Return of the Chimera Ban
Apulian red-figure dish, Louvre Museum (wikimedia)
I’ve spent some time chuckling over George W. Bush’s decision to take time out during his 2006 state of the union address to call for a ban on human-animal hybrids. Turns out, though, that there’s some real legislative momentum behind this:
“What was once only science fiction is now becoming a reality, and we need to ensure that experimentation and subsequent ramifications do not outpace ethical discussion and societal decisions,” Brown said last year when he introduced similar legislation. “History does not look kindly on those who violate the dignity of the human person.”
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), the only Democratic co-sponsor, has taken a similarly hardline stance against what she called “blending” of species.
Steve Benen points out that joking aside there’s some very legitimate, potentially life saving, scientific research that could be blocked by this ban. And I think it’s important to put this kind of thing in an international context. The United States is a world leader in scientific research, but that’s obviously something that will come to an end if people need to spend too much time worrying about Sam Brownback’s delicate moral sensibilities (recall: preventive war = good; stem cell research = murder) rather than worrying about their work.
63 Responses to “Return of the Chimera Ban”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 11th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
That’s remarkable that Landrieu is a co-sponor. The Tulane National Primate Research Center is one of the nations premiere facilities. Bans like this would have a direct impact on the scientific contribution not just of the country, but of the state she is supposed to be representing.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
To the extent that there are real ethical issues here, I’d say it’s probably because it’d really suck to be a transgenic mouse with a human tp53 gene who gets subjected to benzene inhalation or whatever, not because the dignity of the human person is violated by human gene sequences being in mice.
I don’t know to what extent Jesse Helms and Sam Brownback would have agreed on this issue, but it’s notable that Jesse Helms sponsored a 1996 amendment to the animal welfare act that excluded rats (genus rattus) and mice (genus mus) from the category of “animals” for the purposes of the law.
As I said, I don’t know whether Brownback would have agreed with Helms, but I suspect so, and one might make the case that these views are of a single coherent viewpoint: that maintaining human dignity both requires a rigid and absolute wall between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom which such transgenic animals would threaten, and that such human dignity makes humans alone valid subjects of moral concern.
If this is the case, I’d say that Brownback’s concerns are not merely morally irrelevant beliefs confused with real morality (like, say, the belief that masturbation is evil, or the belief that it’s wrong to drink cappuccino after 12:00 noon), but are actually anti-moral in nature: they are conceived with the purpose of defending a callously amoral type of human chauvinism and indifference to other species.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
My mistake: Helms amendment was 2002, not 1996. Also excluded all birds and some other thngs.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
This is so stupid. Humanized mice (ie, all mice except for the hematopoetic system, which includes immune cells) have huge potential in immunology research. For one thing, how do you make an animal model suitable for HIV studies when HIV only replicates in human cells? Humanized mice provide a potential solution for that. There are a bunch of other viruses that face the same problem.
More generally, xenografting tumor cells or stem cells created in vitro into an immunodeficient mouse is one of the major tests for tumorigenicity or multipotency, huge deals in cancer and regenerative biology. Are these hybrids?
What about single genes and not whole cells or systems? Is that OK, or does that make the mouse a hybrid?
These people don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. In trying to prevent mice with human brains, or whatever they’re thinking an animal-human hybrid is, they’d be shutting down really valuable research tools. What a bunch of idiots.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Every time I think the postmodernist social liberals have reached a new low, they suprise me by going even lower. Human-animal hybrids? Really?
Julian Elson,
It’s not that animals are not valid subjects of moral concern. Of course they are. It is important however to recognize that they are ontologically inferior to us, as we are inferior to the holy angels. That doesn’t mean that we can treat them just as we please, rather it should obligate us to have a decent regard for their well being, and when we do use them for research purposes, for food, and for labor, to try and not cause them unneeded suffering. Ontological superiority should lead us to a sense of paternal responsibility, not exploitation.
Wh*cking off, is, by the way, immoral. Just what makes you think otherwise?
