catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

personhood and new science

Default

wscott
Nov 07 2002
12:29 pm

i thought i’d post in biology just so I can feel like i am somewhat “scientific” (even though i don’t have a scientific bone in my body).

Here is a quote from JP Moreland’s book, Body & Soul.
[It is co-written with Scott Rae and is a challenging read.]

“Personhood is constituted by a set of ultimate capacities of thought, belief, sensation, emotion, volition, desire, intentionality and so forth. …None of these ultimate capacities is physical, and therefore neither is personhood itself” ? (p.25)

This is why cloning is ok. It doesn’t take away personhood. People get pretty worked up about cloning and all that…but there is no way to clone somebody’s soul. So if sameness is someone’s argument against cloning they should try another approach.

any thoughts?

Default

Norbert
Nov 07 2002
01:17 pm

I guess I consider physical characteristics another example of being “fearfully and wonderfully made”. To me, cloning seems like we’re handcuffing God’s creative power to a certain extent. Sure, the knew individual would have their own personal thoughts and emotions and aspirations but there still seems to be something wrong. A zebra calf, so I’m told, is sheltered by its mother from the rest of the herd in order for the baby zebra to focus on one pattern, thereby learning to recognize its mother. To me, that’s just one small example of the beauty in individual physical traits. I love being the greek god of a beauty I am.

Those who have seen me know this to be one hell of a joke.

Default

wscott
Nov 07 2002
01:45 pm

i would tend to be of the same mind as you relative to your response…but there seems to be a couple of questions that arise in my mind.

1. I don’t really think that there is a way we can “hand-cuff God’s creative power.” If anything, using science illigetimately (if that is a proper definition of what you think cloning is), displays this because man can only mimic what God does perfectly.

2. Does individuality express beauty? If this is true, then all of the twins in our world are second rate. Of course we know that twins are, in fact, not second rate. So how do you account for cloning as being “not beautiful” on account of sameness?

btw, i hear wisconsin is nice this time of year…
:) [also i apologize for my spelling erorrs. I hardly have the time to post here, let alone check for errors…]

Default

Norbert
Nov 07 2002
05:50 pm

Oh Ryan. You make me blush.

I’m not certain that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery when it comes to God’s creativity. Mankind was punished for reaching beyond what God had preordained him to be. Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil cursed Adam with the ability to see good and bad. The serpent made it sound so attractive to be able to be (at least see) like God.
I’m not trying to compare cloning to original sin, but it’s the closest comparison I could come up with. I do think there is something there though. Creativity is one of God’s greatest gifts. I guess I feel uncomfortable giving science the go-ahead to mimic God’s creative genius.

Default

wscott
Nov 08 2002
10:15 am

discussing these issues solidifies (or tears down) what I believe about them. so if it’s ok, I would like to review exactly what I have learned so far in this discussion…

What I have gathered so far…
1. you have conceded the fact that lack of individuality is not a good argument against cloning.
2. you have now put forth the argument that mimicing God’s creative genius, at least in science, makes you uncomfortable.

What is wrong with giving science the go-ahead to mimic God’s creative genius if we are encouraged to be creative in every other aspect of our lives. We push a child to to dream big dreams then put them onto paper in the form of pictures or drawings. We push ourselves as writers or musicians to mimic God’s creative genius and express it to others through prose and song. I wonder where the difference lies when it comes to science.

Here is what I am coming to believe about cloning…

cloning may go beyond our ‘creative expression’ as humans because we are producing life: and we can’t handle the responsibility. I can’t bring myself to see what is inherently wrong about cloning beyond this issue of responsibility. There really aren’t any good reasons to clone human beings. It is kind of like Jurassic Park, where Jeff Goldbloom says something like, “You are standing on the shoulders of giants, but you haven’t stopped to ask yourself if you should creat dinasaurs [just because you can].” (of course i mangled the quote, but you get the idea.) Cloning in our culture can only lead to negative things (which will be lauded as magnificent progress). Such things as organ farming, fetal genetic selection, and genetic discrimination are only a few of the negative possibilities.

All of this comes down to our veiw of personhood. What is a human being? And as a result, what is the appropriate way to treat them? These questions will shape science in the next century. If our world decides that clones are second-rate humans then we could see a great deal of evil go on in the future…evil that is on par with genocide and abortion.

Default

BBC
Nov 18 2002
05:28 pm

As I understand cloning though, we can hardly be said to be creating life, any more than a sexual act creates life. God creates the life, we just put the cells in close proximity to each other. I guess I don’t get panicky aobut cloning per se — any more than I get upset about the grafting of fruit trees to develop new varieties. Those other issues — organ farming, genetic determination, etc, do make me wary, and make me think we ought to do a whole lot of thinking before we procede with any cloning attempts, but I think it is a mistake for Christians to oppose cloning just because of what it is.

Of course, I am an English teacher, so what do I know.

Default

Wilberto
Aug 03 2003
12:03 pm

I don’t disagree with the actual act of cloning a human. I just don’t know if I trust people enough to use it responisbly. It’s like a short story I read called the jigsaw man. I can’t remember who wrote it, but the basic plot is that anyone who commits minor crimes (traffic violations) is put to death and their organs are harvested to make the majority of the nation essentially immortal. I can sort of see something like this happening with clones in my own paranoid sort of way. And it would be wrong because of the whole seperate personhood thing. Anyway, sorry to ramble.

Default

Ryan
Sep 11 2008
12:43 pm

Hey Norb,

I think you are beautiful…

Default

Ryan
Sep 11 2008
12:43 pm

Hey Norb,

I think you are beautiful…