Category Archives: essays, editorials, fisks, and rants

What do Pro-lifers Want?

On a webpage somewhere (sorry, I can’t remember where) someone asked, “What do pro-lifers really want?” He was skeptical that pro-lifers (PL’s) really knew what they wanted.

This struck me as strange. I would think it odd that the actions of PL’s (the sane ones, you know, the non-bombers) don’t speak for themselves. We silently protest with prayers outside abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood (usually the same thing). We vote for pro-life politicians. We march on Washington (DC) every year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

PL’s want abortion, just like murder, to be made illegal. PL’s don’t want anyone to be able to eliminate zygotes, embryos, fetus, or babies. PL’s don’t want embryos from test tubes to be destroyed (ones from IVF and laboratories). PL’s want women to be given choices of how they are to bear and raise their children, not how to destroy their children.

Yes, abortions will still take place. However, murder and rape are also illegal and still happen everyday. PL’s also don’t want hit men to be permitted to have a room into which they lure their victims for blood-cash.

Ultimately, what PL’s want is for society to view all people as precious and sacred and to be safeguarded in the fact that all human people are to be defended. What abortion does (in addition to euthanasia) is to make society as a whole accept that some people are to be used or eliminated for other’s benefit.

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop of Denver puts it very well.

The first principle of Christian social thought is: Don’t deliberately kill the innocent, and don’t collude in allowing somebody else to do it. The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. The reason the abortion issue is so foundational is not because Catholics love little babies—although we certainly do—but because revoking the personhood of unborn children makes every other definition of personhood and human rights politically contingent.

Religion Beyond Dawkins

As was said in previous posts, Dawkins does not venture past superficial explanations or observations that cannot be necessarily proved (since he is using data outside of his empirical domain). As a consequence of this impedance, C. Hitchens has said in debates that there is one question that is not apparent to him and his Master, “Why do we exist rather than not exist?” Dawkins cannot answer this question since it is a question that science cannot answer. It requires answers that are not provable with 100% certainty. However, there must exist an answer that only religion can answer. (I won’t go on to attempt to address the answer to that in this post.)

I define religion as a group of people that believe in a creed. Some creeds are rigid, some are flexible because the creed allows for flexibility, and many vary in between. Each religion’s creed is developed — as each one believes — from a revelation; revelation’s origin is from the believer, another person, created things, the creator of all things himself, or a combination of the above.

The creed itself has consequences. The study of the creeds and consequences is theology (assuming each creed has a god component). Assuming the creed is correct, theology is of great importance since understanding the consequences brings about further wisdom.

Explàrrogance and the Modified Toddler Theory

The next thing on my to-do list is to read four books in this order: (1) Your God is Too Small by J.B. Phillips, (2) The God Delusion by R. Dawkins, (3) What’s So Great About Christianity by D. D’Souza, and (4) God is Not Great by C. Hitchens. I have already listened to the debate between D’Souza and C. Hitchens and would like to see more of the nitty gritty details of the sides in order to get a better picture of the current state of popular religious affairs.

However, I have read much on the Internet about the Atheist books, and, of course, I already have an opinion on the overall subject. I just wonder if my opinion will change after I read the books. I hope you will join me along the way. Let me know if I make sense or not.

The first opinions I have are about Militant Atheist Richard Dawkins et al (hereinafter Dawkins). I have made up two terms to help me in my understanding of his and his minion’s position. The terms are explàrrogance and the Modified Toddler Theory.

First, it seems that in explaining why something exists or came to exist at a superficial, or materialistic level, he puts on arrogance that is inexplicable. That is, in his explanations of scientific causalities, he is very haughty in the confidence upon which he puts his scientific conclusions as if they were sufficient in explaining the causes. He has much explàrrogance.

Second, for one to gain the most understanding of the world, one must continue to ask how. This is the Modified Toddler Theory. Since Dawkins does not continue to ask how, but instead stops his search at superficial materialistic explanations, he doesn’t have complete explanations of anything.

To say something exists because of its evolutionary journey does not ultimately explain how it exists. Just as a toddler asks, “why, why, why” to get the best answer, a scientist must ask, “how, how, how”. Eventually, we won’t know how something came to be; we just say it is. This leads us to God who just is. However, science may not venture to the end of the how’s since this inquiry is out of the empirical domain.

Dawkins tries to say that the only required and sufficient explanations come via science. However, not even science has all the answers. It would need to rely on data outside the empirical domain of inquiry, which is not in its nature (see above post). Only in Dawkins’ explàrrogance and inaction within the Modified Toddler Theory (he doesn’t continue to ask how) can he confidently say that science killed God with his shallow explanations.

Science Does Have Limits

In the process of learning science throughout my life and teaching physics formally for a short time, I have come to appreciate scientists’ ability to help society explore the natural world. However, I am dismayed that many in society are using science in ways that it was never meant to be used. Continue reading