主播大秀

Down with this sort of thing.

Rather than encouraging other clerics to learn from the likes of O鈥橞rien, I鈥檇 rather he moderated his style and replaced emotionally laden polemic with an adult engagement with the topic. A bit more honesty would be a useful addition for someone claiming high moral ground.

His latest 鈥渟ermon鈥� includes the following nuanced insight into the matter at hand: Grotesque; hideous; a bill allowing scientists to create babies whose sole purpose will be to provide, without consent of anyone, parts of their organs; a bill which will sanction the raiding of dead people's tissue; experiments of Frankenstein proportion; mixing human and animal genes is not just evil. It's crazy!; deathly proposals.

If I had a platform I would raise the issue of why we let self-serving interest groups highjack public debate on such matters.

I would ask why the 主播大秀 faithfully provides such wide publicity for their views. The cardinal鈥檚 speech was the lead item on Radio 4鈥檚 PM and 6 o鈥檆lock news. Where is the news value in this speech 鈥� does it tell us anything we didn鈥檛 already know?

I would propose that the time to defer to religious leaders on ethical matters is long past, since they have repeatedly shown themselves unable to carry even their own diminishing band of followers on such matters.

I would suggest that given the size of the gap between what the state sanctions in terms of homosexuality, abortion, contraception, etc. and some religious leaders pronouncements, the latter should no longer be entitled to deliver ethical instruction to the young at the state鈥檚 expense. Why is the state paying to have its freedoms demonised?

In short, the ethical issue I would want to debate is ethics itself. At a time when only a minority actively follows a faith, religious framing of ethical issues is increasingly falling on deaf ears. In order to make the issues relevant to all we need to debate such issues in terms that are meaningful to more than just the faithful.

I think we should no longer accept that the religions have a monopoly or prior call on ethical thought. Their track record does not justify the importance they currently accord themselves.

Issues such as embryonic research affect us all. They should not be decided based on which lobby group can raise the biggest stink, which seems to be the cardinal鈥檚 greatest skill.

OK, I'm done. Anyone else want the soapbox?

Nonplussed- Im backing you for Prime Minister. Agree completely.

Nonplussed:

Quite right, though it is a pity that you have to hide behind a mask of anonymity to say it (how would Joe know whom he was voting for?).

As you may know, I made a similar complaint on the earlier thread on this Embryology Bill. It is really a disgrace in this day and age that the so-called debate is allowed to be hijacked by the religious, thanks largely to the compliance of the media.

I say 鈥榣argely鈥� because many of the scientists on the other side frequently plead professional impartiality as an excuse to avoid making a public moral judgment. So the net effect of media subservience and 鈥榩rofessional鈥� discretion or 鈥榠mage protection鈥� is that clerics are allowed to be our sole public moral arbiters, which is a dreadful situation in a supposedly open and free society. As you imply, they represent old and obsolete value systems tied to religious belief, whereas we need to disseminate humane values for a secular age.

Unfortunately, by being afflicted with the Ulster disease of pseudonymity, you are contributing to the imbalance. Or perhaps you yourself are a member of 鈥榓 self-serving interest group鈥�.

Its the internet Brian, staying anonymous isnt such a bad idea.

Id like a platform for Climate change. Let's do something about it.

Interesting discussion. By the way, I also disagree with Brian that anonymity is a 'pity' online. Anonymity is a great freedom on the internet, though I rarely -if ever- choose to use it.

John:

I take your point. Anonymity certainly has its uses. As Jaques put it in As You Like It:

"Invest me in my motley, give me leave
To speak my mind, and I will through and through
Cleanse the foul body of the infected world
If they will patiently receive my medicine".

But I suppose I'm thinking more of the print media. You don't live in Northern Ireland Ireland where newspapers are full of letters with pseudonyms attached. When it happens on such a wide scale it is clearly symptomatic of a malaise.

The Troubles are part of the explanation. There was an understandable fear that if you spoke out, you might be shot. But I have been told by some of my elders that it was common even before they started. There seems to be a general fear or reluctance to let it be known that you have an independent opinion which might be different from your family, clan, tribe, church or whatever.

