801. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56361 by Corylus on July 15, 2007 at 9:35 am

Paul

Seems you are still struggling with the vexed subject of morality - sorry I couldn't convince you out of your Kantian viewpoint on other threads.

I find it useful to go back to the ancients when something is worrying me. I can't put it better than Marcus Aurelius... hmm ...stoic philosophy - maybe a good half-way point between the stereotypical "happy theism" and "pessimistic atheism": God exists (as logos), but life is still sh~t!

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

Who needs Kant??

So, enjoy your hols, and your holiday reading! Make sure you give yourself plenty of breaks from this thread to enjoy yourself though... Or you might just find yourself wishing you had taken that nice Dan Brown book on holiday instead; like everyone else. Now, what is its' name? ;)

802. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #56134 by Corylus on July 14, 2007 at 12:44 am

The plan will see 76 six-metre high poles, joined by wire, put up at 34 points around the town.

Hmm.. Wonder if you could run a current through it??

Seriously though - this is daft beyond measure.

803. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56030 by Corylus on July 13, 2007 at 11:43 am

Re: comment 54. by KRKBAB

Agreed.

I am pleased that we have lots of new posters recently: I love to hear new views.

However, I get disappointed when people start out their posting with unjustified rudeness.

There is such a thing as good manners.

804. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55962 by Corylus on July 13, 2007 at 3:38 am

Logicel

I would prefer to have the last word and post the last comments in all the threads...

No chance sweetheart!

On making the first comment, I always think long and hard before doing that. Some of the articles on here are written satirically - I fear leeping in with my big feet, totally misunderstanding, and making myself look a complete wally. I do that often enough in the general course of my life anyway :(

Cowardly and conformist I know, but there you are.

P.S. Lovely interview with Hitch: I did enjoy the mental image of the little boy in his sandals.

805. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55849 by Corylus on July 12, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Paul
You state:

By the way, Corylus, you should know better than to try

Countries with high levels of atheism are not known for their anarchy or moral depravity (Sweden, Denmark etc.)

You are both right and wrong with this one. You are right to note that correlation and causation are not the same thing. However, what correlation does do is give us a clue to possible trends and factors: statisiticians would not use it otherwise.

You asked a specific, testable question

Is it possible that the acceptance of atheism, properly understood, by the majority of any population could have a negative effect on human development?

I answered it with evidence, i.e. the lack of depravity in Scandianavian countries.

I could give you further evidence, for example, you appear to think that marriage agreements with a theist element are somehow more binding. (To your credit you do not exclude gay couples from this analysis. I am glad that you are not an uber strict Kantian in this regard)

Unfortunately, there are studies to the contrary (correlational I agree: but interesting nonetheless) stating that divorce rates amongst atheists are lower than for Christians. - Google "Barna Research Group" and "marriage": look at the figures.

You appear to be worried that non-theistic morality might be bad for society as a whole. You are not alone in this. Plenty of both theists and atheists have made the same point. This is what Dennett calls "Belief in Belief". I have come to the conclusion that this concern is both mistaken; the figures simply do not bear it out; and deeply, insultingly patronising. How dare any of us tell people what they should believe in (irrespective of whether or not we ourselves believe it to be true), merely because we feel that a certain belief will cause less bother to us?

I am more lucky than many on here in that I was never a subject of enforced religious indoctrination. My parents had other things to think about. Ok, other relatives fed me a bit of pap and I had the normal Anglian teachings in school, but I was generally allowed to think for myself.

However, as a precocious and snotty pre-teen I decided to read the bible to see what all the fuss was about that. In horror at the violent, barbaric, misognistic tract that I was reading I rejected religion outright. (N.B. I like to think that my adult reasons for rejecting religion are somewhat more advanced and nuanced than that child's, but my conclusions remain the same).

You are a religious studies teacher, you must have some naturally atheistic students in your classes. How do you deal with them? Do you, as you have done with us, imply that they don't have; and can never experience; a valid understanding of morality?

In your experience are these students the ones that end up in jail before they hit 20, or are they the ones that go on to study more?

I understand your concerns regarding societal decay, but I truly think they are unfounded. Like Donald, I personally wish you the best. However, I am afraid that you are simply not listening to the answers that people are taking the time to give you.

806. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55712 by Corylus on July 12, 2007 at 3:54 am

Dammit!

I wasn't going to get sucked into this one any more, but I can't let this talk of marriage go by.

Paul
You don't like marriage being viewed as a contract

I think this can happen when you see marriage as a contract. I see it as a much deeper commitment, and it is not because I'm scared of God.

Now, you're a bit Kant fan. I don't agree, but I can deal. You talk about basing your morality on Kantian ideals. Are you are aware of what Kant actually said about marriage? He actually viewed marriage completely in contractual terms:

Marriage (matrimonium), which is the Union of two Persons of different sex for life-long reciprocal possession of their sexual faculties.

Who says romance is dead?

Also, toward the end of his life, Kant said:

"When I needed a wife I couldn't afford one; when I could afford one, I no longer needed one."

Good job the miserable old prig never got hitched!

I don't think your views on marriage are based on objective pure morality. Getting married (and staying married) is about emotional, subjective judgements. My parents (an agnostic and an atheist) have been married for 40 years now. Nothing to do with God: every thing to do with two people. I really think you are completely kidding yourself to say otherwise.

N.B. What are your views on Gay Marriage by the way?

As a general point, I have to ask, what are your suggestions for solving the conflict you see between Atheism and lack of morality? Are you suggesting that atheists should be 'persuaded' into belief? Lest

....Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity...
Yeats

Countries with high levels of atheism are not known for their anarchy or moral depravity (Sweden, Denmark etc.)

Who are you on here to convince? Us or yourself?

807. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55300 by Corylus on July 10, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Kurtdenke

I feel your pain! I am an arts type myself and (although I flatter myself that I am learning) some of the science stuff on here makes my poor brain ache.

You might want to check out the following article, and some of the responses to it.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic

It is a much longer review by Jerry Coyne concerning Behe.

808. A force for good?

Comment #55074 by Corylus on July 10, 2007 at 12:50 am

I just have to say how hugely impressive I find it that this website always honestly shows dissenting views.

Today, seeing "A Force for Good" and "A Force for Evil" both posted; side by side for honest comparison; epitomises this.

I suspect that there will be a number of christian websites very happy to only post one article.

809. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54710 by Corylus on July 8, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Bizarro

... it's great that I've taken the perogative to engage those of different, er, philosophies in civil discussion.

What is the reason for that "er"? Two possibilities:

1)Are you suggesting that the philosophies discussed on this website are not worthy of the title? Fine. Lay out yours and you will find plenty of people willing to chat.

2) Was that an attempt at an insult? Well, I admit the language on here can be a bit direct (we are all adults)and I am guilty of adding to this myself - I can be excitable. However, I have to say that I much prefer an honest up-front insult to a snide insinuation.

810. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54708 by Corylus on July 8, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Paul
Blimey that was a long response! Must have taken you some time, well done. Don't worry about getting tetchy: we all do that sometimes :)

I suspect that part of the reason is that you are talking to several different atheists who; although they agree on the non-existence of God; do not agree on moral theory. (You have received Kantian, Humean, social contract and utilitarian responses on here, and then there is our resident Nietzschean chatting on another thread). That must be really frustrating and appear inconsistent. However, I think that you will agree that this is evidence that plenty of atheists do think very long and hard about questions of morality and how to live well.

I will try to answer your points to me, but this is difficult in that moral theory is a huge subject and it is impossible to sucintly sum up my entire position here. Plus, I find it hard not to whitter on sometimes.(I think that Logicel is right in that you might get more satisfactory answers in the forum).

As you have replied to me, I will try and give you a brief outline though.

You are right: my position is that there is no such thing as objective morality - I hope I get credit for not skirting this one!

This is for the simple reason that humans are not (about matters of morality) objective. Moral statements are subjective emotional statements; they are not objective or practical statements. This admission of mine leads you to state:

I found it very hard to agree with Corylus that morality could still be moral without being objective.

So, as I understand it, your challenge to me is thus: Taking on board the above, how do I prevent myself from falling into moral relativism, depravity and general naughtiness? Or even if I don't do that, how do I legitimately condemn those that do? How can any moral judgement I make have any claim to universability?

OK, firstly, we need to look at how morality develops. We are physical beings, who learn by interacting with our environment and knowing what it is to feel harm. We experience empathy (the feeling of another's pain as our own) because of our own understanding of harm. This harm can be mental or physical. (Although as a monist I take the view that these terms are just different ways of describing the same thing).

However, if we don't know that an action causes harm, it is impossible for us to condemn it. We don't make judgements in a vacuum. We learn facts about what hurt other people, i.e. we might learn that some traditional remedies have side effects that were previously unknown and ultimately kill more than they cure. When we learn facts like these our emotional reactions change in relation to these treatments. This is what at meant when I said that I said that facts (ultimately) only inform our emotional moral judgements.

This is where facts come in, it must be understood that when we make moral statements we do so in the context of the information and knowledge presently available to us. This is why the relationship and distinction between values and facts is actually quite complex.

Now, if I learn about someone in some place using this remedy on their child, I can say that it is understandable that they do so (in that they think it will help) however, I can also say that they are 'wrong' to do so: in light of the information that I have to hand. (However, I have to leave open the possibility that further facts might be uncovered that renders my judgement invalid). This then is how I I see universal moral statements. What you you mean as universal is based in rule based systems. E.g. This is wrong and will be wrong for ever.

I actually think that this is a really depressing conclusion to draw, in that leads no room for further learning. For example, we know more about mental illness now, should we call someone with Multiple Personality Disorder 'possessed'? "My name is Legion for I am many." Should such people be hounded from town?

I can consider the possibility that the actions that I view as moral might; in some future time; be considered the actions of a savage. I find this though both humbling (a feeling that can be good for people sometimes) and hugely optimistic. Moral knowledge, just like any other form of knowledge is cumulative. There is no place for this sort of understanding in rule-based, theistic morality. This is why I reject it. This is also why I think that obtaining moral guidance form simple unchanging statements is actually a deeply immoral position. (For example, that ridiculous "All you need are the 10 Commandments" drivel one often hears from hardline American Christians)

I do hope that you can understand (I doubt Bizarro ever will) that many atheists do not reject theistic morality due to it being too hard, or because they are unable to resist their baser urges, or because they haven't thought about the subject, but instead because they have looked at theistic morality and said "Not good enough – people matter more than that."
-------
Before someone comes along and accuses me of misunderstanding and bastardizing Hume and the fact/value distinction. Well… mebbe:) But in my defence I have to say that I am finding it really hard to succinctly summarize my position which is actually (I flatter myself) more complex than stated above. I do not want to hear the snores from cyberland echoing over my PC's speakers.

Donald you might have got few readers for your post, but I read it and I found it interesting.

811. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54480 by Corylus on July 7, 2007 at 11:56 am

In a little book called The Dawkins Delusion he takes apart the arguments of his fellow Oxford professor and chides him for his unscholarly ignorance of theology. But though excellently argued, this is hardly likely to become a bestseller.

Damn straight its not! It costs £7.99 for a REALLY tiny book. I have read the darned thing (let no one accuse me of not investigating both sides of an argument!) and take apart Dawkins' arguments it does not (doesn't even address most of them).

It is an interesting read in two ways though.

1) It could be used as an instruction manual for understanding the catty, snide, measly mouthed way that academics sometimes use language to insult each other. To a casual reader it may sound like 'chiding', but that book was actually spectacularly rude.

2) I got a laugh when McGrath suggested POMA (Partially Overlapping MAgisteria) as opposed to the famous NOMA (Non Overlapping MAgisteria).
Partially Overlapping MAgisteria indeed. Plucked Out of My Arse more like...

812. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54204 by Corylus on July 6, 2007 at 2:44 am

Paul Emecz said

Please point out these unanswerable arguments. I tend to find that the atheists give up when confronted by clear thinking (I've been contributing to a few threads and the come-backs just stop):

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1324,The-infinite-wisdom-of-Richard-Dawkins,John-Allemang,page2#comments

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1338,In-Defense-of-Witchcraft,Sam-Harris,page2#comments

Paul, I did not stop talking to you on that witchcraft thread: you stopped talking to me. Did you watch that link I posted BTW? What did you think of it?

I understand how you get frustrated when you think that people are not answering your questions (we all do), but you are making it difficult for people to enter into a diaglogue with you by swapping from thread to thread.

