.
In doing so, he invited unrelenting demagoguery by an unholy trinity of Democratic politicians, research scientists and patient advocates who insisted that anyone who would put any restriction on the destruction of human embryos could be acting only for reasons of cynical politics rooted in dogmatic religiosity — a “moral ayatollah,” as Sen. Tom Harkin so scornfully put it.
Bush got it right. Not because he necessarily drew the line in the right place. I have long argued that a better line might have been drawn — between using doomed and discarded fertility-clinic embryos created originally for reproduction (permitted) and using embryos created solely to be disassembled for their parts, as in research cloning (prohibited). But what Bush got right was to insist, in the face of enormous popular and scientific opposition, on drawing a line at all, on requiring that scientific imperative be balanced by moral considerations.
History will look at Bush’s 2001 speech and be surprised how balanced and measured it was, how much respect it gave to the other side. Read it. Here was a presidential policy pronouncement that so finely and fairly drew out the case for both sides that until the final few minutes of his speech, you had no idea where the policy would end up.
Bush finally ended up doing nothing to hamper private research into embryonic stem cells and pledging federal monies to support the study of existing stem cell lines — but refusing federal monies for research on stem cell lines produced by newly destroyed embryos.
The president’s policy recognized that this might cause problems. The existing lines might dry up, prove inadequate or become corrupted. Bush therefore appointed a President’s Council on Bioethics to oversee ongoing stem cell research and evaluate how his restrictions were affecting research and what means might be found to circumvent ethical obstacles.
More vilification. The mainstream media and the scientific establishment saw this as a smoke screen to cover his fundamentalist, obscurantist, anti-scientific — the list of adjectives was endless — tracks. “Some observers,” wrote The Post’s Rick Weiss, “say the president’s council is politically stacked.”
I sat on the council for five years. It was one of the most ideologically balanced bioethics commissions in the history of this country. It consisted of scientists, ethicists, theologians, philosophers, physicians — and others (James Q. Wilson, Francis Fukuyama and me among them) of a secular bent not committed to one school or the other.
That balance of composition was reflected in the balance in the reports issued by the council — documents of sophistication and nuance that reflected the divisions both within the council and within the nation in a way that respectfully presented the views of all sides. One recommendation was to support research that might produce stem cells through “de-differentiation” of adult cells, thus bypassing the creation of human embryos.
That Holy Grail has now been achieved. Largely because of the genius of Thomson and Yamanaka. And also because of the astonishing good fortune that nature requires only four injected genes to turn an ordinary adult skin cell into a magical stem cell that can become bone or brain or heart or liver.
But for one more reason as well. Because the moral disquiet that James Thomson always felt — and that George Bush forced the country to confront — helped lead him and others to find some ethically neutral way to produce stem cells. Providence then saw to it that the technique be so elegant and beautiful that scientific reasons alone will now incline even the most willful researchers to leave the human embryo alone.
Dear Mr. Banescu,
It was nice that you dropped my first Dr. Yamanaka posted blog on his Stem Cell discovery. It did not agree with Mr. Krauthammer.
I still do not think that the ‘Right’ or the president need to break their backs taking bows on how smart that they were. W’s many cancellation of stem cell reseearch funds didn’t figure on Dr. Shinya Yamanaka; they added no science to the project and no money.
Dr. James Thomson of the U. of Wisconsin-also a researcher in the field and published in “Cell”-stated that Bush and the government set the research back 4 to 5 years. Now Asia runs the ballgame.
Now to theology: In Buddhist thinking this ‘stem cell thing’ relates to reincarnation; it is very compatable. The fact that stem cells can live on long after the doner has died means that he can help produce children in the future. A clone?
Should Christians avail themselves of Pagan thought, philosophy and medicne, knowing all the possibilities?
If you want discussion than allow discussion not censorship.
Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner
“That Holy Grail has now been achieved. Largely because of the genius of Thomson and Yamanaka. And also because of the astonishing good fortune that nature requires only four injected genes to turn an ordinary adult skin cell into a magical stem cell that can become bone or brain or heart or liver.”
Not really. At this point no one knows whether these cells would create cancer in humans, or the extent to which they would function the same way that embryonic stem cells would. It is a significant breakthrough but not the Holy Grail, and not something that will eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells.
J R, I have no idea what you’re trying to say or how “Bush and the government set the research back“, especially since we’re talking about adult stem cells NOT embryonic stem cells. Bush correctly and morally opposed research on embryonic stem cells, not on adult stem cells. If you bothered to read the story correctly you would notice that it talks about adult stem cells NOT embryonic stem cells. It’s important to pay attention to these things you know, especially if you espect your comments to be approved. As I explained now many times, this Blog encourages intelligent and reasoned on-topic debate. Your comments do not qualify! I allowed them to point out the falacy and bias so pervasive on the left. Thanks for helping show that yet again.
If you have issues with the stories and points of view on this site feel free to stop posting. Really, we don’t mind.
Chris B. writes: “J R, I have no idea what you’re trying to say or how “Bush and the government set the research back“ . . .”
Aren’t JR’s comments very clear? He’s saying that a lack of federal funding here created an opportunity for Asia. Take, for example, this 2005 article from Business Week:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_02/b3915052.htm
That’s from Business Week, hardly a left-wing rag.
With respect to Asia, that is the context in which JR’s comments about Buddhism are made.
Any discussion about stem cells is ultimately about embryonic stem cells, because they are the “gold standard” for stem cell research. The cells spoken of in the lead article may or may not meet that standard. At this point, no one knows.
You may disagree with JR on the issues, but I think his point is clear.
Jim, The two types of research have little to do with each other. The Adult Stem Cells research is showing success and always has. The story is all about non-embryonic stem cells breakthroughs. Even if Bush subsidized embryonic stem cells research it would have been useless. Hence the “blame Bush” argument does not not make any sense.
re: Any discussion about stem cells is ultimately about embryonic stem cells, because they are the “gold standard” for stem cell research. The cells spoken of in the lead article may or may not meet that standard. At this point, no one knows.
That is simply not correct. Please take the time to learn more about this issue since you’re making incorrect statements. It is the other way around. The adult stem cells research and developments are the ones that showed the most promise and best results. It is the embryonic stem cells areas that have show very little promise and thus advocates keep asking for gov’t funds. Get your information straight before making such idiotic comments. I expect more stringent and serious posts from you Jim.