July 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Hector, no one gives a fuck. Really.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
What will protects us from the monkeys that can control robots with their thoughts?
Also, this totally fucks up my plan for a stage adaptation of The Island of Dr. Moreau.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
There’s an obvious solution to this problem. Rather than test life saving treatments on mouse-human hybrids, let’s just go for the real thing. Let’s put everyone who opposes this on a list to keep track of them, and then apply a lottery system. When their number comes up, we’ll just test the treatments on them. But however it works, I’d a clause to make Sam Brownback and Michelle Bachmann our first test subjects. I’m willing to add Hector to that list too, but I actually kind of like him.
Obviously, I’m not entirely serious about this. But let’s face it, medical research isn’t always pretty. And at some point, we really do have to use human test subjects. The question is, do we know it’s safe before we get to that point? That’s why we start with animals if we can. But sometimes we’ll need animals with human genes in them.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
“That doesn’t mean that we can treat them just as we please, rather it should obligate us to have a decent regard for their well being, and when we do use them for research purposes, for food, and for labor, to try and not cause them unneeded suffering. Ontological superiority should lead us to a sense of paternal responsibility, not exploitation.”
From a practical perspective I think you’re advocating some kind of Dominionist moderate animal-welfare viewpoint, along the lines of Matthew Scully (in general kind, if not degree). I’m not here to debate the merits of that viewpoint, but I’ll just say that you can’t assume that Brownback (or the late Sen. Helms) would agree with you. There is a contingent of hardcore “any concern for animals undermines human interests/dignity and must be opposed” people (e.g., Wesley J. Smith), and while I don’t know whether Brownback is one of them for sure, it certainly sound like that’s his rationale.
“Wh*cking off, is, by the way, immoral. Just what makes you think otherwise?”
I don’t see why it would be. I can’t really say why I think otherwise, because that implies that there’s an argument that it is immoral and that I have a counterargument to that argument. I don’t know the initial argument, so I have no counterargument.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“Ontological superiority should lead us to a sense of paternal responsibility, not exploitation.”
I’m actually very sympathetic to this view. I do believe we should treat animals with as much respect as possible. But what choices do we have? You have to test medical advances on some animal. Should that be a human the first time? There’s obviously plenty of orphans in India, but do you really want to go there? I don’t. I’ll start with a mouse first.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
For the record, I have done and will do tests on animals. I can’t say I like it. But the alternative is even worse.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Fostert,
Don’t mistake me, I thoroughly do support animal testing. We have a right to use animals for our benefit, when necessary. But we do have the obligation to ensure that the animals are spared unneccessary suffering beforehand. We actually have very stringent laws about the welfare of experimental animals, and I don’t think they need to be made any stricter.
Julian Elson,
This is somewhat off topic, so I’ll try to keep it short. Briefly, the sexual act has an intrinsic meaning, not just whatever meaning we may arbitrarily choose to give it. Sexuality is intended to have unitive, relational aspects and is not merely a faculty that we can distort and use for our own pleasure whenever we feel like it. (I will not bring in, for now, the procreative aspect). To separate the sex act from its intended unitive and relational context is to violate the natural order, and is therefore ipso facto immoral.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
as we are inferior to the holy angels.
Theologically incorrect.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Re: Theologically incorrect.
Scythia,
Yeah, I’ve heard that argument (that the Incarnation raised us above the holy angels), and I’ve even heard that as an explanation for why Lucifer rebelled. It’s a compelling argument but I don’t buy it. Christ did not become Man because humans are wicked awesome, He did it because it was necessary to save our fallen race from slavery to sin. In any case, unquestionably humans are _intrinsically_ inferior to the holy angels. We may have been raised to a higher status because of the Incarnation (though I doubt it) but that was Christ’s doing, not ours. In terms of our own powers and virtues, we are much their inferiors.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Out of curiosity, is Hector kidding or is he crazy?
I personally found his first post hilarious, and the fact that he topped it off with an out-of-the-blue condemnation of ‘whacking off had me convinced he had to be a comic.
