It's all different through deepening perseverance taught by Jesus in the Parable of the Sower and the Seed, Paul.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

David:"So this subjective revelation which you claim as sufficient 'proof to yourself' that a god exists is given in answer to your asking yet it doesn't unambiguously reveal the identity of the one 'true' church on earth? Don't you find that a bit odd?"

Philosophically they are distinct pieces of info. So yes, they could, in theory, be seperated. If God allows for history, past human decisions, context: then even more so. In addition we may need preparation to recieve revelations. In addition the reception of the knowledge of God's body may not require the word "Catholic"; church teaching appears to confirm that we salvation is through the Church, but not the *visible* Church, and an american bishop was excomunicated in 1948 for insisting the latter. I am fairly sure there are many hindus/moslems who have recognized Christ's body, but not in name.

Just to correct you: the nature of baptism means that God's revelation of self to the individual would be objective.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Paul Caira:"many will say (as I'm sure you are aware) that doubt is an essential part of faith"

...just to butt in. That proverbial saying, a long with a lot of others, is hogwash: if a person has even one small doubt then they definitely do not have faith. One of the characteristics of genuine faith (and fewer have it than they think) is certainty, which is unavoidable due to the manner of God's self-revelation (re: baptism).

The complicating factor is the matter of temptation to doubt, which is not the same as an actual doubt. Temptation to doubt is what St Pio experienced, and also may be Mother Theresa, although she may have suffered actual doubt. My own experience is of eventually saying to one's self "But I *know* that God exists".

So you quite probably didn't have faith in the first place. If a person has doubt and then does not ask God for the answers and wait for them to come (which may need God to prepare the way) then a falling away is almost inevitable.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg Lorriman,
It isn't necessary to have a proof that God doesn't exist for that belief to have a higher status than faith. You don't have a proof that Thor doesn't exist, or Shiva, and yet you don't (presumably) believe in either of these deities. You wouldn't call your belief that they don't exist irrational, would you? All that is necessary is to be unconvinced about the positive evidence. We can't assert the existence of the universe itself as evidence of a creator unless we have a cast-iron reason to believe that universes can only exist if they have creators, which is difficult, since we only have one example of a universe, and it remains dumb on the subject. Drawing inference from created things within the universe is an obvious error, isn't it, because they aren't universes.

Paul Caira, London ,

Greg Lorriman: "But in anycase I was thinking of one who has had the revelation of God (which would be the union of objective and subjective, re: baptism), but not of his church/body/earthly-authority, and so the second belief would be irrational."

So this subjective revelation which you claim as sufficient 'proof to yourself' that a god exists is given in answer to your asking yet it doesn't unambiguously reveal the identity of the one 'true' church on earth? Don't you find that a bit odd? This is supposed to be the lord of all creation at the other end of the communication path. Moreover, if that is possible then how do the religious arrive at an answer to something quite detailed like the ethical dilemma of blastocyst experiments..

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Dear Bryan,
When I was a devout and practicing Roman Catholic and had faith (I was a Eucharistic Minister), that faith was always rooted in doubt. Daily I struggled to reconcile such questions as the problem of evil. Indeed, many will say (as I'm sure you are aware) that doubt is an essential part of faith. Then the Voice of Conscience made itself heard to me, and I realised that I couldn't any longer go on pretending to myself that the manifold inconsistencies of religious faith could be supported, and that there was a far simpler, more plausible, though initially unpalatable explanation - that there is no God, and that the universe was full of blind, pitiless indifference. Now none of those problems remain.
Should I have ignored the Voice of Conscience? Should I have prayed harder? Was I a bad Catholic that I couldn't put aside my doubts?

Paul Caira, London ,

Bryan, I think our 'voice of conscience' has to have rational or critical elements to it and I think this is why you call it a voice. I think it derives from our being self-aware and therefore we feel empathy and recognise the interests of others.

I don't really feel empathy with a cluster of cells and its only interests are those we assign to it ourselves as a potential being. It feels nothing and does not think because it has no mind. That is not true of the people who suffer diseases which might be helped by this biotechnology. I have considerable empathy there and I recognise their feelings, hopes and interests.

I also have empathy for non-human animals and recognise their living interests. In fact, those thoughts and feelings are considerably stronger than for our cluster of cells and my conscience is regularly challenged by our treatment of animals in general. However, I don't see Catholic bishops massing for a concerted attack in that area. Why not?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David"willing to die for her beliefs without any subjective revelation then this demonstrates the power of belief in the absence of an inner sense of a god thus challenging the notion that self-sacrifice is evidence of a god."

Irrational belief would explain this, as in the strict/hard atheist who believes, without knowledge or proof, that God doesn't exist.

But in anycase I was thinking of one who has had the revelation of God (which would be the union of objective and subjective, re: baptism), but not of his church/body/earthly-authority, and so the second belief would be irrational. Or possibly, and worse, has rejected the revelation of church.

That belief has such power is evidence of the existence of God, and irrational belief evidence of freewill.

"sincere protestants personally who claim... revelation, I have ...suspicions ...of subjective, non-rational 'proof' of a single god."

I am one in faith in Christ with my seperated bretheren, but not one in Christ's body.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

I try to prescind from the rivalries, religious or otherwise, David Jones. I speak of what the perennial Voice of Conscience says. I can only speak as I find. You likewise, of course . I have to say I do not find what you say coming from the deeper regions of our common inner Voice of Conscience. What you say is current argumentation,educated reflection and observation, justifying living more on the surface, well and convincingly put and more than usually persuasive.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

"But David Jones, I'm convinced that a deeper insight into what is within us and the ethics naturally involved, results in seeing things more like the religious way you do not care for."

Well, I know many people who are convinced of many different things. For example, I know people who are muslim or hindu or protestant Christian and have no doubt that their beliefs are true.

The protestant ones usually claim communication with the 'holy spirit' too which is interesting given that they don't appear to have the same revelation content as, say, Greg here. I have even witnessed a friend's father, not a Catholic, talking in tongues and being 'slain in the spirit'.

People are utterly convinced of all sorts of things, Bryan, and not all of them are charlatans. That's the power of religious belief and early socialisation; the local or regional one in most cases which is indicative.

I think I also have a 'deeper insight', Bryan, and it results in my view of religious beliefs.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"But it is quite another matter to assert that Jane had recieved proof of the protestant 'faith'. So while self-sacrifice is always the best evidence of truth, it is evidence only, not proof of anything, and the individual must address God directly."

If Jane was willing to die for her beliefs without any subjective revelation then this demonstrates the power of belief in the absence of an inner sense of a god thus challenging the notion that self-sacrifice is evidence of a god. If she had a subjective revelation then it suggests that there are multiple sources of that sort of revelation or that the single source doesn't seem to care about the details of a person's belief contrary to the divisions the churches insist upon or, of course, that subjective revelation is actually self-delusion. As I know apparently sincere protestants personally who claim subjective revelation, I have significant suspicions about your concept of subjective, non-rational 'proof' of a single god.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David:"You're looking at it from the wrong side: it's the dying for differing religious belief not the killing that is the point here." Lady Jane Grey etc...

My mistake. Mahatma Ghandi advised not switching faiths until you had fully comprehended the one to which you were born. Since it would seem that God has entrusted us to our parents, then their truths should probably be adhered to until such time as the individual can examine them well. If one then dies faithful to the beliefs of those to whom God has entrusted you then I reckon merit is likely.

But it is quite another matter to assert that Jane had recieved proof of the protestant 'faith'. So while self-sacrifice is always the best evidence of truth, it is evidence only, not proof of anything, and the individual must address God directly.

All of that ignores the problem of irrational belief, which is a fearture of heresy, and Jane was a heretic. But her death would still witness to God, if she hadn't died for treason.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

But David Jones, I'm convinced that a deeper insight into what is within us and the ethics naturally involved, results in seeing things more like the religious way you do not care for.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan Story: "why do you say it's based on religion as though that's something apart and to be avoided?"

Bryan, people might have a similar moral sense or driver but the content varies between individuals. As an atheist I have a very different moral understanding to you because I don't derive my moral code and related ethics from a god hypothesis. That said, I'm sure we share many ethics nonetheless as most of them, I suggest, are essentially biological or social in origin.

This latest advance in biotechnology affects us all. If you try to limit its use because of your personal beliefs then you affect people who don't hold your beliefs. Catholics set themselves apart by invoking religious concepts in the debate. To debate meaningfully about the value of a bunch of cells to people with different or no religious beliefs, you need to engage them on common ground.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David Jones: why do you say it's based on religion as though that's something apart and to be avoided? I think it's much to do with innate human Conscience. It's important to prescind from our ideas about 'religion'. Dr. Helen Watt's letter in the UK Daily Telegraph today is helpful

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan Storey: "So, David Jones, you accept the biological fact that human life begins with the fusion of sperm and ovum. It's just that you value such life differently according to stages of development?."

Bryan, I am not being radical here. In essence, I'm simply supporting our current ethics and their extension to cover advances in biotechnology. Those ethics aren't, and I hope never will be, based on religious speculations.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg Lorriman: "Religious kill each other for land and other motives, not belief."

You're looking at it from the wrong side: it's the dying for differing religious belief not the killing that is the point here. Take an example from my local history: Lady Jane Grey chose to die a protestant rather than convert to Catholicism even if she was killed to remove a protestant threat to the throne.

Trying to blur the differences on the basis that the main religions have a shared understanding of god's essence is hardly plausible given the past and current reality of religious sectarianism. I suppose you have to grasp at it though as the alternative - that religious belief is just a social construct - is not acceptable to you.