Michael Fumento summarized the adult vs. embryonic stem cells issues nicely
http://www.fumento.com/biotech/stem-cell-scam.html :
Steven Milloy also nailed it http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163272,00.html :
IMO, there are those who will always favor embyonic stem cell research percise because it allows them to play god. They are primarily interested in breaking down all moral barriers to any type of human research they wish to do. To say that the battle is over is naive.
Chris B. writes: “It is the embryonic stem cells areas that have show very little promise and thus advocates keep asking for gov’t funds.”
Here’s what Yamanaka himself said:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=688591
And from the Harvard Science web site:
http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/node/7713
Yamanaka even was one of the authors of the article “New Advances in iPS Cell Research Do Not Obviate the Need for Human Embryonic Stem Cells”:
http://www.cellstemcell.com/content/article/fulltext?
uid=PIIS1934590907001762
Chris B.: “Get your information straight before making such idiotic comments. I expect more stringent and serious posts from you Jim.”
If my comments are idiotic, then I guess Yamanaka, et al are idiotic too, since I’m quoting them and their article. I’m quoting the scientists and scientific articles; you’re quoting Fox News and two conservative writers not doing research in the field, so yeah, let’s talk “stringent and serious.”
As far as the venture capitalists — governments around the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars on all sorts of research, long before the venture capitalists show up, especially when the research is in the very early stages.
Jim, yet again, you’re off-topic. Besides this latest article I posted, the vast majority of the research points to adult stem cells as holding the most promise. I’m talking about one topic, and you’re responding with unrelated comments. What gives?
It’s on-topic in the sense that I’m responding mostly to the lead article.
Concerning the cell type that holds the most therapeutic promise, you have to remember that adult stem cells have been used for decades, and the research on embryonic stems cells is relatively new.
From the National Institutes of Heath:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/health.asp
At this point you can’t really determine which has best long-term potential for therapy, since the one has been in use for decades more than the other.
Jim, You’re misinformed on the stem cells issue.
U of MN adult stem cell research shows promise for transplant therapies
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uom-uom011207.php
Diabetics cured in stem-cell treatment advance
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1637528.ece
Adult Stem Cell Research at UB Targets Damaged Hearts
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/7992
VesCell™ Adult Stem Cell Therapy for Heart Disease
http://www.vescell.com/
Adult Stem Cell Research to Benefit Diabetics
http://www.blogicus.com/archives/adult_stem_cell_research_to_benefit_diabetics.php
Stretching Bone Marrow Stem Cells Pushes Them Towards Becoming Blood Vessel
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061023192600.htm
Selected References Documenting the Scientific Advances in “Adult” Stem Cell Research – Current Treatments Update
http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/adultstemsuccess.htm
Advancing Stem Cell Science Without Destroying Human Life
http://www.whitehouse.gov/dpc/stemcell/2007/index.html
Chris, I don’t doubt that adult stem cells have great potential benefit, and are of great benefit at this moment. But look at it this way: if adult cells have all the benefit, and embryonic cells had little or no potential benefit, then why all the excitement over getting a skin cell to act like an embryonic stem cell? Who would care?
But if embryonic stem cells have potential benefit — as many scientists believe, and as many governments believe, putting their money where their mouth is, then you have to know what embryonic stem cells do and how they do it in order to know if the “reprogrammed” skin cells are doing the same thing in the same way. In that sense, the embryonic cells are the “gold standard” — a phrase commonly used by scientists themselves — they are that to which the reprogrammed cells must be compared.
That takes nothing away from the use of and research into adult stem cell therapy, but it does mean that research on both fronts has to continue. As I understand it, this is the position that Dr. Yamanaka holds.
If anyone is interested in James Thomson’s opinion on this issue. here is the article he co-authored yesterday in WAPO.
Standing in the Way of Stem Cell Research
By Alan I. Leshner and James A. Thomson
Monday, December 3, 2007; A17
“A new way to trick skin cells into acting like embryos changes both everything and nothing at all. Being able to reprogram skin cells into multipurpose stem cells without harming embryos launches an exciting new line of research. It’s important to remember, though, that we’re at square one, uncertain at this early stage whether souped-up skin cells hold the same promise as their embryonic cousins do.
Far from vindicating the current U.S. policy of withholding federal funds from many of those working to develop potentially lifesaving embryonic stem cells, recent papers in the journals Science and Cell described a breakthrough achieved despite political restrictions. In fact, work by both the U.S. and Japanese teams that reprogrammed skin cells depended entirely on previous embryonic stem cell research.
At a time when nearly 60 percent of Americans support human embryonic stem cell research, U.S. stem cell policy runs counter to both scientific and public opinion. President Bush’s repeated veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which has twice passed the House and Senate with votes from Republicans and Democrats alike, further ignores the will of the American people.
Efforts to harness the versatility of embryonic stem cells, and alleviate suffering among people with an array of debilitating disorders, began less than 10 years ago. Since then, scientists have continued to pursue embryonic stem cells because of their ability to transform into blood, bone, skin or any other type of cell. The eventual goal is to replace diseased or dysfunctional cells to help people with spinal cord injuries, neurodegenerative disorders, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other conditions.
Since 1998, many strategies for addressing sanctity-of-life concerns have been pursued. While commendable, these efforts remain preliminary, and none so far has suggested a magic bullet. In the same way, the recent tandem advances in the United States and by Shinya Yamanaka’s team in Japan are far from being a Holy Grail, as Charles Krauthammer inaccurately described them. Though potential landmarks, these studies are only a first step on the long road toward eventual therapies.
…
Full article at Washington Post
M. Banescu,
The ideologues of our government and their enablers must have some ‘Holy Grail’ to showcase. They failed in their own production of science and funding cellular research. My first two blogs were about our government’s lack of leadership in this research. Now they rejoice at their own ‘expertise’.
I was quoting Prof. Dr. Thomas on the 4 to 5 years delay.
Mr. Holman has quoted many science journals, so read them. Dr. Yamanaka feels that a lot of work needs to be done on the adult stem cell research before it may become useful, there are viral problems,among many.
And yes, I do know the difference between Embryonic and Adult Stem Cells. My 1st assisted autopsy was at 16, I was second scrub on a surgery team at 18. I had full use of an electron microscope at 22. I have worked in medical labs from San Francisco to Sweden. I have written FDA protocols for doubleblind studies for foreign labs and also their package inserts so that you will know what you are taking.