His second post, though, indicates he may have been serious.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Hector, I could make a bloody good argument that any form of medicine at all is violating “the natural order.”
I mean, if Nature intends for a cancer to grow inside your body, what right do you have to stop it?
July 11th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Soullite,
Don’t be absurd. Mr. Julian Elson brought up wh*cking off, not me. I merely corrected his false impression that wh*cking off was A-OK morally. By the way, I fully acknowledge that it is a damn near universal vice. As it is said, “There is no man righteous, not one.”
July 11th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Wow, Hector, did we just agree on something? That has to be a first. I wouldn’t have guessed it would be animal testing. But then again, I wouldn’t have known what to guess.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
“is Hector kidding or is he crazy?”
No, Hector is not kidding. And I don’t think he’s crazy either. He has a unique viewpoint that he takes very seriously. I almost always disagree, but his viewpoint can’t be simply tossed away. He’s for real.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Hector,
Ok, I’m getting your problem with animal-human hybrids, and also your belief in angelic supremacy. But, what about human-angel hybrids? Or, for that matter, angel-animal hybrids?
July 11th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
And if you want to discuss theology with Hector, you better know your Bible. Either that, or move the subject to another religion.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Maybe Hector can’t be tossed away, but he certainly should be. His post at #14 indicates genuine, unmitigated craziness. That that craziness bears some similarity to the equally psychotic ravings of revered dead white men does nothing to change the necessity of chucking him out of the discourse, as we would any sincere schizophrenic or sociopath. His views don’t deserve engagement–if you can even call a sand-addled fever dream a “view.”
July 11th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“His post at #14 indicates genuine, unmitigated craziness.”
Well, I’m a Buddhist, so needless to say, I have some pretty strong theological disagreements with Hector. We can’t even agree on whether a god exists. But Christianity is the largest religion in the world, and Hector defends it well. His version of it, at least. But I don’t think that’s either crazy or stupid. It’s a valid viewpoint whether it’s right or wrong. I think it’s wrong, but I can assure you that many people here think I’m wrong. That’s why we have these discussions. Hector brings in an interesting take on things. I appreciate it even if other people don’t. But then again, Hector is pretty much the anti-fostert. And I’m the anti-Hector. In the end, we need each other. But strangely enough, we happen to agree on some things today.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Can’t speak for Hector, but I fully support them
July 11th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
“Every time I think the postmodernist social liberals have reached a new low, they suprise me by going even lower.”
Dammit, Hector, many of us aren’t postmodernists (whatever that amounts to). Not subscribing to a natural law theory doesn’t make one a postmodernist.
A whole bunch of us cheered when Alan Sokal exposed a large swath of the humanities as being sans clothing (http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/).
That someone disagrees with you morally doesn’t imply they’re a postmodernist.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
“Briefly, the sexual act has an intrinsic meaning, not just whatever meaning we may arbitrarily choose to give it.”
I haven’t a clue what this means.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
” In any case, unquestionably humans are _intrinsically_ inferior to the holy angels. We may have been raised to a higher status because of the Incarnation (though I doubt it) but that was Christ’s doing, not ours. In terms of our own powers and virtues, we are much their inferiors.”
What does reality look like such that one can make sense of one being being intrinsically inferior to another? I can understand one being being less powerful than another, or morally inferior (in virtue of being morally worse in behavior or perhaps disposed to be morally worse in behavior). But *per se* inferiority I just don’t understand.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
@ fostert 23
I don’t think that Hector’s religious views are crazy, either. I’ve spent too much time around really smart folks with his views not to take them seriously.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“I haven’t a clue what this means.”