If your beliefs were true then there are over a billion muslims and jews who have probably asked god to make contact yet they haven't received the message: jesus is god and blastocysts have 'spirits'. Aren't you concerned about why that is?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Muslims, too, I understand, believe that the soul enters the embryo 15 days after conception. So they shouldn't have any problems, even if these were embryos in the ordinary sense.

Greg Lorriman: "We are dealing with life or death matters: and so you must give the benefit of the doubt. A true agnostic would."

Why must the benefit of the doubt be given one way rather than the other? A true agnostic weighs the considerations and quantifies the evils. Rejecting stem cell research will be a denial of hope to the millions who might benefit. A true agnostic sees no evidence of a spirit not based on the superstitions of primitive cultures, and rightly accords such suggestions negligible merit.

Paul Caira, London ,

David:"That's evidence of the power of belief not of a god. "

The power of belief is evidence of God.

"That power has convinced Catholics to die at the hands of protestants over differing beliefs about the Christian god, and Cathars to die at the hands of Catholics about the nature of god and the world. If dying for belief was evidence of a god then there are a plethora of gods."

Religious kill each other for land and other motives, not belief. Indeed most faiths are explicitly tolerant, yes including Islam, reflecting their shared belief in God's essence. As Pope JPII put it "Islam worhips the same God". However irrational belief does exist - like the atheist - usually called heresy. And for the originator of heresy death might well be justified.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

In some of the experiments being discussed in this bill, a nucleus from an adult skin cell is inserted in an animal embryo to create stem cells that are largely human. From Father Storey's definition, it would seem that this doesn't constitute "human life" and therefore should give neither him nor his co-religionists cause for moral outrage.

Paul Caira, London ,

So, David Jones, you accept the biological fact that human life begins with the fusion of sperm and ovum. It's just that you value such life differently according to stages of development?.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan Storey: "David Jones. What is this distinction you make between human life and 'a human life'?"

Essentially, it's biological life and mental life although there's more to it than that. This is why a second trimester foetus is not yet a person; it has no mental life and therefore no personality. However, biologically, it has human life of sorts. We might extend protection to biological human life, perhaps for social reasons, but a mental human life gains rights in modern society. That's a pragmatic and rational distinction based on our shared, observable, public reality.

People may imagine the details of a co-existing spiritual reality and insist that others are obliged to take account of their imagination but that's essentially a personal matter without supporting evidence. Why should I take account of, say, the 'spirits' in trees and stones when building houses simply because a believer in animism insists on it? I feel the same about believers in Catholicism.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg Lorriman: "But in truth the probability of God existing is likely impossible to estimate."

The likelihood of a 'god' or 'gods' or something more than our reality existing is one thing but the likelihood of *your* particular god hypothesis being true in all its intricate, unsupported detail and human-centricity is almost zero.

As for giving the benefit of the doubt to your hypothesis, I've made many comments on these threads and often to you about doubt and chance and what being atheist actually means as far as those things are concerned.

These real world issues are immediate and part of our shared, observable, public reality; my lack of certainty is pretty much insignificant when assessing these issues. In fact, I have a similar level of doubt about animistic claims that stones and trees have 'spirits' of some sort. They might have but my doubt is so insignificant that it doesn't figure in my use of that material in the real world.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg Lorriman: "But in truth the probability of God existing is likely impossible to estimate."

The likelihood of a 'god' or 'gods' or something more than our reality existing is one thing but the likelihood of *your* particular god hypothesis being true in all its intricate, unsupported detail and human-centricity is almost zero.

As for giving the benefit of the doubt to your hypothesis, I've made many comments on these threads and often to you about doubt and chance and what being atheist actually means as far as those things are concerned.

These real world issues are immediate and part of our shared, observable, public reality; my lack of certainty is pretty much insignificant when assessing these issues. In fact, I have a similar level of doubt about animistic claims that stones and trees have 'spirits' of some sort. They might have but my doubt is so insignificant that it doesn't figure in my use of that material in the real world.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg Lorriman: "The supporting evidence is people giving up their lives for these 'imaginings': priests, nuns, imans, rabbis, even to death."

That's evidence of the power of belief not of a god.

That power has convinced Catholics to die at the hands of protestants over differing beliefs about the Christian god, and Cathars to die at the hands of Catholics about the nature of god and the world. If dying for belief was evidence of a god then there are a plethora of gods.

Ironically, it looks like many rabbis are supporting the bill in the UK because they don't believe that a blastocyst has a 'spirit' and they see the medical research as a godly obligation.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David:"People may imagine the details of a co-existing spiritual reality and insist that others are obliged to take account of their imagination but that's essentially a personal matter without supporting evidence."

The supporting evidence is people giving up their lives for these 'imaginings': priests, nuns, imans, rabbis, even to death. And one only has to ask God if He exists. Science is not as certain.

If this had no impact on anything significant then you could go ahead and assume what you like: but in this case it is a life or death question: so it is murderous presumption; and that is true even if the concepto turned out not to be alive. Even if the probability of spiritual existence were small (and actually there is no established probability) the benefit of doubt must be given.

