Where is the line with "playing God"?

Loudmouth · Jul 28, 2015

Holoman said:
I don't think people are opposed to stem cell research because it's "playing God", they are opposed to it because it involves essentially creating an embryo to harvest cells from and when they are done with it, they kill it. I don't think there is much opposition to non-embryonic stem cell research.

If they use embryos that were already created for other purposes, would that be ok? There are many embryos sitting in liquid nitrogen right now that are left over from human in vitro fertilizations that will never be implanted. Do we keep them on liquid nitrogen for eternity?

Cloning is a difficult one, the morality of it isn't clear, but I am not sure what benefit it brings at all to the human race.

Clones are found all over nature. Identical twins are clones. The potatoes you eat are clones. Aspen trees are clones. Of course, it begs the question of what the real boundary is between artificial and natural.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 28, 2015

juvenissun said:
...I would still hold my view that human soul is given (assigned) by God at the moment when sperm and egg combined.

1. There are many fertilized eggs did not make it. In this case the soul simply went away (to some place). The situation is the same as the general case of natural abortion.

2. Since we do not know a constant mechanism which caused twins, I would stretch my model by saying that if the zygote made into a twin, then two souls were assigned to the zygote right from the beginning. Since God knows if it would become a twin or not.

1. In a natural abortion, when the soul 'simply goes away', does this mean it doesn't count as human? If so, when does the foetus count as human - at birth?

2. That is quite a stretch... it occurs to me that if God knows whether a zygote will become twins, He also knows whether one or both will abort, so he doesn't need to 'waste' any souls at that stage; he can provide only those that will be required.

Taking it further, the most efficient way to administer souls would seem to be to provide them only when a human dies, a kind of just-in-time procedure that an all-knowing God would have no problem with... Is there some theological reason why God provides souls at the start of life rather than the end?

I also notice that my question about 'souls of unknown origin' wasn't answered - if God provides all human souls, what role do souls of unknown origin play - why do they exist at all?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 28, 2015

Loudmouth said:
There are many embryos sitting in liquid nitrogen right now that are left over from human in vitro fertilizations that will never be implanted. Do we keep them on liquid nitrogen for eternity?

And do they have souls yet?

juvenissun · Jul 28, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
1. In a natural abortion, when the soul 'simply goes away', does this mean it doesn't count as human? If so, when does the foetus count as human - at birth?

2. That is quite a stretch... it occurs to me that if God knows whether a zygote will become twins, He also knows whether one or both will abort, so he doesn't need to 'waste' any souls at that stage; he can provide only those that will be required.

Taking it further, the most efficient way to administer souls would seem to be to provide them only when a human dies, a kind of just-in-time procedure that an all-knowing God would have no problem with... Is there some theological reason why God provides souls at the start of life rather than the end?

I also notice that my question about 'souls of unknown origin' wasn't answered - if God provides all human souls, what role do souls of unknown origin play - why do they exist at all?

It seems we are now talking about the theology of soul. If so, please refrain from any argument which relied on science only.

In fact, I made the statement a little inclusive by saying a soul of unknown origin. A more accurate way to say it is: no human soul. Since all human souls are provided by God. He has everyone of these souls registered. A clone with no human soul is then, not a human in God's eyes.

A soul is given to a human at the beginning of his carnal life. So, a zygote should be treated as a human. The soul will go back to God's control at any time when the person died. In case the person became a Christian during his life, then his soul is upgraded to something called spirit, because the soul has experienced interactions with God's Spirit. This is why a human soul should not be given at the end of his human life. The soul is becoming what the human is through the life experience. After the person die, the soul keeps the identity of the human.

If human has soul, which is something more than the flesh, then what's said above should be the most reasonable theology of soul. You are very encouraged to find a loophole in it.

Holoman · Jul 28, 2015

Loudmouth said:
If they use embryos that were already created for other purposes, would that be ok? There are many embryos sitting in liquid nitrogen right now that are left over from human in vitro fertilizations that will never be implanted. Do we keep them on liquid nitrogen for eternity?

No I don't think they should have been created in the first place.

Loudmouth · Jul 28, 2015

Holoman said:
No I don't think they should have been created in the first place.

Well, we don't have a time machine so that ship has already sailed.

Do we just keep them on ice for the rest of recorded time?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 28, 2015

juvenissun said:
... please refrain from any argument which relied on science only.

I'm asking questions, not making arguments. I have some explained errors with the science you've been using.

In fact, I made the statement a little inclusive by saying a soul of unknown origin. A more accurate way to say it is: no human soul. Since all human souls are provided by God. He has everyone of these souls registered. A clone with no human soul is then, not a human in God's eyes.

What creatures have non-human souls - souls of unknown origin - or are these souls unattached?

... After the person die, the soul keeps the identity of the human.

If the person has brain damage (e.g. dementia) that damages or destroys their identity, does the soul keep that damaged identity? if not, what does it keep?

juvenissun · Jul 28, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
What creatures have non-human souls - souls of unknown origin - or are these souls unattached?

