Re: [asa] Worthy of response?

Burgy said: *If it can, then I can claim that the ad hoc explanation of
OMPHALOS (last Tuesdayism) is a defeater for the claim that the earth is
vastly older than 6,000 years.*

It seems that we do have some big swathes of agreement. Here, though, I
think things are a bit apples and oranges. The age of the earth is directly
established by multiple lines of physical evidence. There's no metaphysical
question there. You can't just throw up any theory in response; an adequate
response to this physical / material question has to address the physical /
material evidence. The assertion that "ensoulement can't happen before the
possibility of twinning passes" is different. Since ensoulement is a
metaphysical / spiritual question, it simply can't be settled by this kind
of physical evidence. It's perfectly reasonable to respond that "God could
implant two souls that later separate out" because we aren't considering
something that can be described or bounded by physical laws (unlike the age
of the earth).

On 9/5/07, Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> wrote:
>
> David O responded:
>
> "I respond: right, but the question "what consitutes
> 'personhood'" ultimately is a metaphysical / ethical question, not a
> scientific question. I agree that empirical data from the natural sciences,
> such as data about what can physically happen to a zygote
> pre-implantation, bears on this question. However, I don't think such
> observations can answer the question."
>
> We don't disagree much here. I guess I would simply say that the data,
> when followed to an "inference to the best explanation" does indicate that a
> "person" is not present in the process until implantation. I understand that
> this may well not be convincing to others.
>
> "And, the fact that the Nazis made wrong and evil ethical
> judgments doesn't mean there is no basis on which we could reach a
> different, *objectively* better conclusion, without reducing the question
> to a merely "scientific" one. In other words, when I say something is
> primarily an "ethical" rather than a "scientific" issue, I don't think that
> relegates the question to the realm of merely subjective emotion, concerning
> which the Nazi view is just as valid as any other view."
>
> I probably should not have used the Nazi idea. All my point was this:
> Either a "person" is present at a point in the reproductive process -- or a
> "person" is not present. One's views on this do not make one (or the other)
> true.
>
> "In response to my musings on the pre-implantation zygote and
> ensoulement, Burgy said: *The problem with this explanation is that is (I
> think) entirely ad hoc. Or perhaps there is supporting evidence for it? *I
> respond: I think you are improperly shifting the burden of proof here. You
> asserted that the indeterminacy of the zygote before implantation -- the
> fact that it can split into two and then re-fuse or not re-fuse -- defeats
> any notion of ensoulement before implantation. In making that assertion,
> you took on the burden of proving it."
>
> I think I mentioned that I was not offering "proof," only a reasonable (to
> me) interpretation of the data.
>
> "I offered a few scenarios under which your assertion might not
> hold. In doing that, I've at least provisionally defeated your defeater
> concerning ensoulement -- you haven't carried your burden of proof. I don't
> need to offer any more evidence, because I'm not claiming any specific
> concept of ensoulement is necessarily correct. I'm only suggesting that
> there are any number of plausible ways in which pre-implantation ensoulement
> could possibly remain viable despite your proposed defeater. In order to
> carry your burden of proof, you now need to show why my possible scenarios
> fail."
>
> I think you are (implicitly) agreeing with my observation that your "God
> puts two soul in" idea is ad hoc. If not, sorry for misinterpreting you. The
> question I have is whether (or not) an ad hoc argument can be a "defeater."
> If it can, then I can claim that the ad hoc explanation of OMPHALOS (last
> Tuesdayism) is a defeater for the claim that the earth is vastly older than
> 6,000 years. Which may be technically true but not very useful. Or am I
> still missing something here?
>
> "I could go a bit further, though, and say that if a zygote can
> split in two before implantation, and if that results in two distinctly
> individual fetuses being brought to term and growing into distinct
> individuals, that in itself is evidence against your claim. But at the end
> of the day, neither of us has enough data to know what is or isn't possible
> concerning ensoulement, or even whether ensoulement is a useful concept."
>
> On your first sentence, I cannot understand. On the second, I agree.
>
> Cheers from sunny Colorado.
>
> Burgy
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 5 10:52:57 2007