As for animists: they don't claim true knowledge as does the religious. Value put on life can not be absolute without a God. Like Buddhism: a form of atheism that allows for the immaterial.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Bryan Storey: "David Jones. What is this distinction you make between human life and 'a human life'?"

Essentially, it's biological life and mental life although there's more to it than that. This is why a second trimester foetus is not yet a person; it has no mental life and therefore no personality. However, biologically, it has human life of sorts. We might extend protection to biological human life, perhaps for social reasons, but a mental human life gains rights in modern society. That's a pragmatic and rational distinction based on our shared, observable, public reality.

People may imagine the details of a co-existing spiritual reality and insist that others are obliged to take account of their imagination but that's essentially a personal matter without supporting evidence. Why should I take account of, say, the 'spirits' in trees and stones when building houses simply because a believer in animism insists on it? I feel the same about believers in Catholicism.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David: "I'm not going to waste chars writing unnecessary qualifiers in every comment."

Your derision of the religious view gives you away: it isn't a matter of not bothering with chars, rather presumption. We are dealing with life or death matters: and so you must give the benefit of the doubt. A true agnostic would.

"Any of those [religious] beliefs and more might be true although they almost certainly are not."

This is that BS claim of the "vanishing tiny chance": Dawkins, I think. Scientific atheists acknowledge that the probability of a universe with anything more than a random soup is vanishingly small, and so the multiverse theories are taken seriously. But they are purely speculative. So in short : either a God exists or a mutliverse. Without more info the chance of either is 50/50.

But in truth the probability of God existing is likely impossible to estimate. I reckon you should reconsider your sources (particularly Dawkins).

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

David Jones. What is this distinction you make between human life and 'a human life'?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Greg Lorriman, I'm not going to waste chars writing unnecessary qualifiers in every comment. Your religious beliefs have as much weight in my real world decision making as any other of the plethora of religious beliefs in human history. Any of those beliefs and more might be true although they almost certainly are not.

However, we live in this reality and we must make rational decisions as best we can. In this case, there's no reason to suppose a self-aware 'spirit' actually exists at conception according to your particular Christian beliefs.

In the context of the bill potentially affecting all of us, we have social constructs about what it means to be a person and we can assess what effect restrictions on our behaviour have and what benefits we might accrue by behaving differently. There's enough to productively argue about there without taking account of the products of many and varied, largely unfettered imaginations about the immaterial.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David Jones"It's a bunch of cells, Bryan, with potential. Even if you want to call a human blastocyst 'human life' of sorts it isn't *a* human life and that's particularly significant in this context."

That is presumption. You don't actually know that. You can't actually know that. It is absurd that you insist on this when it isn't and cannot be a fact unless you can prove the non-existence of God, which no one has and probably isn't possible. At the very least have the honesty (to yourself) to qualify your statements, something like :"I think it very *unlikely* there is any spiritual reality, and so *reckon* that the cells are not a person.". Or are you so certain of your position that indeed you believe it. In which case you are irrational, since no fact adequate for a belief like that exists.

The marvellous irony is that your attitude, of unjustified closed minded bigotry, is quite the opposite of the scientific attitude, which is, and must be, open to *any* possibility.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Paul Caira: "Is it good enough for you simply to have it asserted, to believe it because you like the idea? "

Apparently so. People used to believe, and perhaps some still do, that stones and trees have spirits even though there's no evidence in the public domain to even support the idea. I expect there were mystics who claimed to be able to commune with them too. Perhaps it is presumptuous to ignore those completely unsupported assertions but I'm willing to take a chance given the obvious benefits of using that material in the observable world.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Bryan Storey: "But David Jones, that is human life.Or do you deny this too?`"

It's a bunch of cells, Bryan, with potential. Even if you want to call a human blastocyst 'human life' of sorts it isn't *a* human life and that's particularly significant in this context.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Paul Caira"What do you mean by "physicist", what do you mean by "divine being"

This is quibbling. I will summarise: If there is even a small chance of a concepto being a full human being with a mind and will, then the benefit of the doubt must be given, which is the only rational action of someone who doesn't know the answers (re: unprovable that God doesn't exist). And that means: no experimentation. In fact the chance is not so small. There is nothing irrational about the possibility of a God.

As for amputees (perhaps this post might appear) : God cannot do a nonsense. It is possible that the conjuring, a speciality of magicians, needed for such a 'miracle' requires a logical contradiction; even the fish in the feeding of the 5000 could be transported (by angels?): no need for conjuring. Also such miracles could have the undesirable affect of compelling belief, which would result in unwilling believers: very very bad. And so, in mercy, not permitted.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Paul Caira"And did you ever tell us what happens to those aborted souls? "

I have posted loads of replies, but few get through.