If the person has brain damage (e.g. dementia) that damages or destroys their identity, does the soul keep that damaged identity? if not, what does it keep?

Good questions.

There are animal souls. Dogs have souls and cats have souls. They are non-human souls. Their souls do not interact with God. I do not know where do their souls come from and I guess that their souls may be kept in the dark (no feeling, no sense) permanently after they died.

The disease question is really a good one. I can easily make up some explanations. But I won't say it because it has not pass through my reasoning system yet. My best understanding is that if a disease degraded the senses of a human and is never recovered, then his soul after the death would be the one he had before the disease hit him. I do have one Bible verse to support it. But I certainly like to see more support on that.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 28, 2015

juvenissun said:
There are animal souls. Dogs have souls and cats have souls. They are non-human souls. Their souls do not interact with God. I do not know where do their souls come from and I guess that their souls may be kept in the dark (no feeling, no sense) permanently after they died.

What use would a soul that has no feeling or sense after death be to an animal? Does an animal need a soul? if so, what for? do ants have souls? or bacteria?

My best understanding is that if a disease degraded the senses of a human and is never recovered, then his soul after the death would be the one he had before the disease hit him. I do have one Bible verse to support it.

This seems to imply some arbitrarily judged 'peak of mental capacity' in the case of diseases that are present and cause mental deficits and changing mental capacities over the long term, or even from birth... If your peak of mental capacity and sense of identity is at six years old, at which point you get meningitis that causes permanent impairment (e.g. capacity of a four year-old) until a slow decline and death in your mid 50s, is fifty years of life experience discarded? or does the soul compromise and sample at the start of the slow decline in middle age?

I'm having trouble seeing how the concept of souls can be logically consistent and coherent in the real world, given the way you've described them.

DogmaHunter · Jul 29, 2015

juvenissun said:
It is all religious.
For a religion, you do not ask questions of scientific nature.

Great.

To me, that means that no scientist should care about your objections then, since they are religious anyway. If scientists should care about any and all religious objections, they might just as well quit their jobs...

juvenissun · Jul 29, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
What use would a soul that has no feeling or sense after death be to an animal? Does an animal need a soul? if so, what for? do ants have souls? or bacteria?

This seems to imply some arbitrarily judged 'peak of mental capacity' in the case of diseases that are present and cause mental deficits and changing mental capacities over the long term, or even from birth... If your peak of mental capacity and sense of identity is at six years old, at which point you get meningitis that causes permanent impairment (e.g. capacity of a four year-old) until a slow decline and death in your mid 50s, is fifty years of life experience discarded? or does the soul compromise and sample at the start of the slow decline in middle age?

I'm having trouble seeing how the concept of souls can be logically consistent and coherent in the real world, given the way you've described them.

Animals are able to show some sentiments. That's where the soul shows. However, we should not evaluate their souls by the standard of human soul. Human is a much more superior being favorited by God.

The neural malfunctions you mentions only happened to a very small fraction of human population. So, my theology of soul does apply to 99% of human. That is very good. We can simply leave the 1% unusual cases to God. However, for the sake of understanding, we may still explore a little bit detail of those exceptions.

What is the soul of late President Ronald Reagan like now? I believe his soul is not affected in any sense by the alzheimer's disease he got in his late years. But what would the soul be like for a person who suffered brain injury at his youth? I would guess that his soul would be like the one he had when he died. If so, where is the cut on the length of time? I don't know (yet). And it is not that important for me to focus on that problem now.

juvenissun · Jul 29, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Great.

To me, that means that no scientist should care about your objections then, since they are religious anyway. If scientists should care about any and all religious objections, they might just as well quit their jobs...

You are generalizing. It depends on the question.

If a scientist asked for the evidence of God, then he is either blind, or is not talking about science.
However, there are scientists devoted to the detection of ghost by using all scientific methods. This is appropriate.

Talk is cheap. If you, as a scientist, really like to see an evidence of God, then design an experiment to find it out. I would certainly be on your side. I like to see that too.

DogmaHunter · Jul 29, 2015

juvenissun said:
Animals are able to show some sentiments. That's where the soul shows. However, we should not evaluate their souls by the standard of human soul. Human is a much more superior being favorited by God.

So, here's a hypothetical question.

Suppose you need to choose between these two options:
Either ALL chimpansees die instantly. Or just one random human dies instantly.

You'ld let an entire species go extinct to save just one human?

The neural malfunctions you mentions only happened to a very small fraction of human population.

That's not really true.

However, it seems to me that in his argument, it doesn't matter how many times it occurs. Once is enough.

So, my theology of soul does apply to 99% of human. That is very good.

Actually, no, that is not good.
It means that you are in error somewhere.

We can simply leave the 1% unusual cases to God.

Why?

However, for the sake of understanding, we may still explore a little bit detail of those exceptions.

What is the soul of late President Ronald Reagan like now? I believe his soul is not affected in any sense by the alzheimer's disease he got in his late years.