My main objections are these ideologues’ misinterpretation of known facts and their taking Kudos for Dr. Aamanaka’s work.
Sincerely yours,
J R Dittbrenner
All those supporting embryonic stem cells research and gov’t support of this area of science are, of course, completely ignoring the serious moral and dangerous ethical implications of using human life as just ordinary, disposable biological matter to be used and abused at will. Interestingly enough the author of the article makes that very same point.
It’s very revealing to see how all the posters here who passionately endorce embryonic stem cells research and criticize conservatives and Bush for opposing it on moral grounds, once again showed their lack of moral clarity and complete ignorance of the ethical concern of abusing human life. Thanks for showing us your true colors. Your posts speak for themselves.
M. Banescu,
I have never, in my blogs, advocated Embryonic Stem Cell Research; others may. There are several avenues of research, as a cellular biologist you must know this.
Holman has presented several papers from the science journals with wide areas of thought on the subject.
If you accept Dr. Yamananks’ and Dr. Thomas’ research than their extra thoughts on the subject must be of some value however degraded.
Pre-Zygotes are “Plunged” into 20 t0 30 degrees above o grad Kelvin as a start to mainteince.At this temperature time and molecular movement slows to a minimum. Zero K has not yet been achived. There, in that enviroment, all life and time stop. Light slows to a walk.
You still have not responded to the Buddhist concepts of the Asian thinking of reincarnation-Pagan in its precepts-but useful to Western medicine. Can you accept Pagan concepts to treat Christians? You accept Galen.
The ‘Holy Grail’ has not arrived; peer review has been presented, now the work begins. It took about 20 years to bring Librium on the market.
Have you thought seriously about molecular transformations in relation to human diseases and their treatment?
Chris B. writes: “It’s very revealing to see how all the posters here who passionately endorce embryonic stem cells research and criticize conservatives and Bush for opposing it on moral grounds . . .”
First, Bush didn’t “oppose” ESC research, in the sense that it was not made illegal. He simply opposed federal funding, but even there permitted federal funding for research on some existing stem cell lines. The net effect was not a reduction of research into ESC, but just that the research moved elsewhere.
My criticism was not so much over conservatives or Bush, but about the fact that the lead article did not accurately portray the significance of the most recent development. If conservatives feel that embryonic stem cell research being conducted in Singapore and other countries is morally superior to having it conducted here, I don’t understand that, but it’s not something I lose sleep over.
Chris B.: ” . . . once again showed their lack of moral clarity and complete ignorance of the ethical concern of abusing human life.”
In my case, I just don’t think that a blastocyst is a person. It seems that most of the rest of the world agrees with me. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean that they are ignorant of the moral issues. I just means that they have considered the moral issues and come down on the other side of the question.
ChrisB, sorry about the full post. I normally post links but couldn’t get this one to work for some reason.
“Business Week, hardly a left-wing rag.”
Actually, it is quite the left wing rag. It’s politics and business commentary are solidly in the left camp.
“not something that will eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells.”
Probably will – not that there is any “need” for embryonic stem cells, anymore than there is a “need” to harvest organs from Chinese prisoners…
I’m talking about one topic, and you’re responding with unrelated comments. What gives?
Chris, he’s here to counter, to debate. How many more years of this is it going to take??
They failed in their own production of science and funding cellular research. My first two blogs were about our government’s lack of leadership in this research.
leadership in the destruction of human life is not leadership, it is simple evil. If your simply going to ignore the moral dimension, why post at all on a site called “OrthodoxyToday”?? Oh yea, your here simply to “debate” and throw your own opinion around, irregardless as to whether it has any Christian moral character at all…
You still have not responded to the Buddhist concepts of the Asian thinking of reincarnation-Pagan in its precepts-but useful to Western medicine. Can you accept Pagan concepts to treat Christians?
Nope. picking and choosing morality to fit the circumstances if at best crude moral relativism, usually it’s simple a-moral utilitarianism.
fact that the lead article did not accurately portray the significance of the most recent development.
It did so, Charles actually sat on the presidents commission. All you did is assert a “need” to throw out the morality – at a site called “OrthodoxyToday” no less. How long is the Trolling going to last!?!?
In my case, I just don’t think that a blastocyst is a person. It seems that most of the rest of the world agrees with me. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean that they are ignorant of the moral issues. I just means that they have considered the moral issues and come down on the other side of the question.
No s*%t sherlock. WHY ARE YOU HERE??? Chris, how long are you going to allow this Troll to post this modernist garbage?? Are we not all too aware of Jim’s Godless philosophy?? Why does he have a forum at OrthodoxyToday???
Note 12. Just checking in after a month or so.
Jim writes:
Not quite right. Embryonic stem cells were the purported “gold standard” because they were pluripotent, that is, organ undifferentiated and theoretically able to be programmed into different organs. The recent developments in adult stem cells removes that value.
Also, more on the success of adult stem cells in curing diseases vs. embryonic stem cells here: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
J R Dittbrenner writes:
Not quite right. A large part of the 4-5 year delay on any stem cell application is due to FDA testing. An acquaintance of mine, a cardiologist, routinely sends his patients to Thailand, and more recently Costa Rice, for repairs of the damaged areas of the heart after cardiac arrest. Success rates hover near 90% (real miracle stuff here). He does not use (or need) embryonic stem cells BTW, and foresees hospitals offering this kind of therapy opening in 4-5 years — when the FDA approves the procedures.
Jim writes:
Yes. Now that embryonic stem cells are no longer the purported “gold standard,” how much of the resistance to prohibiting the destruction of embryos is due to the discomfort of philosophical assumptions laid bare?
Is it, once again, all about abortion?
Fr. Hans writes: “Just checking in after a month or so.”
Welcome back. I hope all is well. I’m sure you have my email address. Drop me a note sometime at your convenience.
Everything here is the same. Various of us are responding to and discussing the articles, and Christopher, bless his heart, is trying to ban about half the people who post here regularly. No news there.
Fr. Hans: “Embryonic stem cells were the purported “gold standard” because they were pluripotent, that is, organ undifferentiated and theoretically able to be programmed into different organs. The recent developments in adult stem cells removes that value.”
Not quite. As I understand the issue, the scientists are not just interested in pluripotency per se, but how embryonic stem cells do that. In other words, it may be that adult skin cells that are genetically modified to be pluripotent don’t work the same way as embryonic stem cells. It may be that there are significant limitations that are not readily apparent. It may be that the use of retroviruses is a limiting factor. At this point it’s too early to say. This is why the leading scientists assert that both avenues of research have to move forward.
Fr. Hans: “Now that embryonic stem cells are no longer the purported “gold standard,” . . . ”
But that’s not what the leading scientists are saying. Please review my posts and Scott’s post in comment 13.
Best wishes to you and the family.
Scott’s contribution is a political piece. It consists of emotionalized moralisms — Michael J Fox without the pathos.
Right, the ground has shifted for two main reasons: 1) embryonic stem cells have not delivered on what was promised (adult stem cells have); 2) adult stem cells can now be manipulated in ways the replicate embryonic stem cells.
But the shift is not morally compelling. Scientific interest is the internal functioning of an embryonic stem cell is not a reason to destroy embryos. Such knowledge can be gained in other ways.
As for “leading scientists are saying…” — well, leading scientists say a lot of things, and some tend to speak of things way beyond their expertise, say, philosophy, religion, and morals, for example.
Fr. Hans writes: “Right, the ground has shifted for two main reasons: 1) embryonic stem cells have not delivered on what was promised (adult stem cells have) . . .”
Please see post #10. Research with embryonic stem cells started in 1998, whereas adult stem cell research and therapy has been around for 40 years. At this point no one knows what the potential is for embryonic stem cells because the research has not gone on very long, and during much of that time federal funds were limited.
Fr. Hans: ” . . . 2) adult stem cells can now be manipulated in ways the replicate embryonic stem cells.”
That’s the issue in question — whether or not the adult cells actually replicate embryonic stem cells. See post #8: “Yamanaka said the iPS cells are similar but not identical to embryonic stem cells. And he said it was “premature” to conclude that iPS cells can replace embryonic stem cells.” This is something that will become clear through research over time — whether the “similarity” will be sufficient to render embryonic stem cells unnecessary. This is why other countries are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on research into embryonic stem cells.
Fr. Hans: “But the shift is not morally compelling. Scientific interest is the internal functioning of an embryonic stem cell is not a reason to destroy embryos. Such knowledge can be gained in other ways.”
If you want to eliminate research using embryonic stem cells because of a moral concern, that’s fine, but at this point there is no scientific justification for doing that. And frankly, to eliminate embryonic stem cell research here just means that it will shift to other countries, as is already happening.
Fr. Hans: “As for “leading scientists are saying…” — well, leading scientists say a lot of things, and some tend to speak of things way beyond their expertise, say, philosophy, religion, and morals, for example.”
Where I have quoted the scientists, it is in their field of expertise as leading researchers in the field of stem cell biology and genetics. It seems odd to me to have a lead article that trumpets Yamanaka’s recent development in stem cell research, and than have folks here who disagree with Yamanaka’s opinion on the significance of his own research, claiming more for it than he does.
Jim writes:
There is no scientific justification for or against any kind of research. Justification deals with morals, and all morality has a philosophical/religious well from which it draws. The operative assumption in your response is that when it comes to destroying embryos to extract their stem cells, we should be (philosophically) materialist, which is to say utilitarian/pragmatic (the only alley where philosophical materialism can end). Put another way, the (potential) benefits of embryonic stem cells trumps any moral questions about destroying embryos. Moreover, arguing that some countries already extract embryonic cells as proof that America should do the same, is further evidence of the utilitarian moral ethos at play here.
Fr. Hans is correct and he reaffirms the proper Orthodox Christian understanding of life.
Matter is NOT self-directed, even an embryo. Human life and biological processes are driven by an external force we call the soul which is fully intertwined with matter and directs its order, growth, and development from the very beginning. (It is also my belief that the soul itself draws its power and life continually from God and that all biological life is also constantly fueled and directed by the power of GOD. If God were to withdraw from the Universe, all life would cease to exist instantly.)
When you kill the embryo you are not only destroying the matter and cells that make up that human, but you are also destroying the nascent human life powered by the soul who is in full symbiosis with that biological organism and permeates every cell and atom in that embryo, and directs the life and processes that control it. That is the awful truth and reality that the materialists, atheists, and pseudo-Christians ignore and refuse to acknowledge.
Fr. Hans writes: “There is no scientific justification for or against any kind of research.”
What I mean is that within the context of a particular research goal, different avenues of research may or may not be justified. “Justified” in that sense means having a rational reason for pursuing a particular line of research. That’s different from talking about whether the research goal itself or the potential avenues the research may take are morally justified.
Fr. Hans: “Put another way, the (potential) benefits of embryonic stem cells trumps any moral questions about destroying embryos.”
Yes, I think it does. That doesn’t mean that the considerations are only utilitarian but rather that in balancing the moral factors on both sides of the situation, the balance comes down in favor of one side of the issue. That doesn’t mean that moral factors on the other side are ignored. We do this kind of moral reasoning all the time in may different issues.
Fr. Hans: “Moreover, arguing that some countries already extract embryonic cells as proof that America should do the same, is further evidence of the utilitarian moral ethos at play here.”
I agree that that in itself does not constitute a moral justification. But it shows that in many parts of the world this is not as much of an issue as it is in the U.S. I suppose one could argue that all these other countries are morally inept, but I think you’d have a hard time making that case.
Chris B. writes: “When you kill the embryo you are not only destroying the matter and cells that make up that human, but you are also destroying the nascent human life powered by the soul . . . ”
The fact is that most all of the embryos used in research come from fertility clinics, and that these same embryos, if not used in research, will most likely be destroyed anyway. Interestingly, I haven’t heard much support for the idea of closing these clinics or for prohibiting the use of the IVF procedure.
A couple of years ago I attended a cardiology conference and sat in on a session on stem cell therapy. A Chinese scientist – a breed not normally squeamish about much of anything – said “let me illustrate the ethical concerns about using embryonic stem cells”. He then showed a slide of an extremely mis-shapen heart, mis-shapen because of what looked like a nose and eyebrows growing out of it.
The ESC enthusiasts on this board don’t understand Krauthammer’s (and Bush’s) main point, which is that a line has been crossed that weakens moral judgment. The potential horrors are not apparent in the test tube work done today – but they lie on the horizon if society neglect’s its duty to set moral imits on what scientists do. That is why Germans are very troubled by the research clamoured for here. Unpleasant things are more fresh in their collective memory.
Mr. Dittbrenner: very impressive that you were using an electron microscope in your 20s. Apparently the time involved detracted from developing clear expository writing skills.
Tom C. writes:
Yes, absolutely. Regarding the Germans: They haven’t forgotten Dr. Joseph Mengele, who, while seen by us as a moral monster, saw himself as advancing the cause of science, which, in his amoral universe (not quite right, it should be: in his materialist universe), he was. In fact, much of he data he assembled proved valuable for US scientists later on. See my review of: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany.
Yes, regarding the Germans “The impact of such restrictions is that many German scientists intent on pursuing human stem cell research are going abroad.”
“Young people are leaving to pursue careers in England, Sweden, even China, India, Singapore and the U.S. Only 15 years ago we were the forerunners in this field, and now other countries are realizing the fruits of our labor,” lamented Jürgen Hescheler, a leading stem cell biologist at the University of Cologne who is a strong proponent of a unified Europe-wide law that strikes a balance between respecting human dignity and giving scientists enough latitude to pursue clinical studies.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2085299,00.html
Something tells me that there is a moral difference between Dr. Yamanaka and Dr. Mengele. There is a moral difference between using a surplus eight-cell human blastocyst for research — a blastocyst which will be thawed out and disposed of anyway, and exposing Russian prisoners of war to mustard gas.
In human medicine lines are crossed all the time, especially with respect to organ transplantation and the use of human subjects in medical research. But we manage that crossing of the line through laws and strict procedures in the case of organ harvesting, and through laws, strict procedures, and human subject research review committes in the case of research involving humans. When the line is crossed, it doesn’t mean that moral considerations have not been taken into account. It means that expected good that comes from crossing the line is judged to outweigh the good that would come from not crossing the line. There is no doubt that this is a kind of utilitarian moral thinking, but this is how these decisions are made.
I currently am a research subject three years into a five-year study on the effectiveness of a treatment for a medical condition that I won’t bore you with. I am one of the “controls,” which means that I do not receive a study medication that might be of great help to me. On the other hand, the people getting the medication may end up being harmed by it in ways that no one anticipated. So no matter how much researchers try to minimize the risk, there is risk on both sides. Of course, there is no risk to the researchers; in fact, they make money by managing the study in behalf of a for-profit pharmaceutical company. And there is no risk to people who in the future may benefit from the medication if it is approved.
Now if you want to talk about Nazi medical experiments on humans, the research project I’m involved with is much closer to those experiments than is experimentation using eight-cell blastocysts that in either case will end up being destroyed. But no one suggests that medical research using human subjects should be eliminated.
Jim your examples simply do not work and are not equivalent to the destruction of embryonic human life. (1) Organ Transplants are done after the donor is dead, there is no purposeful killing of human life. (2) Medical research on patients is done with the VOLUNTARY agreement of the human subjects after they have been informed of the potential risks and consequences.
re: Something tells me that there is a moral difference between Dr. Yamanaka and Dr. Mengele. There is a moral difference between using a surplus eight-cell human blastocyst for research — a blastocyst which will be thawed out and disposed of anyway, and exposing Russian prisoners of war to mustard gas.
Sure, there is a difference in degrees of moral decadence and evil, but neither one is ethically and morally right. Both approaches violate human life and are an offense to Christ and an abomination before God. Both deny the uniqueness and infinite worth of human life and the denial of sacredness of anything beyond man’s will and secular materialism.
Chris B. writes: “Organ Transplants are done after the donor is dead, there is no purposeful killing of human life.”
I see what you mean, but it’s not as clear as you might think. Organ harvesting involves taking organs from a living human who is diagnosed as brain dead. But brain death is largely, though not universally accepted as the death of the person. In a significant sense, that is what many here would call a “materialistic” judgment and particular to various cultures. Since its relatively recent development in 1959 the diagnosis of brain death has changed over time. In some countries whole brain death is considered to be “brain death.” In other countries brain stem death is the criterion. In other cultures as long as the body is alive the person is considered to be alive. For example, polls conducted in Japan in the 80s and 90s showed that around 20 to 40 percent of the population did not consider brain death to be the death of the person. http://www.lifestudies.org/specialreport02.html
In addition, the diagnosis of brain death is not simple, and a misdiagnosis is possible. There are many clinical considerations involved. (E.g. New England Journal of Medicine, April 21, 2001, “The Diagnosis of Brain Death”)
Harvesting organs from “brain dead” patients at first glance seems to be a straightforward issue with little moral complexity, but in fact there are many moral issues involved. It’s just that here in the U.S. the criterion of brain death has become so widely accepted that we just don’t think much about it, even though it is based on considerations that in any other context would be seen as materialistic and unacceptable to many people in other cultures.
Chris B.: “Medical research on patients is done with the VOLUNTARY agreement of the human subjects after they have been informed of the potential risks and consequences.”
Yes, and that is extremely different from performing research on unwilling subjects. But my point is that in doing any research using human subjects, informed or otherwise, “a line is crossed” as Tom C said concerning the use of ESC in research. So the mere “crossing of a line” can’t in itself be a reason not to do the research.
And even with “informed” human subjects there are still moral issues that have to be worked out. With patients who are terminally ill or severely disabled, do they really “consent” to be research subjects if there is little or no other hope? And there is always the issue of compensation to research subjects, in which the concern is that too much compensation may sway them to participate in experiments in which they otherwise would be unwilling to participate.
Chris B.: “Both deny the uniqueness and infinite worth of human life and the denial of sacredness of anything beyond man’s will and secular materialism.”
But that’s based on your view of the moral status of the human blastocyst, a view that I do not share. It is a view originating in a religious tradition of which I am not a part. Imagine how you would feel if some Japanese fellow condemned you for your materialistic view that brain death is the death of the person. That’s pretty much how I feel when my view of research on human blastocysts is condemned as an abomination.
Again and again and again we trugde in an endless round of make believe. Let’s just cut to the chase. Jim and others who support (fill in the blank) don’t give a hoot about the Christian moral perspective. There is no point in attempting to argue them into it. It won’t work. We can pray that they will be riding along their own little road to Damascus some day and that will be a much more positive approach. We do not need another 4999 posts to determine the futility of argument.