The Catholic position is that we don't know, but it isn't limbo nor re-incarnation, but we believe in God's mercy and that they are subject to that mercy also.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg Lorriman: "Circa 1995 approx 40% of physicists believed in a divine being of some kind"
Whoa there, tiger! Where do you get this figure from please? What do you mean by "physicist", what do you mean by "divine being of some kind" (are you including those who effectively just mean Spinoza's God, the nature of reality? Because that kind of God isn't going to be punishing or loving anyone) and most of all, what statistical survey produced the number 40%?

Even if the majority of the world believed in God, it wouldn't mean they shared your remarkable view of the nature of the blastocyst. Are you suggesting that the embryo has a "mind" now? That it is conscious or self aware? This must involve some curious definition of these terms. How might you know such a thing? Is it good enough for you simply to have it asserted, to believe it because you like the idea?

And did you ever tell us what happens to those aborted souls?

Paul Caira, London ,

David Jones:"Personhood is a legal term and a collection of cells is clearly not equivalent to a human being "

Humans were around long before legal systems: we are talking philosophy here, not jurisprudence. Talk about equivocation! A person, philosophically, may be defined as a self-aware or conscious being(OED 5). You can add a brain if you like, but the definition doesn't require it.

So this question, as ever, and as with abortion, resolves down to whether there is a non-material principle of mind, and that question is a matter of: "does God exist".

Circa 1995 approx 40% of physicists believed in a divine being of some kind, and since a huge majority of the world also believes that, then to simply treat the concepto as only a bundle of cells is inexcusable presumption. Also it is probably impossible to prove the non-existence of God while a God could hypothetically prove his own existence, the source of faith: so the balance is weighted heavily in favour of the believer.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

But David Jones, that is human life.Or do you deny this too?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Lorriman: "The Blastocyst is a person."

Nonsense. You're equivocating again. Personhood is a legal term and a collection of cells is clearly not equivalent to a human being in law. Moreover, for almost everyone it's not equivalent in ethics too as a typical ethical dilemma involving a choice between the death of a mother or her blastocyst shows.

A blastocyst has no personality. It's just a small collection of cells with the possibility of becoming something more if it has the opportunity to grow. Even a second trimester foetus has no personality because it doesn't have the physical components at that point on which to site a mind.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

It's a tricky question: when do human beings begin to exist? Some responses to my questions, don't present logical answers. When, exactly is it o.k., to destroy human life? When does the embryo/ fetus deserve protection? What day of its development? Some people think, it is only when it is viable outside of the womb... hence abortion allowed up until 24 weeks. Ahh, but then a few little blighters, decided to survive at 24 weeks, so we can't be aborting them now, can we. Looks a bit ghastly. I understand that for many, the tiny embryo is too hard to imagine as human, and yet, it seems bumbling and artibtrary to decide a day when these cells should or should not be protected. The develoment of human life is one continuous period of growth from conception through to adult human... Logically, they are one being. Protecting an embryo, is protecting the human who will one day walk down the street. Harvesting fellow human lives, for some to benefit, is wrong.

Catherine Ransom, Cairns, Australia

Lorriman: That's not an argument that's a naked assertion!

Paul Caira, London ,

Catherine Ransom: Why are some scriptures pivotal, and others such as "Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb" aren't?

In answer to your questons:no, yes, yes. The same would be true if you'd prevented their parents from meeting. Surely you don't suggest that we have a responsibility to ensure that all potential human beings become actual ones?

Paul Caira, London ,

"If I was once a bunch of cells, and now I am a person, was I truly human when I was just a bunch of cells?"

You were human, but not a human being. It might not even be accurate to say that 'you' were even in existence to be that bunch of cells.

"If Einstein had been a bunch of cells, or Mother Teresa, or Richard Dawkins, and we had destroyed them at that stage, would we have destroyed these people?"

No, because those people wouldn't have existed yet to be destroyed - only the cells that would eventually become them would have been in existence, and before that the sperm and ovum that would become them.

"Would we have prevented them being the people who contributed to society?"

Because they would never have been born, we never would have known them, so couldn't even miss their contribution.

"There is one continuous, uninterrupted growth process that happens from embryo to adult human."
That growth process extends back to the sperm - is every sperm sacred?

Josh, Brisbane, Australia

Paul Caira:"Where is the argument (made from any mettle whatsoever) that experimenting on blastocysts causes anyone any evil at all? "

The Blastocyst is a person.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

"Before I formed you, I knew you".... this is a pivotal scripture, a faith statement that is one of the underpinning understandings Christians have about the nature of humans. Those who have a spiritual dimension to their lives... believe in the spirit within a person. Can we show it to you? No. But brilliant scientists throughout history have embraced not only the visible, but been spurred on, by their belief in the invisible and unseen. I have a question for the 'logical thinkers': if I was once a bunch of cells, and now I am a person, was I truly human when I was just a bunch of cells? If Einstein had been a bunch of cells, or Mother Teresa, or Richard Dawkins, and we had destroyed them at that stage, would we have destroyed these people? Would we have prevented them being the people who contributed to society? There is one continuous, uninterrupted growth process that happens from embryo to adult human.The logic, to me, seems glaring. That is why we must not destroy embryos

Catherine Ransom, Cairns, Australia

Father Storey: "Where is the cast iron argument to show this is necessary to help health matters?"
Where is the argument (made from any mettle whatsoever) that experimenting on blastocysts causes anyone any evil at all?