If you want an example of how this should be done, might I direct you to the thread regarding Alistar McGrath. People on there are talking civily to a highly intelligent and extremely polite believer.

They are not 'giving up' when 'confronted by clear thought' they are responding with points of their own.

I understand that you have received some simplistic and borderline insulting comments on various threads and that is regretable, but please do not lower yourself by responding in kind.

Thank you.

813. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54012 by Corylus on July 5, 2007 at 12:37 am

Can anyone hear a banging noise?? Yep - my head... that wall...

Bizarro, I'm intrigued.

Your chums at Liberty - do they know about your posting on this website? Or is it something that you keep very, very quiet?

I'm thinking it is very late (or very early) in Virginia at the moment. No-one about?

814. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53964 by Corylus on July 4, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Sigh…

I don't normally join it with laddish humour, but I think that a little comedy is needed today.*

In honour of Geckomans, truly impressive, in depth, and I have to say; surprisingly logical; analysis on the subject of heavenly virgins. (Nothing like bonking to get men thinking). I direct analysis to the following:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2unGl1cRI_s

An original theological speculation by a Scottish comedian (why does his nationality not surprise me? You know who you are gentlemen) as to why the number '72' is important.

(Warning puerile)

P.S. This one's fun too ;)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aibKW_1HV-c

----------
*Lots of scraping on other threads depressing me: guys please don't fight: it makes little Corylus sad…

815. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #53855 by Corylus on July 3, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Blimey Gordon – you managed that in a couple of days!

Beginning to dislike you now :P

That would have taken me weeks. Plus I would have murdered it by trying to force it into traditional form. (Instead of just hinting at the possibility like you've done). That's the only way I can deal with irrational events – I intellectualise them to death. It wouldn't have worked – your bomber is, by definition, outside of rational…

Well done.

816. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53763 by Corylus on July 3, 2007 at 4:08 am

Paul

Re: your question.

What would stop us, though, from setting up research institutes in the poorer nations of the world, and exploiting desperate people by carrying out dangerous experiments on human subjects?

Very simple answer to this. Research ethics committees. In order for western researchers to carry out research on human subjects they need approval from these boards. These committees are staffed by doctors, academics and lay representatives.

What stops researchers from ignoring them? Again very simple answer. Funding and publication. Funders will not release money without ethical approval and journals will not publish without it (the vast majority anyway). These committees are not infallible (there was a nasty case a few years back concerning western researchers and HIV patients in Africa), but they are very, very careful about what research they allow.

In relation to giving up objectivity. Just because there are no overarching, ultimate moral truths does not mean that we have to let sloppy thinking in! With moral questions the very first things that you have to ask yourself are:

1) Are my definitions correct?
2) Are the definitions of the person I am arguing with correct?
3) Are my definitions and my opponent's definitions the same?

Apply these questions to stem cell research: see what conclusions you reach. When arguing with simplistic theists (I am not saying that you are one!) you often discover not a priori moral truths being uncovered – but instead find sloppy, contradictory, self-indulgent thinking coming to light. I have never debated these subjects with Bush of course, but something tells me that he does not have Kant's Groundwork on his bedside table…

You need an understanding of subjectivity in order to analyse truth claims (as well as precisely what we mean by justice, wisdom and love). If you don't admit the subjective nature of reasoning, then you are not (by default) making objective claims: you are merely kidding yourself.

So objective morals? No. Clear thought, humanity and honesty? Yes.

I don't think these are bad values to teach to kids.

817. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53688 by Corylus on July 2, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Thank you Benway...

Nice Bum.

818. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53680 by Corylus on July 2, 2007 at 2:20 pm

N.B. To those that are thinking of being rude to Paul, might I point out how very boring this site would be without believers to debate with: I myself am very much enjoying reading the McGrath thread at the moment – kudos to all with the stamina to contribute.

Paul

You've come back to play! Gutsy decision. (I have left a link for you to watch on the Witchcraft thread BTW).

Paul, if I am understanding you correctly, you want moral statements to have universalibity (i.e. you don't like moral relativism: I understand). However, you are taking this reasonable statement and stretching it out to the demand for objective morality (a.k.a. God: I don't understand… surprise!)

I rather think this all boils to the question of authority.

You do not like following the mob mentality. Good. The mob decision equates with the intelligence of its lowest member. However, you appear to want to have some reason outside of yourself for calling something 'wrong'.

Why is it that you feel that you cannot trust your own moral intuitions and simply say 'This is wrong'? Why is this inferior to 'This is wrong and furthermore God says it is wrong'? Why bring God into it? In fact, (due to Occam's razor), I would actually say that the first statement is superior.

It may be that you feel that God has objectivity whereas you don't. Let's break that down...

Is God objective?

Debatable: "I am a jealous God"… doesn't sound very objective does it?

Are you objective?

You may feel that you are not. No s**t Sherlock! Join the club.

The search for complete objectivity (outside of mathematics and logic) is a fool's errand.

This is a good thing. A hero of mine (Hume) said 'Reason is and, ought only to be, the slave of the passions'. He was not sad when he said this. He was admitting that our moral decisions are essentially emotional. Our (valid) moral decisions are based on empathy and care.

N.B. I am not saying that morals are only about emotion, we have to continue to learn facts and constantly think. This is how morality develops. (see post 50 by cbhg21808)

However, these facts (ultimately) only inform and elicit our emotional reactions and hence guide our moral decisions. Now, re your statement:

Hold[ing] Hitler wrong because it was scientifically a bad thing to reduce the variety in the human gene pool.

You seem to think that this is, in some manner or fashion, a moral statement. This is not a moral statement, this is a practical statement.

Hitler was wrong; because every feeling part of me that experiences another's pain as my own; says he was wrong.

This is a moral statement. We are allowed to make these. All on our own.

You need to gain the confidence in yourself, and your own humanity, enough to simply go with your gut.

Allow yourself to have authority over your moral decisions (whilst always being open to new facts to inform them).

You seem a nice guy: trust yourself.

In terms of your question:

Is it possible that the acceptance of atheism, properly understood, by the majority of any population could have a negative effect on human development?

You are trying to run before you can walk. Try instead…

Is it possible that the acceptance of atheism, properly understood, could have a negative effect on MY development.

I'm thinking not.

[Edited for clarity and sleepy misquote: must stop visiting this site when I have been drinking claret with my dinner.]

819. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53644 by Corylus on July 2, 2007 at 11:44 am

The bishop has got it all wrong. It is not about rain. It is about rainbows...

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_16225116/opt_/fpt_/c_360/

820. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53459 by Corylus on July 1, 2007 at 2:25 pm

I try really hard to be logical, calm, polite and understanding, but I have had a bad day.

The news today: full of tales of with low life little scroats thinking they have to right to immoliate women dancing in a nightclubs or young families in airports going on holiday... Because, GOD said so.

Now we have idiots like this Bishop sproating judgemental bile. People have DIED in these floods. Apparently because God cares into which orifice men insert their genitalia. That makes sense then.

So, everyone please excuse me in advance...

I just have to say that the crook/staff (whatever the f%£K it is that this bishop is holding) is just asking to be rammed (vigourously) into a place that daylight never reaches.

Thank you for listening.

821. The Panel

Comment #53410 by Corylus on July 1, 2007 at 10:42 am

Well, I thought they were all really brave to agree to put themselves through that. (The potential for embarrassment was huge). Please, lets all give them credit for that.

My own performance: could have been better, could have been worse... but I fear I would have shown myself up dreadfully by swearing even more than Kirsty Wark.

822. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53406 by Corylus on July 1, 2007 at 10:03 am

PaulE

If by any chance you are still checking these threads...

You mention the following

If you believe that entropy increases, that conscious life will some day end in the universe, then you can't argue for a teleological, consequentialist morality. The reason - whatever we do, the consequences are the same!

Can I suggest you check out the following.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-794192889907636950

It is by a guy called John Hartung specifically talking about the question of morality and God. Interestingly; due to his optimism about whether existence can continue forever; it is immune to your criticism above.

I think alot of people on here would find this well worth watching actually.

823. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53359 by Corylus on July 1, 2007 at 2:48 am

Wow. What a review! Considering where it is published I am sure this will be read by many. Good thing too.

Disagree with one thing though. Pekineses are not adorable. They are bad-tempered,lazy, snarly little walking hearth rugs. They don's chase sticks or their tails, they won't play with a ball and they don't look like they are smiling like labradors do. Miserable little gits.

824. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53202 by Corylus on June 30, 2007 at 4:23 am

Paul
Your thought experiments are quite hard to tease out and answer because I am not sure how you are using your terms and what assumptions you are making.

If I understand you correctly, you are getting into the huge questions of personal identity and being through time. Both a bit trickly to sum up!


Let me then concentrate on you statement that "Meaning has no meaning if it is only temporary".

Why does something have to be eternal in order to have meaning? All I can say about this is that God does not seem to agree. Our sun will konk out eventually, and (if understand the physicists correctly) eventually the universe will stop expanding and contract and everything will be squished.


It may be this example is too nebulous, and in your world view it may be that you want eternal communion with God as a being both part of and outside of the universe. OK. Lets get more concrete.


In terms of specific life having no meaning if it is not eternal, let me give you an example. Consider the pupa stage of an insect. Is it a catapillar or is it a butterfly? Neither and both - it is a thing in ofitself - a type of life. Does it have a purpose? Well, pupas don't get out much so we can only assume that it's purpose is one of transition. This then is life with a meaning and purpose defined not by it's eternity, but instead by its transitory and transitional nature. Presumably you feel God created this life and thought it good?


The same is true to a certain extent to the human stage of puberty. It is about transition and change, it has meaning, but it does not last forever. (Good thing too, if you ask me,... remembers with a shudder!)

825. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53030 by Corylus on June 29, 2007 at 3:28 am

PaulE

It seems that you are still chatting on here. It strikes me that I didn't really answer your question to me. I am sorry about that, I am afraid that work intervened.

I love that there loads of articles added daily to this site, but it does mean that people's comments can get easily overlooked, so apologies in advance if I do that again!

Anyway,

There are two options - God, Not God. The God package has some undesirable content, but the Not God package lacks morality, any purpose or point to life, etc. In fact, the Not God package requires far more intellectual weakness, because you have to pretend that Hitler was wrong to kill millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies etc. With the God package, you are surrounded by people saying (and singing) stupid things, but why is it the less reasonable option?
Do you not think that many people choose 'Not God' without committing themselves to the philosophical implications of their choice?

Well, firstly, I would say people commit themselves to all types of positions without considering the philosophical implications. However, this is no criticism of the positions themselves. This just means that some people don't think in these terms.

In relation to the choice you have given me, I would say that as a choice it does not work. This is because you have two presuppositions in there that I would want to question.

1) The Not God package lack morality
2) The Not God package lacks meaning and purpose to life.

You are chatting to others about number one and I do not want to butt in. I can't resist slyly pointing out the following though. I completely agree that the bible provides plenty of evidence that genocide against Jews is wrong – however, it does not seem so sure about the question of genocide by Jews…

Re: number two. It is very easy to get the terms 'meaning' and 'purpose' confused. Many completely different types of lives have purpose (lots of different jobs, circumstances etc.) Some people find 'purpose' in the most peculiar past-times and God is neither here nor there. This is a very different thing than talking about meaning though. (E.g John Rawls talks about a mathematician who spends all him time counting blades of grass, which is a lovely image. We can say his life has purpose: counting grass. Does his life have meaning though…. umm!)

So I will presume that you are using the term 'meaning' in a universal transcendent way and not talking about simple 'purpose' alone.

Do I believe that there is such a thing as a overarching, transcendent meaning of life? Have to say "No". However, I am not entirely sure that God provides this either! Let me explain.

Look at the statement "God provides meaning to life". How?

You can say that "God gives meaning to life as he created it." OK. (Setting aside for a moment question how question begging that statement is) but that does not give you any guidance as to what life is for: back to meaning and purpose again.

You can say "God believes my life has meaning". OK. However, that says nothing about you though. This statement is only about God's views and you appear to be wanting 'meaning' for yourself.

You can say "My life has meaning because it is a way to reach the world beyond in which I will see God and (maybe) become part of God." OK again. However, this says everything about the next life and nothing about this one. You appear to want meaning for this one. (N.B. This is why I agree with your statement above that the Kantian summan bonum argument is not a proof of God).

Sum up: I am afraid that this is a false choice.

826. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #52938 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Careful…

There is a difference between doubt and defeasibility* (a.k.a subject to nullification).