Sometimes, you just have to let Hector be Hector. And I’m with you, I have no idea what a post-modernist is. Should I call the exterminator? Who knows? Maybe I’m one of them. I’m an engineer, I don’t like labels that can’t be defined with numbers. Even then, I want to know where those numbers came from. One good thing I’ll say about the Republicans is that they made it clear that philosophical labels have no meaning at all. Obama is apparently both a Nazi and a Communist. How’s that possible? Didn’t the Communists and Nazis fight each other? And it was kind of brutal as I recall. Ten million dead, twenty million, something like that. And they’re supposed to be identical? So slap another label on me, they don’t mean anything anyway. I’m a racist nigger-loving anti-Semitic Jew-loving fascist communist socialist capitalist gay straight gay-hating straight-hating hippie anti-religious religious freak crazy white boy. And that’s only what I’ve been called so far. But who knows? Maybe I’m a post-modernist too. Skip the labels, they’re worthless.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Maybe I’m a post-modernist too. Skip the labels, they’re worthless.
Yeah, actually, on the basis of your last post (as encapsulated by that closing sentence), you kind of are…
July 11th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
“you kind of are…”
Cool! I need another label.
July 11th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
” I don’t like labels that can’t be defined with numbers.”
Not sure what it would be for a label (or the thing labeled) to be defined with numbers (or without numbers)…
@scythia: Surely being suspicious of labels whose extensions are incredibly ill-defined doesn’t make one a postmodernist.
July 11th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Btw, spelling of LA senator is another one for http://yglesiaserrata.com/
July 11th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
“Not sure what it would be for a label (or the thing labeled) to be defined with numbers”
How about Body Mass Index? It’s a simple calculation that defines a concept. With that number, we classify people as underweight, normal, overweight, and obese. Simple labels with numbers attached to them. And those numbers come from real, measurable quantities. If you want another, how about conductivity? A material is either a conductor, an insulator, or a semiconductor based on its Fermi level, which can be measured. Silicon is a semiconductor, mercury is a conductor, nitrogen is an insulator. We can apply these labels with confidence. With water, it’s a little tricky because it’s a perfect insulator unless it has some electrolytes in it. Then it conducts better than gold. But we know that. And we can obviously classify anything with statistics. Take any data set, and we can say you’re in the 26th percentile or the 94th percentile. The cool thing about numbers is that they have real meaning. Words can be redefined to mean anything. That’s why I’m a pacifist, a realist, and a war hawk. I’ve been called all three, yet I’m still the same person. And those words are obviously contradictory. Take any word and its opposite, and they can be applied to anyone. But that’s not true with numbers. 2 does not equal 3. Yet ‘black’ does equal ‘white’ when we’re talking politics. The only difference between those words is their ASCII codes, but that’s just numbers. And numbers have meaning, words usually don’t.
July 11th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Lorax,
There’s actually a website devoted to Yglesian typos? Now I’ve seen everything.
I specifically condemned ‘postmodernist social liberals’, if you do not consider yourself in that boat then good for you. I realise the term is not exact, but I’m not sure there is a better one.
Re: But, what about human-angel hybrids? Or, for that matter, angel-animal hybrids?
Empty English Lunch,
Strangely enough, there has been a lot of interest and speculation over the past 2500 years (possibly more) on the topic of human-angel sex. Apparently the apocyphal ‘Book of Enoch’, which was quoted by St. Jude, claimed that early humans had had sex with fallen angels and created a hybrid evil race. Personally I’m agnostic on whether human-angel sex has ever or could ever happen. If it does happen certainly it is a rare and miraculous event- unlike human-animal sex which is all too deplorably common.
July 11th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
So… I think that it would certainly be worthwhile to attempt to mitigate the use of sentient animals in scientific research to the extent possible. I think some progress, for some applications, is being made in that direction with things like artificial tissue constructs. I don’t think we can currently eliminate it. I’m just saying that insofar as there are serious moral objections to transgenic animals with human genes, that’s where I’d put them — which seems to not be Brownback’s view, but to actually be the opposite of his perspective (once again keeping in mind that I am not deeply familiar with Brownback’s views on bioethics).
As for angels and ontological status and whatnot, I think that if humanity possesses some unique and special dignity that sets us apart from all other animals, and that such special status has been endowed by the God, then I don’t think that that status resides within a particular string of base pairs being 94% similar to the same string that appears and encodes a functionally similar protein in mice rather than being 100% similar. That’s too close to Mr. Deity territory for my tastes.
As for masturbation and cappuccinos, sorry to bring them up.
July 12th, 2009 at 12:11 am
@fostert Ok, the conditions for satisfaction of the concept are the exemplifications of certain properties whose instances are measurable with numbers. That makes sense.
July 12th, 2009 at 12:53 am
“There’s actually a website devoted to Yglesian typos?”
That must be a busy website.
July 12th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Strangely enough, there has been a lot of interest and speculation over the past 2500 years (possibly more)”
Well, not so much possibly on the more concept. Early Sumerian (5000 BC?) texts seem to talk about their connection to another culture. And that culture comes down from the sky and mates with them, creating their culture. But maybe the story of Adam provides a more interesting concept. How does Eve come about? There’s two stories, but one of them is that she’s created from one of Adam’s ribs. If you wanted to clone someone and not kill them in the process, what bone would you take? A rib, obviously. It has the marrow, it’s easy to get to, and it’s not very important. It’s what you want if you want to do cloning. So how does Eve arise from Adam’s rib?
July 12th, 2009 at 1:11 am
People like Hector are intrinsically inferior to household mildew.
And when we Transhumans get our show running, that’s how we’ll treat him.
“History does not look kindly on those who violate the dignity of the human person.” That line coming from a politician is good for quite a few laughs.
July 12th, 2009 at 1:28 am
“History does not look kindly on those who violate the dignity of the human person.”
That’s just wrong. History praises people who kill people. No doubt you’re laughing. And dignity? Please. Don’t go there, it’s only going to get ugly.
July 12th, 2009 at 2:15 am
… why would anyone have a problem with this?
I kind of see this as awesome.
—
Incidentally, isn’t the idea that “we are inferior to the holy angels,” strictly speaking, Satanic? Does not the western tradition (to the extent that it is addressed) suggest that a refusal to acknowledge the essential superiority of man (as beings created in God’s holy image and endowed with a soul) was the proximate cause of Lucifer’s Rebellion against God?
July 12th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Re: Incidentally, isn’t the idea that “we are inferior to the holy angels,” strictly speaking, Satanic? Does not the western tradition (to the extent that it is addressed) suggest that a refusal to acknowledge the essential superiority of man (as beings created in God’s holy image and endowed with a soul) was the proximate cause of Lucifer’s Rebellion against God?
Yes, that’s the idea I referred to above. It was, first of all, never authoritative teaching, but rather the opinion of some individual theologicans. And second of all, even those theologicans would acknowledge that it was the Incarnation, and nothing but the Incarnation, that gave us higher status (simply put, God decided to become a man and not an angel). In short, the teaching (even if it were true) does not show what you want it to show. _Intrinsically_ we are ontologically inferior to them, even if the free grace of God made us superior. Given that I think that various angels were worshipped as Gods in various cultures throughout the world, I have a hard time buying that we are equal to or superior to the angels.
July 12th, 2009 at 9:41 am
“ Personally I’m agnostic on whether human-angel sex has ever or could ever happen. If it does happen certainly it is a rare and miraculous event”
Well (if we’re into mythological speculation), it might well be so for the human/s involved (although see Rilke’s First Elegy of the Duino Elegies, suggesting that any sort of human – angel interaction, however unlikely, would be if not terrifying, utterly overwhelming:
“Who, if I cried out, would hear me among the Angelic
Orders? And even if one were to suddenly
take me to its heart, I would vanish into its
stronger existence. For beauty is nothing but
the beginning of terror, that we are still able to bear,
and we revere it so, because it calmly disdains
to destroy us. Every Angel is terror.
but for the angels, given that in this story they stand in relation to us, ontologically*, as we do to animals, wouldn’t they view it as we do bestiality? Or would they take a “postmodern social libera[l]” kind of view, deeming it ok (or at least not bad in that way) since humans can give meaningful consent? – And could we?
* note the connection between this kind of reigion and hierarchy.