Michael summarized it very nicely. The only use for their posts is to refine and sharpen our own arguments and help us strengthen the defense of the universal truths and the reality of God to which many of these people are blind to. From these exchanges they dig themselves deeper into their God-denying and truth-avoiding arguments, while we further expand the Christian apology arguments. For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, the posts speak for themselves and hopefully provide to others the arguments and perspectives they need to gain a deeper understanding of God and Christ, and help them, in the words of St. Paul, “gird their waist with truth” against the lies, falsehood, and corruption of the world. C.S. Lewis developed some of his best and most memorable defense of Christianity and the truth of God and our existence in facing and destroying (rendered their “wisdom” as foolishness) the criticisms and arguments of the atheists and agnostics of his age. In a small way I do believe we are accomplishing something similar here.
It’s evident that what Christopher and you have stated is 100% correct, the materialists, secularists, and leftists who are trolling this blog are not here to engage and be persuaded, they are here to oppose and criticize without being open to the truth or reason. Only a a “road to Damascus” or other God-given miracle will make them see the light.
Chris B. writes: “It’s evident that what Christopher and you have stated is 100% correct, the materialists, secularists, and leftists who are trolling this blog are not here to engage and be persuaded, they are here to oppose and criticize without being open to the truth or reason.”
Chris, help me out here. All I have ever heard here in the way of an official “policy” for the blog is that it is open for discussion from all point of view, as long as the posts are on-topic and reasoned. This was seen as a way of engaging Orthodoxy with the “outside world.”
In the several years I’ve posted here I’ve never had a post rejected or even edited. I post under my own name and have always been very clear about my theological orientation or lack thereof — although frankly, a number of the lead articles are about politics and not religion.
I spent a lot of time educating myself so that I had at least a basic understanding of Orthodoxy. I spend time researching topics. I provide references and links to what I post. I don’t call people names. I don’t spend most of my time here, as one fellow does, trying to get other people kicked off.
In the current thread I have quoted the scientists directly responsible for the most recent discovery, and others who are professional researchers in the relevant field. My most recent post was a discussion of certain aspects of the use of humans and human organs in research or therapy, in direct response to what you posted.
Yet somehow, having for years followed all the rules, all of this adds up to “trolling.”
Suggestion: if my presence here, and the presence of various others, is so highly offensive, regardless of the work put into the posts or their relevance to the posted topics, why don’t you just simply state up front that only politically conservative Orthodox or prospective converts can post here? Why have an open discussion policy and then be upset when open discussions happen? Why have a blog that engages the world, and then be upset when the world is engaged? If you only want a conservative Orthodox discussion group, then why not make it that? This talk of “trolling” is ridiculous, when the “trolls” are following the exact rules that you and Fr. Hans have developed, and when you can instantly and forever dispose of Phil, JamesK, me, and others with a few words.
You’d probably end up with a blog with few comments, most of which would be of the “I agree,” “me too,” and “yes, liberals are evil” variety. But if that’s what you and the others want, why not have it?
Jim, I did not say that you shouldn’t post or that your comments don’t add to the discussion sometimes. I just clarified what your purpose was for your posts and how conservatives here see your uncomprimising, materialistic and non-Christian views. I am not upset that you post or that there’s open discussion. You’re again misreading and misinterpreting what I said. Ok, so not all of your posts qualify as “trolling behavior”. That does not change the general observations I have made earlier and the reality that you are not here for a change of mind or heart and the fact that you are not open to the universal truths we present and you continually reject.
Jim, Conservatives and mature Orthodox Christians view life and the world as a whole, not in isolated compartments disconnected from each other in an artificial manner. Your comment: “I post under my own name and have always been very clear about my theological orientation or lack thereof — although frankly, a number of the lead articles are about politics and not religion.” is again indicative of your bias and disregard for the conservatives here, Fr. Hans, and myself, and the embracing of a viewpoint that is alien to Orthodoxy and Jesus Christ.
Yet despite this we tolerate you. Why are you such a glutton for punishment? Is it because deep down inside some morsels of your God-given humanity and conscience are still telling you that we’re much closer to the truth then you care to admit? 🙂
Note 29. Jim writes:
Of course there is a moral difference — but only of degree, not of substance. That’s the reason why the German nation is so reluctant to embrace the logic of the German doctor (his arguments rehash the same pragmatic/utilitarian appeals you use to qualify your defense of embryonic destruction above). The German people have intimate experience with the long term consequences of these ideas, hence their reluctance towards an uncritical embrace of the technologies that you, and the German doctor you cite, would have them adopt.
OK, enough about stem cell research, but tens of thousands of fertilized embryos are discarded every year because the people that wanted children now have them and need no more. I do not see anyone protesting the deaths of these souls. I see nobody massing protests about this standard procedure in cryogenic facilities. Where is the outrage? Where are the people protesting that these fertilized eggs, the embryos, the nascent cells with full souls attached, THESE BABIES should not be destroyed because their owners, their parents no longer want to pay the storage fees. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?
Chris B. writes: “Jim, I did not say that you shouldn’t post or that your comments don’t add to the discussion sometimes. I just clarified what your purpose was for your posts and how conservatives here see your uncomprimising, materialistic and non-Christian views.”
As has been seen many times, when the “liberals” don’t comment, there is typically little or no discussion. The “liberal” point of view is what enables discussion and keeps it going. And ironically it is during those discussions that the Orthodox point of view is most clearly advocated and explained.
But in my observation, what sometimes happens here is that the Orthodox posters “run out of steam” after a couple of exchanges. It’s not that they don’t have a good argument to make; they do. But it might take some study and research to make that argument. They might have to do some work. And how much easier it would be if the “materialist” just caved in after a couple of rounds and went away.
Chris B.: “That does not change the general observations I have made earlier and the reality that you are not here for a change of mind or heart . . . ”
Yes, I’m not here specifically for a change of mind and heart, but I don’t rule that out either.
Chris B.: “Why are you such a glutton for punishment?”
I’m a glutton for punishment because to be blunt, I hate hanging out all the time with people who already agree with me. In other words, I don’t want to be lazy. When people here rip into my arguments, I think that’s great. When they rip into me personally, I don’t see the value of that. I rarely post on “liberal” blogs, because I don’t see the point of it. Frankly, the view of religion on some liberal blogs is infantile and worthless, and a lot of those people should spend some time here.
Chris B.”Is it because deep down inside some morsels of your God-given humanity and conscience are still telling you that we’re much closer to the truth then you care to admit? :)”
No need to include the smiley face. I firmly believe, without doubt, that at any moment, I may be completely wrong about the things that are most important to me. Do others here feel the same way?
Chandler writes: “OK, enough about stem cell research, but tens of thousands of fertilized embryos are discarded every year because the people that wanted children now have them and need no more. I do not see anyone protesting the deaths of these souls. I see nobody massing protests about this standard procedure in cryogenic facilities. Where is the outrage?”
The fact is that there’s not much that can be done with leftover embryos. A few can be donated to other infertile couples. Beyond that, I suppose you could keep the embryos frozen indefinitely. I don’t think anyone knows how long embryos can be kept frozen, but it is likely that at some point they would no longer be viable. So even indefinite freezing doesn’t solve the problem.
You could be outraged over the whole IVF procedure, but such outrage would cause tremendous political backlash. According to the Wikipedia article on in vitro births, around 1 percent of all births now come from IVF procedures, and there are currently around 115,000 people in the U.S. whose birth was made possible by IVF.
To argue against IVF would be tantamount to saying that it would have been better had those 115,000 people not been born. That’s going to be a hard sell.
Serge Verhovskoy in For the Light of the World
Those who support in vitrio fertilization, embryonic stem cell research etc, are idolaters of science. Like many idolaters, the regress into human sacrifice. That is yet consequence of worshiping the created thing more than (or in place of) the Creator. IMO our current culture worships far more idols than the old pagan culture and many Chrisitians fall into that idol worship.
Michael writes: “Those who support in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research etc, are idolaters of science.”
Michael, in your view how does that relate to other scientific reproductive technologies such as medical birth control, surgery (e.g., surgical correction of bicornuate uterus), Clomid, GIFT (gamete intra-fallopian transfer), and so on. Do you see those as also an idolatry of science?
#29 Jim Holman
Father Hans and I brought up the fact that this type of research is outlawed in Germany, largely because the populace has memories of the gross devaluation of human life for the sake of “science”. You replied that yes, indeed, the Germans were also falling behind in progress on this front.
That was an extremely inartful dodge. While what is currently practiced with embryonic stem cell research might not be the same as what Dr. Mengele did, the rationale used to justify both might be very much the same. That is why the Germans, and maybe also those who are a bit better attuned to moral questions, see the danger.
Let’s say, for example, that some scientist discovers that neural cells from a 9 month old fetus work perfectly for curing Alzheimers. He begins to collaborate with mothers who are willing to carry a fetus to term and then abort it. He extracts the cells and uses them for a cure.
This would be an abominable practice, fully worthy to be compared with Mengele. But according to the reasoning laid down early in the stem cell controversy, it is permittable. Why? Because
1) the fetus will be discarded anyway
2) some people don’t consider it a person
3) science is involved
4) somebody benefits
When I said that a line had been crossed, I meant that if the preceding four points are considered as unassailable then we are in deep trouble.
But, apparently you sleep comfortably at night, as long as you don’t dwell on the fact that the Germans are falling behind.
Tom C writes: “Father Hans and I brought up the fact that this type of research is outlawed in Germany, largely because the populace has memories of the gross devaluation of human life for the sake of “science”. You replied that yes, indeed, the Germans were also falling behind in progress on this front.”
I can certainly understand why the Germans, given their history, would oppose that kind of research.
Likewise, one can understand why the Japanese, given their history, have a constitution that prohibits the use of military force against other countries, including a rejection of nuclear weapons, choosing instead to have a military that focuses only on self-defense.
Question: do you think that the Japanese have some moral insight into the use of military force that we don’t have? That their position is morally superior? Personally I don’t, and I think the self-defense nature of their military reflects a particular history and makes sense in the context of that history. Likewise, I would say that the very tight German restrictions on ESC research also reflect their history, and are not the result of some moral insight that other countries don’t have.
Tom C: “This would be an abominable practice, fully worthy to be compared with Mengele. But according to the reasoning laid down early in the stem cell controversy, it is permittable. Why? Because
1) the fetus will be discarded anyway
2) some people don’t consider it a person
3) science is involved
4) somebody benefits
Concerning your point #1, the situations are entirely different. Fertility clinics don’t create embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells. They create them in order to make babies. Excess embryos are created in order to improve the chances of making a baby. (Not all embryos are created equal — even in natural reproduction around 30 to 50 percent of all pregnancies end before the woman knows she is pregnant.) And remember, IVF is the last stop for women with fertility problems. They don’t end up in an IVF program until all other alternatives have been tried. At that point, some women have spent several years trying different things that didn’t work.
In your example, the purpose of the pregnancy is not to make a baby, but to produce cells. The baby is just a means to an end, and the end is not the creation of a person.
Concerning point #2 — since people will believe anything, I suppose you could find a handful of people who believe that a nine month old fetus is not a person. But that opinion would certainly be very rare. So I don’t know who those “some people” are.
The differences between a nine month old fetus and an eight-cell blastocyst are so great that it would be difficult to catalog them. As I understand it, the Orthodox position is that blastocysts have souls. But this is just asserted, and there is no evidence for it, materialistic or otherwise.
If a blastocyst has a soul, but develops into two separate embryos, where does the other soul come from? If two blastocysts combine, creating a single embryo, a chimera, where does the other soul go? Which of the souls persists, and which one disappears? Or is there a new soul that replaces the other two? If the blastocyst has such tremendous value, why then, even in natural reproduction, do so many of them fail to develop? And what of the genetically abnormal blastocyst, that has no chance at all of development? Does it have a soul too? If the key to having a soul is having the potential to develop into a baby, then what of the many blastocysts that from the start do not have that potential?
I’m not trying to make fun of anyone’s beliefs. But the whole concept of soul as applied to blastocysts is obscure, and it doesn’t actually explain anything nor can it be adequately explained. If anything it just confuses the issue of fetal development, and makes it less understandable.
Tom C: “When I said that a line had been crossed, I meant that if the preceding four points are considered as unassailable then we are in deep trouble.”
I disagree with two of the four points illustrated by your example.
Tom C: “But, apparently you sleep comfortably at night, as long as you don’t dwell on the fact that the Germans are falling behind.”
I think the Germans have a legitimate moral concern, and because of their history they come down harder on one side of the issue. But not everyone has their history, and I don’t see any reason to accept their position as normative.
Reading Assignment
All ONet Blog readers are strongly encouraged to read “Defending Human Dignity” by Leon Kass in the latest issue of Commentary Magazine.* (Read an abstract.)