Paul Caira, London ,

"the sanctity of Human life, separate from and above all other created life"

And 'they' call US arrogent. More elitist twoddle from a church representative about how human's somehow rank over and above everything else on this planet because there may or may not be a spark or soul riding around in that grey matter of yours.

Matthew, Lancashire, UK.

Bishop Dominic Stockford : It's not Catholics who've made this a Catholic matter. It concerns us all. The Catholic voice happens on this occasion to have been rather strong, thank God. We should not be frightened of those who overrate the scientist, the politician or go in for the comedian stuff. Where is the cast iron argument to show this is necessary to help health matters? There's a lot of wool being pulled over eyes. The Scriptures are Catholic, by the way.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

1. The Roman Catholic Church is not "the Church" as your article would have us believe.
2. The longest opposition to this bill has come from those of us who believe God's Word, the Scriptures, to be true. But of course the media ain't interested in us.
3. Who made this man the 'most senior RC scientist' in the country?
4. This story demonstrates that RC's aren't actually Christians because their loyalty, or otherwise, is to the RC church not to God and His teaching.
5. Anyone who claims to be Christian and does not even support the sanctity of Human life, separate from and above all other created life, has no idea what their faith really teaches.
6. Having faith in Jesus Christ will always be the reason the world is set against Christians - following Jesus Christ in this matter is no exception.

Bishop Dominic Stockford, Teddington, Middlesex,

Lorriman:
If the indivisible soul is "infused" at conception, what happens to identical twins? Does God put two souls in at conception because, being omniscient, he knows they're going to split? What happens to souls of embryos that die in the womb, by the way? What kind of afterlife might such a creature have, having only ever existed in this realm, as, say a two celled zygote, and less complex than the dirt under your fingernail?
Is it another of those mysteries that the church cannot explain, another of the mysterious ways in which God moves?

Paul Caira, London ,

Being *opposed* to the *creation of hybrid embryos* ( on any grounds) doesn't mean one is opposed to seeking cures for alzheimers, cancer, parkinson's and so on

Gypsy, Oxon, UK

Stewart, Preston, Yes, mammals have souls, otherwise they would have no unitary principle, though I don't think they survive death. I don't run with your image of us coming down from the trees, because I don't accept classic evolution theory. Its central thesis, that species evolve gradually from one to another, is not empirically derived. Darwinians have been looking for the transitional species that would establish the theory for well over a century now, and the more they dig the more the data indicate sudden, not gradual, emergence of species.

Paul Flynn, Hong Kong,

Derek of Lewes, UK, how can you find the spirit at the end of your scalpel?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Incidentally, why IS this article illustrated with a photo of "a six week old embryo"? Six weeks isn't less than 14 days, is it? Shouldn't we show the people that insist on calling them "babies" what they REALLY look like at the stage we are discussing - ie a ball of a couple of hundred cells?

Paul Caira, London ,

Lorriman: "the 3 Judaic faiths are mostly agreed on basics."

Gosh, that's interesting. Perhaps that'll be why there's been so little strife and disagreement between them over the millenia. Isn't "Jesus is the Son of God" a basic? Do they agree on that one? How about "The Quran was dictated to Mohammed (PBUH) by an Angel and is the uncreated word of God" Do they agree about that?

Are you suggesting, re miracles, that God will perform miracles only if it can be demonstrated that they don't contravene the laws of nature. In what sense, then, might they be considered miracles?

And you want us to take you more seriously BECAUSE you believe in angels and demons?

Paul Caira, London ,

Sir Leszek Borysiewicz may be an eminent scientist but his knowledge of the Catholic faith seems sorely lacking. To destroy, dscarded, experiment on and exploit human embryos is unethical and unCatholic. Sir Borysiewicz also says he supports the Bill as it stands, but he fails to say how 50% 50% "true hybrids", allowed in the Bill (Section 4A (5)) will help cure any disease. They cannot produce human stem cells and yet they can be licenced. This is an ethical blank cheque with no justification.

David, Twickenham,

David Jones :"The overwhelming majority of people in the UK don't believe in your particular god. You're equivocating"

It doesn't follow that if God exists therefore all men will agree on his attributes, particularly in the context of free will. As it happens the 3 Judaic faiths are mostly agreed on basics (and have the same root), Hinduism has a Trinity and even incarnation, and the equivalent of angels and demons. Most faiths are more similar than dissimilar. Even Catholicism insists that it is the only fullness of truth, but not the only vehicle of truth.