Hopefully, it is changing, but in the context of the 'debate' on the embryology bill you can understand what I am getting at. The churches and most of the political parties in NI will be against this bill. So if you are for it, it takes a bit of courage to show that you are swimming against the stream. All the more important, I think, that you should clearly identify yourself and be proud to be different.

William asked for participants on his blog to take a platform. I thought it was somewhat ironic that 'Nonplussed' seized the opportunity but stood on it surrounded by a curtain. Is that the iconic image of NI: If you think for yourself, you have to hide who you are?

[I posted this yesterday but it didn't appear. How do you tell an error 502 that will work from one that won't?]

Brian. My cunning mask of anonymity is key to my plans for world domination. To drop it now before all the pieces are in place might risk defeat from my many enemies. Once my massed ranks have swelled beyond one (thanks Joe!) all may be revealed.

Seriously, I use this handle for my postings on all subjects. There is no great significance to be read into it. Neither my name nor position would lend any greater credibility or weight to my opinions. Screen names are reasonably common well beyond NI and I currently live in England in any case (damn 鈥� my mask is slipping).

Your comment on 'professional impartiality' is a good one. We do not have a well-developed language for ethical debate and do somehow seem to defer to the clerics. This is curious. We have mostly sidelined them when it comes to deciding our own personal standards but out of habit have left them in charge of the public debate. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we treat it as their specialist subject and hesitate to intrude.

The current debate on this bill is a case in point. It gets referred to as a matter of conscience, as if that was a debate-stopper. It sometimes seems that only the religious have consciences and they get to decide what subjects fall into that category. Lots of issues should weigh on the consciences of all MP's, I see no reason why the ones that happen to hit religious hot buttons should get special treatment.

Now back to my evil plans. Well, I say plans鈥� more of a rough outline sketch with thoughts of some focus group sessions to firm them up a bit.

Even if overused anonymity is a particular bugbear of yours (which is fair enough), I don鈥檛 think that there is any great amount of irony present in my use of it here.

William asked IF we had a public platform what we would use it for. With the best will in the world (no pun intended), I don鈥檛 think even William would argue that this blog equates to a mass-media spotlight. The 8:10 interview spot on the Today programme it isn鈥檛.

nonplussed, what are you talking about. This is the biggest blog in the country! :-)

Kel, you got me.

I unreservedly apologise to William and his millions of readers for this baseless slur.

I only hope this unfortunate lapse of judgement hasn't turned my voter against me.

Getting back to the subject.....

Belfast Telegraph 24-3-08

"I wish one of these pontificators could get inside my body and see what it feels like. Parkinson's is like being locked in your own body when your mind is still there. I can become as rigid as a plank and my legs won't bend. It's as though there is a ton of cement on my chest and an army of ants crawling up and down my body with spears. It's like being buried alive.

"By the age of 70, three-quarters of those in this country will have Parkinson's disease to some degree as it is a degenerative illness. Once you have it, it never goes into remission. But no one tells you how difficult it is to live with.

"It makes me so angry when I hear academics, theologians or medics arguing about cloning. For me, it is like hearing any hopes we may have of returning to normality being taken away. By mixing ethics with religion and politics, which is a lethal concoction, they are not thinking about the people who have the disease. I feel like saying, 'Get off your high horse.'

"I would not want to stop any process unless it I knew it was categorically not going to work for those who are suffering. I don't believe cloning embryos is like taking life. Parkinson's is such a desperately painful disease. You would have thought that everyone would support anything reasonable to find a cure, and I believe what is being suggested is reasonable."

Geraldine Peacock CBE is a former chair of the Charity Commission. She has had Parkinson's for 18 years.

As someone who suffers from a Muscular Dystrophy and who goes through the wall pain barrier that marathon runners hit towards the end of the race day and daily just doing routine tasks that most people take for granted 鈥渨ithout pain鈥� while I observes my muscles going down the toilet as I urinate, protein red urine which can cause kidney failure and damage if not dealt with immediately by flushing your system out with water, I see this type of Frankenstein science as a backward step into the realms of Nazism. This is concentration camp science being made legitimate by godless politicians trying to play God.