July 12th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Re: * note the connection between this kind of reigion and hierarchy.
Yes, Dan S. Because as we all know, there’s nothing worse (for feminists, social liberals, pro-choicers and other assorted yahoos) then hierarchy.
As for human-angel sex, angels are not like us, sexually speaking. We know that they don’t _marry_ (cf. Luke 20:35-36) but it is left open whether they are sexless beings or whether they in fact have some kind of free-love deal going on.
July 12th, 2009 at 10:30 am
ANd by the way, there is nothing mythological about angels (i.e. incorporeal beings created as God’s helpers, greater than, more virtuous than, and more intellegent than humans). They undeoubtedly do exist.
July 12th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
“ We know that they don’t _marry_ (cf. Luke 20:35-36) but it is left open whether they are sexless beings or whether they in fact have some kind of free-love deal going on.”
Hipster angels!!
—–
Re (certain kinds, at least, of ) religion & hierarchy, etc.
“How religion generates social conservatism
“Orthodox [-schooled Israeli Jewish, as opposed to secular-schooled Israeli Jewish] kids were much more likely to say that Arabs and Jews exist for a specific purpose, as do blacks and whites and, revealingly, rich and poor. . . orthodox kids were more likely to say that sex, race and ethnicity are fixed . . . In other words, if you teach kids creationism – not just about animals, but about people – you train them to think that they have a specific purpose (in the same way that secular kids think about artefacts such as pencils, tables and chairs).
It’s no wonder, then, that they grow up to be social conservatives – fearing women and gay rights, accepting wide differences in social equality, and reinforcing the ethnic schisms within society.”
Hector is right, of course, that those of us who are liberals, feminists, etc. have very different views on this matter. Amusingly, I had been going to make a comparison of his ideas as being akin – in relevance and acceptability – to the doctrine of the divine right of kings, which we also oppose. Not big fans of hierarchy, no.
“They undeoubtedly do exist.”
I understand you believe this, and that this belief is important to you. And to your credit, you recognize, I think, that this (and similar beliefs) don’t get to dictate policy within liberal democracies. (Rather less to your credit, this seems to be one reason why you oppose liberal democracy). But given that you’re insisting on their existence – indeed, their undoubted existence – it seems a fair request that you support this claim, ideally using what’s been referred to as “open intersubjective empiricism”. If not, one possible option is to refrain from making it in this fashion.
July 12th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
An interesting question, though – should Hector’s viewpoint simply be tossed away? I’m not talking about RSH’s transhuman ‘household cleansing’, or re-education camps or even employment discrimination or anything like that – just exclusion from grown-up conversation and perhaps occasional offhand mockery, rather like somebody gibbering about the divine rights of kings, or well, how natural law makes masturbation a sin. I guess my question is, is anything lost? After all, it does cause him to support a responsible-use animal welfare ideology – better than brutal ‘whatever we want, just for fun, because we can’ stuff. Meanwhile, the pope, along with helping to spread AIDS in Africa by attacking condom use, just issued a encyclical calling for economic justice. Can all this be simply replaced by less bizarre – by no means necessarily nontheistic, just less absurd – beliefs which retain the good stuff while losing the arcane, archaic exclusionary hurtfulness?
My guess is yes, but it’s an interesting question.
“postmodernism”
I dunno ’bout that. Post-medievalism, maybe. Incidentally, Hector, do you know why people want to make “human-animal hybrids”, and what they’re actually talking about (no, not bestiality or suchlike – not hybrids in the usual sense)? And why would you (apparently) oppose such a move? (The study I linked above might help explain . . . )
July 12th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Dan S.,
Here we go again. Here are six powerful arguments as to why angels exist.
1) The trinitarian argument. The fact that God is a Trinity, as opposed to a simple unity, shows that sociality and community are part of the nature of God. Thus God is compelled by His very nature to create other spiritual beings with which to share heaven. Solitude is contrary to the nature of God.