As for amputations, if what you say is true: perhaps because such a 'healing' might contradict nature. God's miracles work with nature, as far as I know, and the magicking of a new limb may not be possible or desired by God. (The servant in the Garden of Olives did not need a new one.) Amputees are not sufficient reason to avoid asking God "Do you exist?", or worse still to concluding that He doesn't. And many believe.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Lorriman: "Considering the majority by far believe in God - even in the UK despite the strong anti-religious propaganda here - the evidence for God's existence is plain."

The overwhelming majoirty of people in the UK don't believe in your particular god. You're equivocating. In fact, the evidence: (the plethora of different god hypotheses, differing details in belief, different subjective experiences for the religious, lack of miracles for amputees, etc) suggests a rather more earthy explanation.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Paul, Toronto,"I guess the reason the bill cannot include protection of souls, is well, they don't exist."

That is presumption. You can't actually prove it, and don't even know your self. Even Dawkins is gracious enough to admit the tiny possibility of God's existence, and so in theory would never make such absolutist statements (but not in practice).

Religious people at least claim that God manifests to us personally and directly: so we might have certain knowledge that God exists. We may be unable to prove it to a third party, but since God is more than willing to prove His own existence given the fulfillment of some basic conditions (which presumptuous atheists won't do) that is not a problem.

Considering the majority by far believe in God - even in the UK despite the strong anti-religious propaganda here - the evidence for God's existence is plain. So it is highly reasonable that one should consider a human conception with great circumspection.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Dr Piper, Oxford "St Thomas Aquinas wrote that it was later than conception. I prefer his ideas than the theologians of today. "

Perhaps you do, but the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception indirectly means that the Church has definitively taught that the 'infusion' happens at conception. The fact that it is wasteful due to spontaneous abortion is irrelevant: that is a matter for God, whereas what is subject to our wills is a matter for us.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

If the soul is 'infused' at the moment of coneption then it is a very wasteful process considering the number of early spontaneous abortions that take place. St Thomas Aquinas wrote that it was later than conception. I prefer his ideas than the theologians of today.
It is time that a senior catholic scientist had his say. He is not intimidated by the hierarchy as some of our politicians seem to be.

Dr Piper, Oxford, UK

I guess the reason the bill cannot include protection of souls, is well, they don't exist. Otherwise I am sure they would have considered it.

As for Scientism, there is no such thing. There is science itself and there are belief systems. Belief systems aren't based on any kind of factual or rational basis. In fact, as errors in logic of these belief systems are pointed out, people create lies to protect their belief. Except they are wrapped in terms like 'apologetics.'

We can't allow beliefs to dictate the lives of all. If the people holding those beliefs don't wish to participate - then don't. Just don't impose them on others.

After all, if a scietist were to turn to one of those belief systems for input and advice - which one would you choose? There are so many purporting to believe in the one, right god, and all believe in different ways of doing this.

Paul, Toronto, Canada

Surely as a scientist Sir Leszek must know when life begins. It is taught in primary school.

The debate is when that life has a right to life and whether its rights can be sacrificed for a greater good.

Sir Leszek has made a decision of conscience not fact.
From what I have read using adult stem cells can be used to the same effect but by using embryos the results are accelerated. So is it worth assigning more rights to those born because of speed?

Gillian, London, UK

'Sir' Leszek...says it all really. Must toe the party line.

judy, Liverpool, England

“My view would differ from the views that are proposed by the Church on all elements of when life begins. I’m afraid I just differ, just as [views differ] in any large organisation. Maybe that makes be a bad Catholic, but then so be it. These are views I hold in all conscience."

I though the question wasn't about when life begins. Most primary school children learn that occurs at conception.

The grey area is whether that life has inalienable right to life and at what stage those rights are less equal to the rights of the born.

This Catholic scientist has surely made a decision of conscience which is swayed by what he personally believes to be the greater good and not by fact. He might have an opposing view to the Church but that doesn't make the Church wrong.

Gillian, London, UK

The exchanges in this comment thread have illustrated very clearly why any religion vs science 'debate' is utterly pointless; each side is arguing with different axioms. Here, one side starts with the premise that the Catholic teachings are correct and more important than anything else, the other begins with the notion that the advancement of medical science is held in similar regard.

It would be like having a debate about what colour a daffodil is when you have fundamentally different ideas of what a flowers are; any further exchanges are most likely going to be utter nonsense (exemplified perfectly by resorting to referencing The Matrix!)

Personally, next time I'm ill I'll be seeing a doctor not a priest. Science may not 'know' anything in the most abstract of terms, but relying on ancient doctrine to guide us through complex medical and moral issues strikes me as like inspecting an abacus to try and figure out how a laptop works...

Pete, London,

Pity he didn't speak out before the prime Minister gave in to the misinformed leaders of the church. Perhaps he could have helped the catholic MPs inform their consciences correctly instead of believing the cardinal knew what he was talking about.

Chris, Cambridge, UK

crofty, greensboro: "Is 'Catholic Scientist' not an oxymoron? A scientist is a person who investigates the known and unknown, "..." A Catholic is...clearly the antithesis."