This unethical form of science is humanist led by the angels of Satan, who ignore God in the field of scientific advancement because they man as being self sufficient without any recourse to God they deifying man and dethrone God from His throne, the same humanist influence that seeks to support man in his quest to cure all ills is the same humanist influence that fought to have the killing of life by having wholesale abortion accepted as the norm, the very same humanist influence is also being exerted to have good-death accepted for those who have out lived their usefulness to society under the guise of mercy killing a practice that Hitler used during World War 2.

Christianity recognizes that only as man is reconciled to God can he be properly adjusted to the conditions of everyday life, and that by the presence and grace of God situations that otherwise would be unbearable are often means to draw him closer to God. Dr. L. Nelson Bell, from 鈥淲hile men slept.鈥�

Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful...................................Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray........................ Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

Who are the arch supporters of this Frankenstein science, you don鈥檛 have to far to look the godless brigade.

Les, that letter says it all, thanks for posting it.

This is where the focus of this ethical debate should be: real harm being caused to real people.

I do not understand how the needs of people like this are outweighed by the supposed degradations caused to a 14 day old clump of cells.

Billy. Looks like we posted at the same time from two very different ends of the spectrum.

Your post has absolutely convinced me that you are very strongly against the proposals, but has done nothing to convince me that I should be too.

As a member of the godless brigade, any assertions about what the gods want us to do cannot be persuasive to me as I am still waiting to be convinced that any of them exist in the first place. I note that other believers support these proposals, but I have no way to determine who has the correct interpretation of their god鈥檚 wishes.

You are in good company with Cardinal O鈥橞rien in declaring the whole enterprise 鈥楩rankenstein Science鈥�. When I look at the proposals and find nothing that matches this description I am not convinced by such rhetoric, but angry at an attempt at emotional manipulation. I see scientists seeking permission to find more efficient ways to culture skin cells and the like in order to seek cures for diseases - not Frankenstein experiments. I commented on the inevitable Nazi comparisons in the Chantal Sebire post, so won鈥檛 repeat myself here.

Our track record shows we are likely to have an aversion to things medical that have not been done before. Vaccinations, heart transplants, IVF, etc. all raised strong 鈥榤oral鈥� qualms before they quickly became routine and very widely accepted. We need a better guide than fear of the unknown to work out the difference between an ethical line that should not be crossed and a queasiness that will pass once we get used to it. That to me means identifying a real, demonstrable harm that may arise if we proceed.

You speak of man鈥檚 鈥榪uest to cure all ills鈥� like it鈥檚 a bad thing. Any scientific advance could be viewed as an attempt at increased self-sufficiency. How can you tell which ones will displease your god, or should all advances be abandoned, just in case? It appears from your post that your faith is a source of strength that helps you cope with your condition. Is the possibility that suffering might draw some closer to god sufficient reason to stop trying to cure the suffering? Should we also not try to help the starving?

If you personally wish to have nothing to do with such advances then you have every right. However, it is a very different matter for anyone who wishes the rest of us to forego them as well. They need to demonstrate that problems exist in terms that the rest of us can appreciate. This was the reason for my initial post, to ask that such ethical debates take place in a language we can all speak.

Hi Non-plussed

I dont see you objecting to any of the emotive humanist-liberal type polemic which makes up much of this blog - why only the religious stuff?

The reason church leaders comments are considered news worthy is because they lead churches.

That would also explain why such groups still maintain the consent of the people for tax benefits etc.

If there really is no support for such comments from such people ask your MP to get his party to propose actions in line with your views and see how far it gets. fair dos, put up or.....

I dont see anyone suggesting faith groups have a monopoly on ethics - you are having your free say here.

The big problem for humanists per se is that they have no real authority, tradition or precent to make their case in this field.

Personally I dont know much about embryonic research but I am quite suspicious at how the most controversial proposed research is always purely considered for the most heart rending and emotional exceptional cases. all in the interests of science of course.