2) The ontological argument. As Anselm showed, God is the most perfect being which can be conceived. Thus God must be morally perfect, which means that God possesses all conceivable virtues. Now one aspect of virtue is the bringing of good things to other beings, and one of the most important good things is honor and glory. Therefore God is, by his very nature, compelled to create beings to help him in the economy of creation and governance of the universe. Through fulfilling their assigned roles in the governance and creation of the universe these beings derive honor and glory, and thus God’s beneficent nature is fulfilled.
3) The argument from experience. The overwhelming number of people who have personally witnessed angels- St. Theresa of Avila, St. Joan of Arc, Blake, the apostles, and many many others, including in our century- is strong evidence that there are, in fact, noncorporeal intelligent beings.
4) The argument from comparative religion. The diversity of religions throughout the world indicates that they cannot all have a common origin, but their similarities indicate that many of them at least owe their origins to a similar class of being, and do have some connection to the true God. The best explanation I can think of is that the gods worshipped by the many non-Christian religions are in fact some type of lesser spiritual being, which we could call angels.
5) The argument from scripture. Do I really need to go here? There are many, many, many eyewitness accounts of angels in Scripture. The Lord Himself, as well as St. John, St. Luke, St. Peter, St. Jude, and many others testify to the existence of angels. Indeed, the existence of incorporeal helpers of God is attested to by virtually every religious tradition I know of.
6) The argument from tradition. The existence of angels has been held continuously by the church since the time of the apostles, and has never been seriously questioned. I take the combined witness of all Christians since the apostolic times rather more seriously than a bunch of gender-studies Georgetown latte yahoos.
To me, the existence of angels seems logically irrefutable, indeed the nature of God Himself makes it necessary that angels must exist. The real question, to my mind, is why your sort persists in denying their existence.
And yes, we certainly were made for a purpose. EVen the Yglesian hipsters, although they seem to have rebelled against that purpose by embracing a mishmash of feminism, social liberalism, abortionism, and all the rest of the worst ideas of our time.
July 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
By the way, I’m not sure whether ‘human-animal hybrids’ is the right word here. I wouldn’t call a mice with some human genes a ‘human mouse hybrid’. Horizontal gene transfer among higher origanisms does happen (very rarely) in nature, and nobody would refer to the results as hybrids. There is, famously, a green sea slug that integrates chloroplasts into its body tissues, and appears to have acquired some algal genes as well (possibly through a virus mediated mechanism?) We don’t call Elysia chlorotica a ’slug-algal hybrid’ just because it has some algal genes.
I don’t think human-animal hybrids are possible in the strict sense, inasmuch as there are no animals I can think of with which humans would be interfertile. I don’t think we should be developing animals with a significant human aspect to their morphology, or (God forbid again) with some human level of intelligence or consciousness, but I don’t particularly have a problem with mice with some human genes.
July 12th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Re: or well, how natural law makes masturbation a sin
Care to actually try and refute the case against wh*cking off, or do you prefer to mock what you can’t understand?
July 12th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
I think we should start by banning eukaryotes. God gave us the distinct bacteria and archea, and clearly any horizontal transfer between the two is contrary to his wishes.
July 12th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I assume, Hector, that in your ideal world sugar and spices would be banned and we would all eat nothing but rice, cabbage, and a small amount of tofu for protein?
After all surely food is intended to have one particular use, to keep our bodies going, and trying to derive pleasure from it is against god’s holy will?
July 12th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Not just politicians. Let’s recall how the large organized religions of the US (including Hector’s beloved Catholics” covered themselves in glory regarding torture during the entire last nine years. When the matter of gay marriage arose, they had all the energy and money in the world; when the matter of condemning torture came up, not so much.
Violation of human dignity indeed.
July 12th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Everyone knows eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
July 12th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Hector –
As you know, #1, #5, and #6 don’t even make it out of the starting gate for secular argument, as they specifically rely on Christian dogma and scriptural authority . They may be powerful reasons for people within the church, but fade to invisibility in the sunlight outside. I assume #2 is a joke. #3 is actually phrased in our common tongue – it’s actually a legitimate secular argument – but unfortunately also proves the existence of ghosts, aliens, and post-’77 Elvis, so probably isn’t quite as good as you might hope. #4 kinda combines the weaknesses of the first set with the problems of #3 – there’s no reason to believe that various-other-mythologies-round-the-world are factually accurate (as opposed to being rooted in a common human heritage – historical, biological, cognitive – together with common human needs and experiences), nor any reason to reinterpret them in light of your beliefs. This is a well-written list of powerful reasons for people who already believe in angels to believe in angels – and that’s fine, but do you have anything for the rest of us?
“Care to actually try and refute the case against wh*cking off”
Well, my beliefs actually hold that mental masturbation is wrong, so . .
Seriously, though – for me at least, it’s such a boring argument, since I don’t subscribe to most of the underlying assumptions in this case (although I do think natural law theories, understood correctly, have a great deal of potential in a natural, nontheist world). My pawn can’t take your scrabble tile. You think things have purposes, I think they have effects – and while that can end up in the same place, it doesn’t seem to in this case. Somebody trying to play your game, however, might note that things could have more than one purpose. We can use our tongues to taste and talk and kiss, our brains both to hear/speak and read/write. We can hunt/war and play sports (including shooting arrows at targets that neither threaten us or provide subsistence. (I know, these aren’t quite right, but . . . ) Certainly I can see examples where (solo) masturbation could become a problem – in the wrong place, or such that it was relied on to the exclusion of desired relational intimacy – but all that’s based on the idea of harm, not offending some misguided and unnatural logical structure. (I like bestiaries and the doctrine of signatures, but as cultural artifacts, not natural history or pharmacology).
On #50, however, we pretty much agree. (Well, I want them to make cats w/ human-level intelligence, but as Mark Twain said, “ If man could be crossed with the cat it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat., and I think this applies here as well, so . . .)
—–
“I think we should start by banning eukaryotes.”
We need a poll! I’d be very . . . interested in the results. (The rest of the quote’s pretty good too . . . )
July 12th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
“Sexuality is intended to have unitive, relational aspects etc.
And art is intended to glorify the socialist ideal – to do otherwise is bourgeois decadence, etc.
(All totalitarian ideologies end up in the same place, it seems.)
July 12th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
(Although I have to say, rice, cabbage & tofu sounds pretty good . . . mmm . . .
July 12th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
“Although I have to say, rice, cabbage & tofu sounds pretty good . . . mmm . . .”
But remember — you aren’t allowed ANY spices, no butter, no vinegar, no salt beyond minimal physiological needs, nothing like that. And all cooked to mush — no deriving pleasure from crunch or anything like that! And it’s all you get, day after day, your entire life!
July 13th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Dan S.,
I have to run right now, but #2 is not a joke- it’s (in my view) by far the strongest reason to believe in angels. Of course, I am EXTREMELY fond of Anselm’s ontological style of reasoning, more even than most religious people (the argument from design rather leaves me cold). I think that good arguments can be made from ontological reasoning to demonstrate why the Trinity, the Devil, and various other things are not just real but are _logically necessary_.
Has it ever occurred to you that your whole premises of reasoning may be wrong, and that in fact things and people- yourself included- may have an intended purpose? You may want to give that a second thought someday.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I’m amazed that people take someone seriously who believes in invisible sky beings. Whats next deciding on how to deal with Climate Change based off of the effects on Santa Clause.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
They are actually in the bible:
It doesn’t fit in with people’s ideals of angels, so some elaborate interpretations get made about the passage.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Njorl,
Yes, the story is told at more length in the noncanonical “Book of Enoch” (which is recognized as scriptural by the Church of Ethiopia):
“And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’ And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: ‘I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.’ And they all answered him and said: ‘Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.’ Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it… [26]”
Unfortunately the story does not end well for the angel-human hybrids:
“And the Lord said unto Michael: ‘Go, bind Semjâzâ and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: 〈and〉 to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations. (Enoch 10:11-14)”