Re: new abortion quiz

David,
If I accept your statements, ethical matters are to be settled
irrationally, despite your protestation. Where did I say that the
scientific method is the final arbiter? that it alone is rational? It
cannot decide ethical matters, or theological. The best it can do is
describe how people act, not how they should act. Where do you get the
idea that I reject revelation as authoritative? Are you saying that
"theological/moral principles" are irrational? You contrast them with
reason.

What I began with is that Moorad shouldn't try to settle an ethical
matter by turning stomachs. That is what is happening with TV broadcasts
of the terrorists sawing off heads in Iraq. Sheila was trying to
establish discourse, that is, rational discussion. Her attempt mirrors
what is essential in theology, ethics, government, et al. If one does not
reasonably organize the data from revelation, the result is schism,
heresy or worse. On the other hand, if effectiveness is the criterion,
few matters are superior to the /argumentum ad baculum/.

Let me continue my lecture on logic with what I call Premise Number One
because it is the basis of more arguments than any other premise I have
encountered. It is a form, virtually never overtly expressed: Since you
disagree with me on [fill in the item of disagreement], you are [insert
any appropriate pejorative term]. Did I detect its use recently?
Dave

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:26:56 -0500 "Bundrick, David"
<BundrickD@evangel.edu> writes:
From my perspective, Dave, a major difficulty is represented by your
claim that ethical decisions are to be made rationally. Certainly
rationality is an important component in ethical decision-making, and
that is (I believe) part of the imago dei (Isaiah 1:18: "Come now, let us
reason together, says the Lord").

So obviously, decisions should not be made irrationally. But I would
question your (apparent) presupposition that reason (or the scientific
method) rules absolute (trumps everything else) in making ethical
decisions. I do not believe that to be consistent with a Christian
worldview based on Scripture.

I believe we would do well to follow the principle of complementarity and
make these tough ethical decisions on the basis of an understanding (as
complete as possible) of both science/reason and theological/moral
principles. One should be able (in fact, obligated) to consider
experience--including the understanding and (likely emotional) viewing of
the abortion process, for example--as an important component of such
ethical decision-making.

Perhaps we are really on the same page. I have not been able to track the
complete listserv discussion on this matter, and apologize if I have
therefore missed salient points of the friendly debate.

David Bundrick
Received on Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:13:22 -0700