The lady quoted above as being in favour of such research because of her painful condition does not appear to be any better informed than me. she only justifies such research on account of her pain.

Could it be she is being cynically whipped up by the PR company paid for by commercial interests in this research when less controversial alternatives are within reach?

Why are the humanists so quick to champion such controversial research and do they care if there are less controversial alternatives available?

You cant just so easily ask the rest of us to endorse such research and look the other way because it is playing God with real humans. Did I need to spell that out?

6 million aborted in the name of a woman鈥檚 right to choose since the UK legalised abortion.

But I am speaking up for the 3 million men (and possible a few of the women) who were killed in the womb while they didnt have access to a blog like this to object.

You cant just dismiss Christian faith as a quaint but irrelvant tradition.

Look at freedom, human rights and standard of living around the world and you will see everyone wants to live in a country with a judeo christian legal and cultural heritage.

This is not an accident by any means. on no account.

Just show us a country that built its foundation on humanism and I will show you misery and sadness.

That is what I mean by no authority or precedent.

The precendents are on God鈥檚 side of this argument, non-plussed.

Perhaps it might inform this debate more if people put themselves back in the position of being only a few weeks old from conception... and then see how their perspective changes.

Just think of all those blog entries you would never have got to write non-plussed, if you had been harvested for a medical procedure.

PB

PB

Goodness you are obsessed with "liberals"!? And on and on you go about humanists, atheists etc etc about authority etc

Well PB given your shocking record on these boards you have no tight to pontificate to anyone about "authority" since your posts leave a lot to be desired when it comes to honesty. Why not apologise to everyone for wasting their time on creationism/science as you did tell a looonngg list of lies to support your non-existent claims or at the very least an acknowledgement.

Talking about telling lies a theist-Prof Robert Winston has weighed into the debate and said what a lot of people think that the Churches are telling lies

So it's not just "humanists" PB, wrong and ignorant yet again! Intelligent theists have no problem with it-as they do with science and reality in general-you know what I mean?

X

DD

pb. Let me see if I鈥檝e got this straight鈥�

* It is the 鈥榟umanist-liberals鈥� that are guilty of emotional manipulation by referring to the real suffering of real people that is the whole point of the research being requested.

* That mentioning such cases is in some way equivalent to raising the spectres of Frankenstein, Nazis, concentration camps, and the likes.

* That the views of the Parkinson鈥檚 suffer quoted above can be dismissed as they are non-expert.

* That her only justification for such research is her pain. ONLY?

* That the most likely motivation for her to write her letter is the manipulation of the researcher鈥檚 PR companies.

Callously dismiss the suffering of others much, pb? Sufferers couldn鈥檛 simply be expressing their frustrations at the misplaced priorities of the objectors without requiring a plot?

It isn鈥檛 all about you. This is not a deliberate conspiracy aiming to attack you using the needs of sick people merely as a cover story.

Other people, including other believers, have sincerely arrived at a different understanding of where the priorities lie. Their conclusion that the suffering of sick people has a higher priority than the rights of stem cells is honestly held. If you wish to convince them otherwise you must do more than point out that your priorities are different.

You mention the advantages of a 鈥榡udeo christian鈥� heritage. 鈥楬eritage鈥� may be the operative word. Few theocracies have been nice places to live and 鈥淏ecause my god said so鈥� is no longer a sufficient policy justification in any of the countries you admire. Again, your case is weakened by the presence of Christians (and Jews, as you brought them up) who disagree with you. But, I forgot, disagreeing with you is proof enough of not being a True Believer.

Why limit your sympathies to the stage just after conception? Every period hitting a sanitary pad is the potential for a life missed. Many of them could be writing blog entries now but for the failure to apply sperm. Why are you not equally concerned to see things from their perspective?

"Why is the state paying to have its freedoms demonised?"

Could it have something to do with quaint, old fashioned ideas like democracy and free speech, which of course have nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian world view!

