RE: new abortion quiz

The student did not see that speed limits are man-made as attested by
the fact that different countries have different road conditions,
different driving rule, different quality of cars, and thus different
limits. However, the commandment about murder cannot be man-made
otherwise the Ottoman Empire genocide of 1.5 millions Christian
Armenians, Nazi atrocities against Jews, Gypsies, Stalin's murder of
millions, etc. would be acceptable as the law of the land. My main
point is that knowledge ought to precede the taking of decisions. Plain
and simple! We are not talking about publishing a paper on the physical
aspect of reality but on the behavior of conscious, rational, human
beings. No one writes a scientific paper and knowingly avoids some
aspect of the problem just because it may be unpleasant for the author.

Moorad

________________________________

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:44 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: BundrickD@evangel.edu; lcameron@apa.org;
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: new abortion quiz

Guys,

You've totally missed my point. I am open to any RATIONAL argument.
Looking at something, anything, that turns your stomach is not an
argument. I note that the common argument of atheists is that a good and
almighty deity would not produce whatever it is that they don't like.

That students did not, when it was sprung on them, see a connection
between speed limit and murder (not killing) is no argument against my
statement. You can partly fill in the gap to show that speed tends
toward a higher probability of fatalities. But this is a tendency toward
manslaughter. Are you accusing me of murder because I drive 75, the
limit on rural interstates in Arizona? By the way, if you want a
justification of speed limits, you'll do better with I Peter 2:13f (a
reference Bible will give you more verses on the topic)than the Ten
Commandments.

May I suggest that you think through your position, get your definitions
clearly in mind, rather than jumping on anyone who does not agree with
every aspect of your views. A reflexive response does nothing to
communicate to those who disagree with you, but may be persuaded by
sound argument. Moorad, when did you present an emotional response as
evidence in a scientific paper? Do you need to be reminded that
philosophers strive for reasoned presentations, though they do not have
the empirical check that restricts scientific studies?

Dave

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:47:56 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:

        Dear David,

        I am not surprised at Dave's comments. I teach a science course
to non-science majors----based on the book "Great Ideas in Physics" by
Alan Lightman-----and once I asked the class if they saw a difference
between "Thou shalt not kill" and "Speed limit 70 mph. " To my surprise
and consternation some students said that they didn't. What can I say?

        Moorad

        Dave,

        With all due respect, to compare (a) watching a tiny, innocent
human being salted and/or dismembered in the womb (or partially
delivered outside the womb) with (b) smelling vomit or (c) watching
sausage being made is quite unconscionable and unreasonable. This is an
example of why science devoid of morality and Christian ethics has a bad
name and an even worse track record.

        Sincerely,

        David R. Bundrick
        David R. Bundrick, PhD
Received on Wed Oct 13 08:49:46 2004