To say that a statement is doubtful (i.e. God exists) is to say one is not sure about it's validity. To say that a statement is defeasible merely means that it can be disproved. These are two different things.

You can say that you have no doubt concerning the validity of the statement that 'God does not exist'.

You cannot say that that the statement 'God does not exist' is non-defeasible.

Truth claims do not work that way. To argue that any statement is non-defeasible is to go lightly tripping down the path to 'faith'. Case in point: Intelligent design is non-defeasible.

You can say that you "believe there is no God". However, the term "believe" can be easily confused with "faith". It is very easy to lose all intellectual credibility here. I would not make this statement, although I can completely understand where people are coming from when they do :) ... I fear confusion would ensue.

(*Some people use the term 'falsifiable' in this context. I don't, simply because this term has a huge baggage in relation to scientific claims. I am not talking about just scientific truth claims here: I am talking about all truth claims.)

…….

Re the Jell-o debate: I f+"king hate Jell-o (or jelly). It is made with the vile substance that is gelatine. Which is used by lazy 'chefs' and cheap and nasty food manufacturers with; I suspect; with the sole purpose of pissing off vegetarians.

827. God Hates the World

Comment #52908 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 1:24 pm

I must have the last word! I must. I must. I MUST...

(Stamps foot).

Or I'll scream and scream and scream until I'm sick!!!

828. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52759 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 2:53 am

PaulE

Thank you for calling me a philosopher. I am just philosophically inclined. I would not presume to lay claim to that title without many more years of study (about 20 should do it).

I see you have played the morality card. Oh dear, that one does get people wound up!! You say that Dawkins does not go into enough detail about this... Well, give the guy a break he is a biologist not a moral philosopher!

I can only advise you to read Breaking the Spell by Dan Dennett: he talks about this issue. He comes to the conclusion that using scripture as a guide to morality is actually a morally weak position. Morality is more important than an ancient book, people are more important than some (actually quite hard to pin down and define) notion of objective morality.

Anyway, I see you are chatting to RabbitDynamite about this already... and I have to go to work :(

829. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #52741 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 1:14 am

Leigh

Ignorant question: What do people in that deep do on Sundays? Apart from go to church. Can they fix the dripping tap or is that work?

As far as I can work out (I have never been in that deep myself), the entire family go to church in the morning. They then drop the kids off at Sunday School. They go home.

The energetic ones use the empty house to get up to all kinds of naughtiness (this doesn't count as "work" apparently).

The less energetic ones do the following. Any male slumps in front of the TV. Females are then expected to cook large dinners generally consisting of vast quanities of roast flesh. They consume this meal. The male then snores. The female does the washing up. (The females' activities don't count as "work" either).

830. Rival to evolution may enter schools

Comment #52737 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 12:54 am

Question: Does the Scottish Parliament have an e-petitions service like 10 Downing Street?

See this recent petition:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NoCreSciEd/

They provide a response if more than 200 sign (which you get mailed when the petition closes)

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12021.asp

I suspected the response was a bit of a fob off actually – what will their (as yet unwritten) guidelines actually say?? But nevermind, a response is a response!

Maybe this is a way forward…

831. Darwin Still Rules, but Some Biologists Dream of a Paradigm Shift

Comment #52656 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Spinoza

I'm guessing you wouldn't go for "epistemological break" either ;)

832. Egypt mufti says female circumcision forbidden

Comment #52651 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Gordon

I love poetry - I even write it occasionally when in the mood.

I must say though I have never once considered the possibility of rhyming "smegma" with "member" (hmm maybe that's actually a half-rhyme... well anyway)

I just have to say : I am in awe!!

833. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52643 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Warning: long boring philosophy post. Anyone not into such things: feel free to skip.

PaulEmecz

Thank you for clarifying: your statement makes so much more sense as a response rather than a statement.

Thank you also for providing a 'first' – I have never before seen anyone; when being accused of trolling; actually admit it! I have to say that I find your honestly on this matter hugely refreshing :) As to whether it is ever right to "troll". I would say that you might get away with it on occasion as long as you are polite. (There is a spectacularly rude troll leaping about on other threads at the moment that has got even me cross: and I don't rile easy). In general though I think the GIGO principle will apply… garbage in, garbage out…

Anyway, to work. Re the question of philosophy and science and rationality in general. You seem to have got the idea that I am a scientist. Nope! For the record my background is psychology (undergrad) and philosophy (postgrad). N.B. the debate about whether psychology is a science or not I will save for another day.

You said

I hope you did feel insulted… being told you were not questioning, thinking, reasoning beings. That is exactly how it feels as a person of faith to be told that I just don't understand, that I am too lazy etc.

Well, I never make that sort of statement about people of faith. I am perfectly happy to admit that they can be completely rational in many areas of their lives. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not faith itself is rational. I would say no, and no again! I would then point to people of faith who are honest enough to admit this. Kierkegaard did not talk about 'fear and trembling' for nothing. Faith is non-rational – that is entirely the point! Faith is about when discussing evidence is not enough – it is about working on trust. It is about 'giving over' to God. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that atheists don't understand faith. I for one do: and that is one of my motivations for not "doing" God.

I think also that one of the reasons people on here get wound up about point this is because some of the propaganda that is coming out of the US at the moment. There is a buzz phrase currently making the rounds known as 'reasonable faith'. It is being used by the evangelicals, in a fit of (I darkly suspect Orwellian inspired) dishonesty they are attempting to give arguments credence by calling things the opposite to what they actually are.

For example, "Liberty University" (a place when young students are brainwashed into naïve creationism). "Intelligent Design" (I don't understand how everything is so darn complicated: I guess a magic man did it). And now, "reasonable faith". I actually think such a term demeans faith and makes it sound way easier than it is or ever should be.

(BTW. If you decide to stick about on this site - There is a poster on here called "Bizarro Dawkins". He is a very bright young man at the aforementioned Liberty University. He thinks that the universe is 6000 years old and this is a 'reasonable' statement. He has been completely brainwashed and his mind is being stunted – in a manner that even a heathen like me wants to call "sinful". I truly fear for the state of his mental health when he realises the extent to which he has been lied to. If there is one thing that I wish one of our believing posters would do it is to engage with him, find common ground and get through to him. If he crops up when you are about, please give this some thought.)

Now, re your statement…

So, I asked him to consider how it would be if this sort of approach were used against scientists. The criticism would be that scientists are unaware of the assumptions implicit in science, and unable to question these; that scientists deal with what we see, without realising that a great deal of processing of sense data has already happened by the time it reaches our consciousness etc.