Hardly a free speech issue. State schools are constrained in most subjects to teach to a nationally agreed set of standards. How we communicate ethics to the young seems even more important than how we teach them maths.

Hardly democratic either. If democratic process enforces certain rights and declares certain activities legal, it might be expected that the education services it pays for might keep step with this expression of collective will. It would seem more reasonable to have state schools putting the rights and responsibilities afforded by the law in a current context.

Making something legal doesn鈥檛 make it compulsory, but legalising something you teach is abhorrent seems like a glaring inconsistency.

If there were a sufficient over-supply of schools such that everyone could choose one of a decent standard that matched their outlook then the 鈥榤arketplace of ideas鈥� approach might hold. This is not the case.

I give up. I have tried to post comments on this topic, but only one has got through.

Anyway, Nonplussed is doing an excellent job. So, more power to your elbow! Or whatever you type with.

Another excellent commentator on this topic is Polly Toynbee. Here is a link to her article in the Guardian:

Hi Nonplussed - my name is Peter! but I guess you have already had the exchange about anonymity. However it strikes me that it might be polite, ethical even, to know with whom we speak!

I guess there are some mathematicians who might think that understanding the 'truth' of their subject is as important as understanding the 'truth' of the ethics we believe in. Indeed there really is very little, if any, disagreement on the truth of maths between the religious and the non religious. 1 + 1 = 2 for both groups.

The same however is not the case with ethics. What you seem to be suggesting therefore, is that because the state fails to hold a particular ethical view, then those ethics should be ignored by the state.

Some might suggest that this is a narrow-minded view. Others might go so far as to say that it was a form of ethical indoctrination!

You also say...

"At a time when only a minority actively follows a faith, religious framing of ethical issues is increasingly falling on deaf ears. In order to make the issues relevant to all we need to debate such issues in terms that are meaningful to more than just the faithful."

Surely this is already happening with the 'religious' merely contributing to the debate. That is what I thought freedom was about - debate. Hence the references to democracy and free speech. Surely the evidence of a mature democracy would be that it defends the right of the minority with which it disagrees? Otherwise we end up with a secular version of theocracy. And nobody wants theocracy, do they?

and...

"the religions have a monopoly or prior call on ethical thought."

You don't really believe they do, do you? Either that or your argument amounts to little more than telling the church to, 'butt out'.

Anyway you said you wanted to discuss the issue of ethics itself. So on the presumption that you have a basis for your ethics, I would be interested to hear what that basis is.

Regards - Peter

This is about human dignity and respect and using other human beings for your own ends.

Scientists know that embryos are human beings - if they weren't they would be no use to them - but many of them have no respect for them, obsessed with their own thirst for knowledge regardless of the source and in that sense they are like Nazis.

And just because you have Parkinsons or some other awful disease, and all of us will die of something some day, doesn't give you the right to experiment on another human being.

But to get back to William's original request but sticking with my interest in religion - my soap box would be on the dishonesty and lack of integrety at play in the Church and society. Some commentators have talked about the modern practice of believing without belonging - well we have the opposite problem, belonging without believing - baptisms and other sacraments of initiation with no belief, Catholic schools filled with teachers and pupils who don't believe and everyone goes along with it for an easy life.

Hi Brian

I've just downloaded the most wonderful game called 'Tangle' in which we are challenged to untangled an ever increasing number of interconnecting and intersecting lines. It occurs to me that playing it might prove useful to me as I attempt to untangle your comments!

You say so much and yet fail to flag up the underlying assumptions inherent in your comments. Where do I start?

You say...

In biblical terms we are also told that we begin sinful and must earn our redemption from a being who arranges a human sacrifice in Palestine in which we had no say and who informs us that we are all guilty of it.

So, should I begin with the word 'earn'. There are, for example, many christians who do not like that idea. I could, but I won't!

What about God arranging a human sacrifice? I suppose I could ask, what if God was both arranging the sacrifice and being sacrificed? Gods, if they were god could probably do that sort of thing. But I won't focus on that point either.