James, you have to read it twice. Pay particular attention about two thirds of the way through, where Kass discusses the morality of the Old Testament.
*Go to Borders or B&N, get yourself a cup of coffee, and settle in for about forty minutes.
Note 24:
“There is no scientific justification for or against any kind of research. Justification deals with morals, and all morality has a philosophical/religious well from which it draws. The operative assumption in your response is that when it comes to destroying embryos to extract their stem cells, we should be (philosophically) materialist, which is to say utilitarian/pragmatic (the only alley where philosophical materialism can end). Put another way, the (potential) benefits of embryonic stem cells trumps any moral questions about destroying embryos. Moreover, arguing that some countries already extract embryonic cells as proof that America should do the same, is further evidence of the utilitarian moral ethos at play here.”
True. However, have we not been through this with Jim over and over and over and over and over and (you get the point). Could not what you say be filed in the same category as the sky is blue, big things are larger than small things, and up is up and down is down? Really, why is Jim allowed to post this garbage over and over and over. (Ed: over x 1,000, edited for substance.)
Note 37:
Of course there is a moral difference — but only of degree, not of substance….
Ah, now I see. I wish I could say I missed Fr. Jacobse’ 5th grade explications of 4th grade moral facts to 3rd grade Jim (this is of course discounting his Troll motivations), but the plain truth is I don’t. I wonder what Christian commentary on the cultural issues of the day be like? Is it REALLY a constant reply to materialism? If it is, woe unto us, for we are NOT speaking to the majority of folks…
”Is it because deep down inside some morsels of your God-given humanity and conscience are still telling you that we’re much closer to the truth then you care to admit? :)”
Is this not between him and God? Do you really feel called to tolerate his behavior here – do you REALLY think it has something to do with his salvation? Is that not just a little presumptuous on anyone’s part? Is this blog to be simply:
“a mundane and repetitive reply to a stubborn materialist”?
Could it not be something MORE? Would that not be something noble and worthy also, even more worthy than:
“yet another refutation of ill-considered neo-pagan debating points #’s 5, 9, and 23”?
Where is Kierkegaard, where is Socrates when you need them? Certainly not here…
and Christopher, bless his heart, is trying to ban about
Well to stoop once again to the level of most of the conversation here (which I am guilty in participating in all too often), in reply I say:
“strange thing to say coming from a man who believes in neither blessings or hearts”
But what does that add? Nothing but yet another sorry reply to yet another sorry materialist and his sorry arguments.
What would a Christian discussion of these subjects look like??
Reading Assignment…All ONet Blog readers are strongly encouraged to read “Defending Human Dignity” by Leon Kass in the latest issue of Commentary Magazine.* (Read an abstract.)
Well here is my honest take – I pray Christianly informed. Jim, do me a favor and keep your dark and impoverished thoughts to yourself for once:
Why (take on this reading assignment), what does it add? I read the abstract and it seems to want to turn to another term (in this case “dignity”) that will somehow (dare I say “magically”) get through to the materialist, or at least the confused. This seems to me to be candy-optimism – the idea that moral apologetics just needs another idea, another turn of phrase, THEN it’s moral clarity and truth will get through.
Never mind the whole Christian tradition of 2000 years whispering to us it is the will, the heart, and not the mind that needs to be turned.
Your reading assignment assumes that someone around here (lurkers perhaps??) need yet another clever explication that men are men, God is God, and all things needful have been revealed and here is how you say it in current discourse subject to change in the next 3 months or so. I submit it’s the opposite. Those with ears have already heard, and no one here needs this idea of “dignity” anymore than “God”. It’s already impotent (excepting of course to intellectuals who get a basic emotional need met by being clever).
Let’s put it to the test: Lurkers of ONet – what do you think? Does the term “dignity” add something to your thinking, or does it have the ability to add something to the political/moral discourse that is lacking, or is it just another term thrown in to the same old pot?
…We do not need another 4999 posts to determine the futility of argument….
I wrote the above before reading Michael’s post. He said it better than I did.
(Ed: over x 1,000, edited for substance.)
Ah, but that WAS the substance…
Michael summarized it very nicely. The only use for their posts is to refine and sharpen our own arguments and help us strengthen the defense of the universal truths and the reality of God to which many of these people are blind to. From these exchanges they dig themselves deeper into their God-denying and truth-avoiding arguments, while we further expand the Christian apology arguments. For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, the posts speak for themselves and hopefully provide to others the arguments and perspectives they need to gain a deeper understanding of God and Christ, and help them, in the words of St. Paul, “gird their waist with truth” against the lies, falsehood, and corruption of the world. C.S. Lewis developed some of his best and most memorable defense of Christianity and the truth of God and our existence in facing and destroying (rendered their “wisdom” as foolishness) the criticisms and arguments of the atheists and agnostics of his age. In a small way I do believe we are accomplishing something similar here.
This is what is termed a “honey-pot” blog, or what some mistakenly call “Socratic dialog”, or what bills itself as free and “open” discussion but what in fact is not free at all because it assumes a equal footing of all ideas – and not all ideas are equal. The protest of procedural neutrality of course is just a return to a liberal idea of communicating and relating.
I find it interesting that you explicitly admit the positive harm here:
” From these exchanges they dig themselves deeper into their God-denying and truth-avoiding arguments”
Do you see no implication of your own soul in this, or is this written off as a necessary sacrifice? Surely not. So you don’t really admit any role in this harm at all, rather you see yourself (through the blog) as a ladder – a neutral instrument where folks can either craw up to Heaven or down to Hell, but it is their choice and you have no moral culpability at all.
To be blunt, this is what I find most damning about yours and Fr. Jacobse’s view of the discourse that occurs here. IMO, while your playing at being C.S. Lewis real people are being harmed and you don’t seem to see your part in it.
At the risk of sounding (or being) a sentimentalist (instead of a Christian), I say to Hell with OrthodoxyToday, AOI, this blog and all the rest if to in the process of thinking up clever apologetics real people are aided in their dig to Hell. “they dig themselves deeper ” indeed.
Really, I just have to be missing something here. What IS your reasoning that justifies these casualties, these who “did themselves deeper”? Is it some ‘stages of Faith’ reasoning that sees the Net as a useful tool to some who are at certain places in their faith? If so does that still not beg the question as to these grave diggers?
Fr. Jacobse has avoided answering the question to the point I know he does not have an answer – perhaps it’s too close for home for him. How about you Chris, have you thought about it?