Science doesn't 'know' anything, nor does it prove anything. Read up Karl Popper, foremost science philosopher, if you have doubts on that point. Even mathematics is based on unproven assumptions, and so also does not prove anything. Ultimately, as illustrated by "The Matrix", since no one can know that one's sense-experience is not the lucid hallucination of a madman: life, science and maths are purely hypothetical.

Not so faith. Faith is to assent when God reveals/proves Himself to the individual, exactly what atheists claim they are waiting for. Faith is the root of authentic knowledge. Only a God would have the almighty power needed to overcome the problem of subjectivity.

In the OED Faith is "Belief without knowledge", but this comes from modern philosophers, and is the opposite of the truth.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Excellent argument - now all we need is a real free vote to allow our MPs to debate and come to a considered decision.

David, london,

I am sorry to hear of Sir Borysiewicz's convinced opinion in support of this research. As a practising Catholic myself, I know it can be a hard decision to make on whether to support the bill or not.

On one hand, some of the diseases that this research may cure may affect me too one day, but on the other hand I cannot accept the use of research that involves the destruction of human embryos.

The only ethical way forward is therefore to condemn these research methods, and to support morally-acceptable ones that will not harm other human beings/embryos.

My conscience could be too easily swayed from fear of diseases or the lack of sacrifice that it would require to support this bill. This is where the Church comes in to remind us of the rights of other human beings/embryos.

Dr Edoardo Piano, Harrogate,

The Catholic clerics like Ayatollahs and Mullahs are out to preserve their hold over hapless followers. This scientist exposes them. We do not want the Vatican to rule us. We are fighting the Talibans in Afghanistan ,\ when we have thwese Talibans nerer home. Brown caved in as he needs Catholic vote the Scotland.

Gary Smith, LONDON,

To Paul

"This is not a question for science and scientists do not have the competence to adjudicate it. That is why so many people look to spiritual authority for an answer"

Are you serious?!!! If history has taught us anything, it is that the last people you want to turn to for an open minded and considered debate is spiritual authority. 'Spiritual authority' of all faith is probably responsible for more intolerance, ignrance and suffering than any other body.

John, London, UK

Is "Catholic Scientist" not an oxymoron? A scientist is a person who investigates the known and unknown, drawing conclusions based on evidence and rigourous experimentation. A Catholic (and any other person who allows religion to influence their thinking) is clearly the antithesis.

It is particularly alarming that people who have an influence on the lives of others (e.g. government ministers) freely admit to allowing religion to bias their thinking.

crofty, greensboro, north Carolina, USA

Ian Logan, you are making very little sense at all. What on earth is 'scientism' meant to be? Research in fact has a huge number of restrictions on what it is able to. The bill allows new areas, while putting restrictions on those areas.
And if someone defends something, it is not indefensible is it? You may not agree with a position, but to call it indefensible is very narrow minded.

Too many people express beliefs in very strong and violent terms, without actually thinking those beliefs through, or having any real idea of the issues at hand.

Robert, Oxford,

This is clearly part of a concerted campaign by the followers of scientism to protect the overarching rights of scientists to do anything they chose to do, no matter what the impact on anything or anyone else. You can always find a timeserving Uncle Tom to defend the indefensible.

Ian Logan, Oxford, UK

Paul in Hong Kong,

If we are asking questions of this nature.

During what stage of our evolution did the soul come about, was it before or after we came down from the trees?

Do all mammals have a soul?

The question of when human life begins can be answered by science, it is at initial conception. Easy. However I agree that science can't answer the question about the soul because there is no evidence that one exists therefore it is pointless debating when it comes into existence. It would be similar to asking what unicorn horns are made of.

Stewart, Preston, UK

I notice that the Times chooses to illustrate this article with a photo that bears no relationship to the ball of cells that a embryo at the limit of the 14 days is. This would in itself appear to be emotive misrepresentation!

Pat Duffy, brentwood, essex

I'll believe in the 'soul' when I find it on the end of my scalpel... speaking purely as a neurosurgeon of course...

Derek, Lewes, UK

Politics is too important to leave to the politicians.

Karim Dhanani, Knysna,

This is a political bill which, among other things, gives special rights to Lesbians not even to mention a baby's father. Would the scientists like to comment on that?

George, Bolton., England

The core question here is the same as the core question in the abortion issue: When does a new human life begin? When does the soul begin to exist? This is not a question for science and scientists do not have the competence to adjudicate it. That is why so many people look to spiritual authority for an answer.

Paul Flynn, Hong Kong,

It seems that when the Catholic Heirarchy vocally supports the liberal progressive agenda of modernity, they're held as authoritative heros, but when they put forth an opposing view, they're deemed stiffnecked, superstitious and medival. When the Archbishop of Los Angeles spoke out in support of illegal aliens, he was branded a "voice to be reckoned with" by the local media; several months later when he spoke out against abortion, the same media berated him for imposing his views on others.

John, Omaha, USA