What I will do however is ask you how you make the linguistic leap from Socrates' alternatives, to the idea that 'a standard of right and wrong that is independent of god鈥檚 will must be accepted.' (with the emphasis on the word 'must'. In reply I would simply ask, must according to which, whose or what framework) And lastly to the word 'truth', and ask you if you accept the notion of an external truth by which we are bound. That it seems would be contradictory to the notion of ethical behaviour driven by 'need.' Surely if need is the reason, I am free to say, "Who cares?"

So, on the basis of your post, among the many other questions I have, I'm left wondering if ethics are nonsense, arbitrary, independent of god, dependent on God, sympathetic, truth or, as you seem to be suggesting, transitory.

I did however enjoy what you had to say about the issue of anonymity in Northern Ireland. Imagine adding into the mix of a troubled society the problem of evangelical guilt related to 'witnessing for Jesus'! Funny thing is, I still believe in 'fairytales' and 'sickly love' has nothing to do with it.

Smasher,

Again, much garbage in your posting and, again, much playing fast and loose with the facts and with history. So, surprise, surprise, we have the usual nonsense that:

1. Embryos are human beings even though the embryos in question are from non-human animals, and even though we are referring to an embryo at less than 14 days, which is just a microscopic ball of cells.

2. Scientists are like Nazis, even though most of the Nazis were hostile to science. Indeed, Hitler said: 鈥�"If the dismissal of Jewish scientists means the annihilation of contemporary German science, then we shall do without science for a few years". Many famous scientists left Germany when Hitler came to power. Of more than 1,500 refugees, fifteen went on to win Nobel Prizes. Escapees, Smasher, included Einstein, the world鈥檚 most famous scientist and already a Nobel prize winner in Physics. Of those who stayed, many of the country鈥檚 best scientists opposed the Nazis, including Max Planck and Max von Laue.

3. As for your last paragraph, isn鈥檛 it great that belief is declining. Arguably, many beliefs are like viruses. Our trouble as a species is not an overdose of self-asserting aggression but an excess of selfless devotion. Wars are fought less for personal gain and more out of love and devotion to king, country, cause or religion. When we think of the Nazis we think of hatred of Jews. But that is only part of the picture. We ignore the radiant love of the F眉hrer on the faces of the Hitler Youth. Look too at the faces of Chinese boys adoring Chairman Mao as they recite the Little Red Book. The sound of the nation鈥檚 anthem, the sight of its proud flag, can make you feel part of a wonderfully loving community.

Is it not better that our young are encouraged to be more critical of their tradition? Is it not better that they are more sceptical and suspicious of beliefs in general? 鈥淭he trouble with the world鈥�, said Bertrand Russell, 鈥渋s that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt鈥�. We atheists therefore do a great service to humankind because we seek to sow the seeds of this doubt. We are warriors against the tragedy of belief. Amen.

Non-plussed

full marks for distortion.

I didnt for a second demean the lady's pain. read my post again.

what I said was that pain in its own right is not an informed position from which to legislate on such important matters.

And if you think it paranoid that commericial intertests could be influencing this debate - remember the attempts to patent the human genome!

I never suggested the debate was about me, read my entry again;-

I said it is about people unborn who cant speak for themselves.

And where did I ever mention frankenstein, nazis, theocracies or say anyone was attacking me???

And anyone else see where I equated faith to theocracies???

I have stated time and again on this blog that I dont fancy them AT ALL.

And where did I ever say that disagreeing with me was proof of not being a true believer? I dont hold with this at all.

The secular equivalent seems very common on this blog though.

I notice you completely avoid my central point about alternative treatments to controversial ones.

Doesnt suit your worldview? Not interested in cooperation?

I notice you plainly avoid examining the argument from the position you once held in the womb. I rest my case.

Seems like you are projecting alot of prejudice onto me rather than engaging with what I actually said.

sorry, I am not your stereotype.

PB

[Yet another post sinks without trace. Take 2]

Peter, you seem to be jumping from one extreme to the other. Just because I object to religions being paid by the state to preach to a captive audience, doesn鈥檛 mean that I expect them to be totally silent. Calling for an end to state-funded religious indoctrination is not a demand for 鈥榮ecular theocracy鈥� 鈥� whatever that oxymoron might entail.