Yes, I actually do understand where you are coming from on this. Epistemology is a hugely interesting and very complicated subject. Unfortunately, you will find that your non-contentious point above has also been shameless hijacked and twisted by third-rate thinkers that give even thinking a bad name. Listen to this.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,684,Lewis-Wolpert-and-William-Lane-Craig-on-Religion,Today-Programme-BBC-Radio-4

This is a debate between a scientist (Lewis Wolpert: an individual prone to making sweeping and insulting generalisations about philosophers: and yes I can understand why such statements irritate you). Unfortunately, his opponent is a brain dead cretin who appears to believe that 'brain in a vat' thought experiments among to "proof" of faith.

I can understand how people of faith can look at look at people (for example those people in the "musical" video on here) and say "That is not a Christian: that is an idiot!" However, I do hope you can, in turn, understand how I a philosophically inclined individual like me can look at a Christian philosopher and say "That is not a philosopher: that's an idiot!" Especially when they attempt to peddle the lie that faith is "reasonable".

Anyway, it is late and I have twittered on for long enough. Again, thanks for clarifying.

834. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #52444 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 3:37 am

Don't blame him.

Doing Songs of Praise is enough to turn anyone into a cynic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2GFfpgTBt0

835. God Hates the World

Comment #52442 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 3:28 am

Benway

I've been good too. I saw a three people reading the TGD paperback in the course of my tube and train journey yesterday. (Didn't see anyone with David Robertson's book though).

I showed admirable restraint and refrained from cackling evily.

836. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52441 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 3:19 am

I'm really glad Sam picked out Bunting and Eagleton here.

These two writers are vying for the prize of most, irritating, condescending, patronising, self-righteous reviewers I have read. (IMHO Terry Eagleton leads by a whisker, but only due to his whittering on for so much longer).

Paul Emerz. I am afraid I did not understand your post and what point you are trying to make. I have studied philosophy. Part of which is, of course, the philosophy of science. In order to be intellectually honest I had to look into science as well as philosophy in order to so. I have to say I find it very, very hard indeed. (Especially theoretical physics, which so many philosophers of science seem to talk about, I find myself wondering exactly how much they understand).

This is one of the reasons I am on this site, to learn more about science. This is also the main reason I admire Dawkins - I don't agree with him on every point, but I am grateful to him for helping an arts/humanities types like me get their head round scientific concepts.

Anyway, are you saying that:

a) Philosophers and scientists should talk to each other? Completely and utterly agree.

b) Philosophy and science are incommensurate fields? Don't think so, they are both about method (ignoring Feyerabend!). It may be that at some future point human understanding reaches a place at which simply unanswerable questions/conflicts come to light. I honestly don't know the answer to this one. I reckon we should bracket this question for the time being. It will say about this though, that it seems very arrogant to assume that just because we can't understand things no-one ever will.

c) Philosophy is a superior endeavour to science?

or

d) Science is a superior endeavour to philosophy?

I don't agree with either statement and I will refrain from using rude words concerning them.

e) Are you simply just saying that Sam's analogy above is overextended? That's debateable, but I am reading it only as a charming piece of rhetoric and more about humour than argument.

f) Is Jack Rawlinson correct? Are you merely trolling? I do hope not.

Re: Trolling. Why on earth is Rebel on a troll thread? In agreement with Yorker and others on this one. I don't always agree with Rebel, but then I don't always agree with just about everyone one here. I myself, of course, am always right... ;)

I understand Rebel's first language is not English. I am in really impressed. The day I go on a website and start talking philosophy in a second language is the day I criticise Rebel - and that day is not coming anytime soon.

837. God Hates the World

Comment #52036 by Corylus on June 26, 2007 at 2:04 am

Wow, I wake up and discover I have stumbled into the alternate universe that is Wee Flea world.

Every single one of your disciples ….. has proved my point – that those who follow you on this site will make the direct link between the Phelps family and all religion. It was inevitable but nonetheless still disappointing. Just read through their posts and you will see how chilling, inane and sad it all is.

Disciples! Please! You just cannot move out of your own frame of reference can you?

I leave to the others on here that you have derided to defend themselves, but I can't let this one pass…

Corylus (49) thinks that Christianity teaches that homosexuals burn in hell (which is of course nonsense – Christianity actually teaches that all who reject God will live without God – and calls that hell). He then makes the quantum leap that if you believe in Hell you are like the Phelps and 'hate the world' etc.

Well, that was a remarkable reading of my post: which was I reckon admirably measured in the circumstances. I recall even praising you highly for showing humanity and empathy and disliking the video shown. Oh well.

My main point was that this video is about larger questions than the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. This is what I said..

Instead it has everything to do with what people feel they have the right to make their children do, and say, and believe. Furthermore this has everything to do with what theoretical justifications we respect for these "rights" and those we don't.

In case you didn't recognise it that was an invitation to have a civil conversation concerning the abstract question of what rights adults have, what rights children have and how conflicts between them can be resolved.

So you don't want to have a calm abstract argument: that's cool. I realise that that sort of thing doesn't float everybody's boat.

Oh, I can't resist commenting on Benway's comment. It is on here and should stay on here for two reasons.

1) Freedom of speech, which is hugely important.
2) It's funny. (Unlike you apparently) I happen to be a grown up and I can take insults on the chin, as long as they are amusing.

This is because I enjoy rhetoric and new and inventive uses of language. I have to say that I did find this a hugely amusing comment: especially coming from such a tiny dickie bird.

RD: If you are listening please do not respond to Wee Flea's insults. It is all that he is hoping for, and it simply isn't worth it.

838. God Hates the World

Comment #51931 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Wee Flea said

If so could you explain why 99.9999999% of those who have been taught Christianity do not behave in this way?

I never thought I would say this, but I really wish you were right Wee Flea. So, only 1 in 1,000,000,000 think homosexuals will burn in hell. Even allowing for your normal hyperbole, I think you may have your figures wrong.

If this is the case then why is it that the Church of England is presently facing a schism in relation to gay marriage? Show this video in Africa: particularly in places like Nigeria. See what response it elicits.

Excuse my cynicism, but I reckon the reason that even then looniest fundamentalists disown the WBC (what was it Falwell said? "No-one calls them kin") is not due to their stance on homosexuality, but is instead due to the fact that they apportion blame outside of the gay community as well as within it. "Are the WBC saying we are as bad as the fags? Darn it. That ain't right!!"

In any event, the point of showing this video has bugger all to do with homosexuality. (Umm… maybe that's a sentence I should rephrase!)

Instead it has everything to do with what people feel they have the right to make their children do, and say, and believe. Furthermore this has everything to do with what theoretical justifications we respect for these "rights" and those we don't.

Yes. This is an extreme example, and yes I am very glad that you are getting cross watching it. Good for you.

So why show it? Show it because it represents the logical conclusion to an argument. Show it because in order to condemn it (as you do and should) you have to talk about humanity, love and empathy rather than scripture. Show it because when you think you have seen the nadir that humanity can attain, someone comes along and shows you a lower point.

I don't blame God for this video (whether God is loving or not is a meaningless question) I blame people. People who; in what is the epitome of bad faith; seek to blame God for the hatred that is theirs and theirs alone.

You don't like it . Good, but at least have the courage to admit to yourself that the reason you don't like it has everything to do with humanity and nothing to do with God.

839. God Hates the World

Comment #51887 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Well the original was naff, but this... I have no words.

This is the sort of thing that makes me wish I didn't speak English. I wish I could hear this and not understand what they are saying (I won't call it singing).

I felt the same after learning some German and then listening to a recording of Hitler.

840. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51879 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Philip

You're a complete gentleman. Not just for your post above, but for others also.

This is one of my rarest compliments.

Way rarer than: "You're fitter than I am"… but I have to say not quite as rare as: "Damn! You can drink me under the table" :)

Seriously: I mean it.

841. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51797 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 2:14 am

Wow.

And you hear such dreadful things about American lawyers... Kind of restores my "faith" :)

Go Eddie!

842. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51795 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 2:07 am

Newatheist

I did enjoy that last line of your post #57 above.

I'm an overeducated type myself, but I know pretentious wank when I read it, and I don't like it either.

843. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51792 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 1:26 am

Kamisama

Thanks for clarifying: as I said before this is hugely complicated subject. You are right, medical ethics is full of very tricky problems.

If you are really interested in the subject of religion impacting upon doctor's actions, can I recommend the following article on here:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,577,Grief-Without-God,Carol-A-Fiore

This is about an atheist woman who had to deal with doctors giving her a guilt trip about not praying for her terminally ill husband. (Another article that made me very cross indeed).

It appears that there are:

a) doctors who don't believe in God (atheist/agnostic)
b) doctors that believe in God (theist)
c) doctors who think they know the mind of God (arrogant theists)
d) doctors that act as though they are God (generally arrogant theists, but I do admit that this category sometimes includes arrogant atheists) and finally
e) doctors who think they are God (nominally theists, but really just arrogant fuckwits)

a) and b) I can deal with: the rest can go spin.

Excuse the profanity above, but I believe in using the most fitting terms to describe things/people!

Again, thanks for clarifying :)

844. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51687 by Corylus on June 24, 2007 at 5:24 am

Kamisama

Thanks for replying. I am really glad to see that you agree that:

Treatment should not have been denied to the patients described in the article.

Strikes me that there are two questions here that you might want to address:-

1)What is the nature of the patient's problem?

It is the doctor's job to treat the disease/malaise/illness with which they are presented (a point so blindingly obvious that it is often ignored). It is not the job of the doctor to treat the symptoms only; the original illness will only re-manifest itself. (Ok with palliative care this is unavoidable, but that it a separate point.)

With BIID when amputating are you treating the symptom or the illness? Will the illness re-manifest with further amputation requests? I would suggest yes. Re your attempt to justify amputation via the four principles of medical ethics: good try. Unfortunately this falls down spectacularly with the principle of autonomy: if you pardon the disturbing mental image :) How on earth will having a leg removed increase your autonomy?? Won't exactly help you get about will it?

In any event you are presenting a false dichotomy here. The doctor's choice are not limited to either amputating or allowing a patient to injure themselves, there is the further choice of psychiatric admission to consider.

This is further born out in your discussion of women with cancer genes considering mastectomies. You say that you would send then to a psychologist. Why? They are not mentally ill; indeed to be unconcerned about this situation might be a symptom of mental illness. I would instead send them to a statistician – so they can have idea of the level of risk they actually face – and can made an informed decision accordingly. The job of the doctor is to help patients make choices, not make their choices for them.

This brings me to my next question:

2) What actions / advice is it within the remit of the doctor to give or provide?

I would say that it is not within a doctor's remit to play God. It is the doctor's job to provide a service to the patient. It is the doctor's job to treat the body, and to treat the patient NOT themselves. You note,

Some doctors who decide not to treat patients on religious grounds may be abusing principles. They may well have the well being of the patient's eternal souls in mind.

(Bracketing for a moment the question of whether such things exist). Have you considered the possibility that the 'eternal souls' for which these doctors are showing such solicitude are not actually those of the patient?

To conclude, I did not argue that requiring 'physicians to hold particular beliefs' was a solution to the ethical dilemmas in medicine. My argument is simply that doctors need to be able to reason clearly in order to work through problems. A doctor may hold any religious view they choose: that is completely their right. I am not denying that they may be capable of making good decisions.

For example in the case above they might take the view that treatment is justified because they may have read St. Augustine's view on the non-culpability of rape victims. Fine. They may well have a religious reason for desiring a particular course of action, however, they also need to be able to make a case for this action that stands or falls on its own merits. Bringing religion into ethics merely 'multiplies entities unnecessary'. You simply don't need it.

845. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51589 by Corylus on June 23, 2007 at 3:13 pm

I have to say I actually like David Baddiel!

He comes across as a bit 'laddish' but he also seems a remarkably sane, funny and kind individual. (He got quite cross recently at being sent books written by Jewish writers to review simply because of his Jewish heritage).

Ok, he appears to buy into the strange idea that kicking balls about is a subject of deep gravity and importance, but other males I respect seem to go for this also, so I won't hold it against him. (Maybe I should write a book of my own. "Manchester United is not great: football poisons everything??")

He really should have done some research on his byline though. This comes originally from Pope, and it is often quoted when people put massive effort into crushing what is puny and unimportant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_breaks_a_butterfly_on_a_wheel%3F

Unfortunately, in relation to Dawkins this is a bad move. Mary Midgely trotted this out in relation to her criticism of the Selfish Gene. (RD if you are listening I am sorry for dragging up ancient history).