Why do you believe that?

But what would the soul be like for a person who suffered brain injury at his youth? I would guess that his soul would be like the one he had when he died. If so, where is the cut on the length of time? I don't know (yet). And it is not that important for me to focus on that problem now.

Why? Is it to hard to incorporate it into your dogmatic religious worldview?

juvenissun · Jul 29, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
So, here's a hypothetical question.

Suppose you need to choose between these two options:
Either ALL chimpansees die instantly. Or just one random human dies instantly.

I do not make the choice. God would make.
I believe God will choose to save that human. This is clearly said in the Bible.

DogmaHunter · Jul 29, 2015

juvenissun said:
You are generalizing.

No. I'm responding to what you said, exactly.

I'm talking about "non-scientific religious beliefs". Which is exactly what you said.
I'm not generalising anything.

Why should a scientist care about non-scientific objections?

It depends on the question.

No, it doesn't.
It depends on wheter your argument is backed by science or by religion.

When discussing the science, your religious arguments are irrelevant - no matter from which religion you are pulling those beliefs.

If a scientist asked for the evidence of God, then he is either blind, or is not talking about science.

Indeed.

However, there are scientists devoted to the detection of ghost by using all scientific methods. This is appropriate.

LOL!

Which "scientists" are these?
Wich "scientific field" is busy with the study of "ghosts"?
And what is the practical application? Ghost Busters??

For crying out loud....

Talk is cheap. If you, as a scientist, really like to see an evidence of God, then design an experiment to find it out. I would certainly be on your side. I like to see that too.

I have no idea how this relates to the subject at hand.
This is about as random as it gets.

Why in the world would I want to design an experiment to support an unsupportable, unfalsifiable idea that I don't even accept?

DogmaHunter · Jul 29, 2015

juvenissun said:
I do not make the choice. God would make.
I believe God will choose to save that human. This is clearly said in the Bible.

I note that you refused to answer the hypothetical question.
That is an answer in itself to my question.

Clearly, you see where your logic leads to. You would choose to kill thousands of primates to save a single human. You agree this is absolutely barbaric and immoral. This is why you refuse to directly answer the question - you are ashamed of where your logic leads you.

So you hide behind your religion instead.

That's how I understand your non-answer.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 29, 2015

juvenissun said:
Animals are able to show some sentiments. That's where the soul shows.

So is it only animals capable of showing 'sentiments' that have souls - e.g. not ants or bacteria?

The neural malfunctions you mentions only happened to a very small fraction of human population. So, my theology of soul does apply to 99% of human. That is very good. We can simply leave the 1% unusual cases to God. However, for the sake of understanding, we may still explore a little bit detail of those exceptions.

Yes; if you need to leave the awkward cases, that your explanation fails to adequately cover, to God, you might as well leave it all to God. I'm happy to wait for the the more detailed exploration

... I don't know (yet).

Well said - that sentiment lies behind scientific exploration too.

juvenissun · Jul 29, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
So is it only animals capable of showing 'sentiments' that have souls - e.g. not ants or bacteria?

Yes; if you need to leave the awkward cases, that your explanation fails to adequately cover, to God, you might as well leave it all to God. I'm happy to wait for the the more detailed exploration

Well said - that sentiment lies behind scientific exploration too.

It is all in God's hand.
If so, why should we bother?
Very simple, it is for our own benefit. We want to understand God. That is the basic motivation. God leaves quite a bit information so we can understand Him. For those we do not (yet), it is only good for us to explore, whether it would be right or wrong. God tells us: if we seek, He will let us see.
Again, why do I want to talk about this? First, for my benefit. Second, for your benefit.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 29, 2015

juvenissun said:
... We want to understand God.

OK, that's good. I was always taught that God is beyond man's understanding (the standard evasion, together with 'God works in mysterious ways' [GWIMW], for awkward questions and apparent contradictions), but the monks of St. Benedict may not have all the answers...

Paul of Eugene OR · Jul 29, 2015

Ryukil said:
A lot of religious people get annoyed at things like stem cell research, research into reversing aging, genetic engineering and it sort of confuses me.

Everyone talks about "playing God". Why isn't just treating cancer considered "playing God"? I mean if the idea is that disease came into the world because humans sinned, then don't we deserve these diseases? Isn't treating them "playing God" in this sense?

Why is it "playing God" to remove cancer genes from an embryo but not "playing God" to treat a person's cancer later in life?

Anyway, these are all really interesting questions because I'm positive in the next decades people will be fighting over this sort of thing.

I personally think if you could save a baby from developing cancer at age 50 by doing some genetic engineering, it would be immoral NOT to do it.

I also figure if God really had a problem with it he would let us know, but maybe that's not the case.

I totally agree. The phrase "playing God" is empty. The person who uses it is saying they are shocked and dismayed by the proposed action. Shock and dismay are not logical arguments.

Where is the line with "playing God"?

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Credo

Contributor

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Code Monkey

... and God saw that it was good.

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Finally Old Enough

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency