Hmm, hrmm… still no comments probing for weak spots in my ‘Origin of Life’ arguments. Going to look up Schopenhauer at lunchtime!

As by my calculations today is two weeks from March 24th…

Quite true, but there may be (and probably are) ways to check which theory is correct.

To me, also.

But it seems also to me to be sheer folly to give them no protection at all, and draw a line at an arbitrary point, as if we believed they were then magically transformed into humans by a fairy waving a wand. I think we are beholden to give prenatal and neonatal humans a graded level of protection and concern, consistent with their natural probability of growing to a state where they can perceive pain and the threat of death.

I think the final thought experiment about what the doctor would be doing now makes the point that suffering is *not* the greatest evil inescapable, whether our morality is absolutist or relativist.

2) Of course, if the panspermia hypothesis turns out to be true, than a lot of the convergence we observe on other planets might be due to inherent limitations of the chemistry of DNA-based life, and not ‘molds’ of nature per se.

1) Abortion: what about the possibility that the ability of a person after birth to perceive pain and the threat of death is indeed the most important reason for not killing him/her? It must become a general principle (law) protecting even those who (your example) are killed suddenly and without pain, in order to protect humanity as a whole (most of whom would be able to perceive pain). After all, a murderer cannot foresee that his first shot will kill the victim, and once a taboo is broken, the doors to hell are open. – So, I agree on this point with Dawkins. It seems to me sheer folly to give the same protection to a three-cell embryo as to a person after death. – I would also apply this principle to animals: I would never kill an animal without reason, and the “more highly” developed it is, the stronger the reasons must be. For example, I would squash a mosquito (as potential vectors of dengue or malaria), but not a butterfly, and certainly not a bird or mammal. (Is this considered in any of the monotheistic religions?).

2) Now coming to Spinoza:

Spinoza as quoted by you:

“Definition 1.6: God I understand to be a being absolutely infinite, that is a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence.
Proposition 1.11: God necessarily exists.
Proposition 1.15: Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can exist or be conceived without God.
Proposition 1.18: God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things.
Proposition 1.19: God and all the attributes of God are eternal.”

“The supposition of some, that I endeavour to prove in the
Tractatus Theologico-Politicus the unity of God and Nature (meaning by the
latter a certain mass or corporeal matter), is wholly erroneous.”

Your interpretation:” It seems to me that Spinoza is neither a moral relativist or a pantheist. It seems to me that Spinoza teaches an austere monotheism in the Judaeo-Islamic tradition. His universe is filled not with an infinite and eternal absence, but an infinite and eternal presence,…”

Without going into details (and I have not read Spinoza in detail to go into details), I would say that I agree with you that Dawkins has not provided convincing evidence that a “God hypothesis” in Spinoza’s sense (as “the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things”) cannot be upheld. Natural selection, Dawkins’ main argument, simply does not stand up to the task. There appear to be “molds” of nature (in other words “laws”) which force evolution into certain paths. How strictly determined these “paths” are, we don’t know, but there may be “experimental” ways to find out: discovery of life on other planets and in other star systems will show how closely convergent evolution has been. (Let’s hope we, i.e. humans, survive that long to see).