This can be an unbelievably arrogant allegory if put into the wrong hands.

846. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51569 by Corylus on June 23, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Rachel

Thank you for your post, it was really interesting to get a lawyer's take on this.

Get well soon :)

Re: daytime telly. Get yourself sky plus: it's worth it.

847. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51566 by Corylus on June 23, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Wee Flea

Have you read Godless Morality: Keeping Religion out of Ethics. By Richard Holloway? A bishop I believe from your neck of the woods…

If yes what did you think of it? I admit it was a couple of years back that I read it (so I am willing to have my memory refreshed), but if I recall correctly it was an interesting work by a non-secularist arguing that religion actually muddies the waters of ethical theory…

I have to say; as someone who has actually read this; that I am a tad peeved at your accusation that we are all a bunch of atheistic fundamentalists unable to listen to the religious people.

I myself will listen, and I debate politely with anyone who wishes to talk to me: as long as they are polite in return and demonstrate both a willingness to listen and common humanity.

If this proviso makes me an atheistic fundamentalist who wishes to impose their morality on everyone else, then I can only say… Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

PS. Yes I am aware that the original Hippocratic Oath forbids abortion, interestingly enough it also states the following…

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant…

Would you like this nice pagan bit kept too?

848. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51438 by Corylus on June 23, 2007 at 1:02 am

Kamisama

But what if religious demands were made of non-religious physicians?

That is an interesting point, but I don't think that the example you pick works:

What if research done in Africa (to get around human-research ethics committees) "proved" that FGM could reduce rates of HIV infection? Should physicians be forced to participate in religious rituals simply because they have been recast in a medical setting?

Re FGM reducing the rates of HIV infections. Well, you could argue both ways here. If African countries it might actually be increasing infection i.e. cross contamination of unsterilized "instruments" (remember some babies are born HIV positive) or it might reduce infections by reducing sexual intercourse (nothing like getting your ***** sewn up to stop that!)

However, this argument is a bit like saying that 'supergluing ones knees together prevents pregnancy'. It is the lack of unprotected sex that prevents pregnancy.

There is a difference between ultimate and proximate causation: and doctors need to be taught about this in their training. This way they can not only treat effectively, but also evaluate journal articles critically.

What about "unnecessary" treatments? Cosmetic surgeries on kids who have been coerced by their parents to agree? Drugs known to be ineffective against a particular ailment (antibiotics for viral infections)? Tests unlikely to reveal anything not already known or suspected by the doctor? Etc.

Actually, you can look at this question in light of the four principles I talked about above doctors can refuse all of the above without recourse to any religious reasoning. Unnecessary treatment is covered under non-malificence. N.B cosmetic surgery on children may be permissible if it increases their autonomy later in life. We treat cleft palates (not just for aesthetic reasons) but because, they cause speech problems and autonomy is increased by being about to communicate.

Many surgeons probably refuse (or should refuse) to ampute off people with body integrity identity disorder. They'll amputate the guy who doesn't want to lose his leg, but not the guy who doesn't want the leg. Lifestyle discrimination?

This is covered under the principle of justice. Resources are finite, amputating a healthy limb when there are gangrenous ones waiting to be chopped off, is thus unjustified.

There is no reason to bring God/religion into ethics, it is at best superfluous, in general it leads to sloppy thinking, and at worse it leads to hideous actions.

You are right, this is a hugely complicated subject. However, I completely stand by my view that treatment in the cases above should not have been refused; and for doctors to do so is a breach of both their oaths and their ethical training.

849. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51386 by Corylus on June 22, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Steve99

I suggest a promotion of rings that promote opposite views... "I am dead keen, and willing", and "You need to put a bit of effort in, but you have a chance".

I suppose where you choose to put the ring might be a bit of a clue ;)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to lower the tone, but I find it really hard to take this seriously.

I do feel sorry for this poor girl though... from now until she is 100, whenever she (or a potential employer!) googles herself she will see lots of strangers commenting on her sex life. Dreadful, hideous, lifelong embarrassment. A pity her caring father didn't bear this in mind...

850. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51376 by Corylus on June 22, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Interesting reading…

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

I believe the relevant line here is "above all I must not play at God".

Doctors when training (in most of the west anyway and definitely in the US and UK) are given a seminal text known as the "Principles of Biomedical Ethics".

Four principles for the treatment of patients are laid out. These are:

1) Beneficence - do good to your patient.
2) Non-Malefience -(do no harm, a.k.a. primum non nocere)
3) Autonomy - (seek to both respect and increase the autonomy of your patient)
4) Justice - allocate resources fairly and without prejudice.

These are tricky in that no one principle 'trumps' the other. However, I reckon this case is interesting in that one can argue that all four principles are in play here.

Beneficence: do good to your patient.
These doctors need to remember that their patient is the woman sitting in front of them - not the small chance of a potential patient that may result from a rape.

Non-malificence. 'Harm' can be both mental and physical: being judged and treated with distain when feeling vulnerable constitutes harm. This is not just relevant in rape cases. All exams of this type make you feel vulnerable. (Even if you want to make the case that an 'unborn child' will be harmed, surely more harm/potential pain will result in a later termination than an early one via emergency contraception?) Waiting until septicaemia sets in before aborting an unviable pregnancy is simply unforgivable: for both mother and foetus. The mother's life is at risk. Also, allowing the foetus to develop as long as possible (and thus making it more likely that they can feel pain) simply to satisfy some catholic 'double effect' notion – this reasoning makes me feel truly sick.

Autonomy: this is where the bottom of the barrel is really being scraped. You increase the autonomy of the patient by informing them of all of the options available: not just those that you feel are morally permitted by your favourite deity.

Justice: how is it just that women can receive a different level of care from different hospitals, while either paying for their treatment directly or indirectly via their taxes?

Any doctor who feels themselves unable to act in accordance with these principles, for whatever reason, needs only to refer a patient to a doctor that can.

N.B. I am not a doctor myself (I learnt the above when studying applied moral philosophy) so I would be interested in what any actual doctors/medical professionals on here think about this, and whether they feel the doctors mentioned above are in breach of their oath/training?

I'm thinking yes. Anyone want to convince me otherwise?