Creating a system of separate schools of different persuasions is the wrong way to avoid the narrow-mindedness you indirectly accuse me of. Any particular child only gets to go to one school and is unable to properly benefit from variety happening elsewhere. If there was a range of possible answers to 1+1 then the thing to do would be to teach all children how to negotiate that doubt and the consequences flowing from the different possible answers. The state should not teach different groups of children the correctness of different versions of the answer, especially when the particular answer a child is taught may depend on a postcode lottery. There is no agreement in politics but we do not divide children into separate left-wing and right-wing schools.

At a time when religious observance is falling in the UK it seems strange that the already disproportional religious influence in schools is set to greatly increase. The religions aren鈥檛 just seeking to have their voice heard in the debate, it looks more like a territorial grab. Failing to attract adults voluntarily, they get state help to influence the young to accept a set of values that, in some cases, the state itself has moved on from.

You may think this influence is benign, but I do not. Why, for example, does the state fund safe sex campaigns as well as funding education that takes this instruction from the Bishop of Lancaster to 鈥榟is鈥� schools:
鈥淧arents, schools, and colleges must also reject the promotion of so-called 鈥榮afe sex鈥� or 鈥榮afer sex鈥�, a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS.鈥�

How can the state enshrine laws ensuring the equality of homosexual people and at the same time educate kids that homosexuals should never have sex? An equivalent contradiction relating to racial discrimination would not be tolerated.

For many years, religious influence upon behaviour had more to do with its ability to marshal social disapproval for taboo breaking than genuinely developing ethical thought. It was less of a stable society than a rigid, inflexible one. Now that narrow social conformity is a much less effective means of control and fewer abide by religious instruction it is important to develop a more effective means of communicating a shared framework for ethical thinking.
I am reminded most times I hear the religious musings on Thought For The Day on Radio 4 how religion is pulling on levers that aren鈥檛 connected to anything when talking faith to non-believers. Given the numbers of non-believing kids, communicating ethics with a morality predicated on god seems inefficient, to put it mildly. If even many believers go on to reject core religious teachings on, for example, contraception, homosexuality or IVF, it must make it harder to trust the other readings from the moral compass provided by their education.

Regarding religious monopoly, you ask if I mean this literally, but you don鈥檛 really think I do, do you? I was referring to the hijacking of the public debate which seems disproportionately cast in religious terms. This is some combination of religious lobbying, media compliance, habit and a secular preference for speaking in practical, rather than explicitly ethical terms. Debate is good and all sides should be heard, but it must also be proportionate and fair.

As to the basis for my ethics. I am a human with empathy, reason and a desire to exist in a society of other humans. I feel no more need for a religious underpinning of my ethical urges than I do for my dietary ones. This approach doesn鈥檛 lend itself to the pretence of absolutes, but requires the negotiation with those around us as to how we can best co-exist. You wish to emphasise the 鈥楯udeo-Christian鈥� component of how we have reached our current views of acceptable behaviour, but don鈥檛 forget that institutional Christianity has in the past opposed the adoption of values now taken for granted in areas as diverse as slavery, women鈥檚 rights and, of course, quaint old democracy and free speech. Even religious views on morality have had to move, however reluctantly, with the times.

Brian, I am not surprised you are unconvinced by my reasons for preferring anonymity, as I did not give them. I accept you find it dissatisfying but can only repeat that this preference is unrelated to the matter at hand.

Peter:

In #22 I was saying that logically a standard of right and wrong independently of a good god鈥檚 will must be accepted by all, on the lines that:

Either a god鈥檚 commands are arbitrary or right and wrong are independent;
God is good and his commands are not arbitrary;
Therefore right and wrong are independent.

The following point was also made by Plato/Socrates and has stood the test of time: we are morally bound to seek the truth and the person who has not used his or her mind to figure out things for himself/herself is not really living a fully moral life. The clear implication is that we should utterly reject the Divine Command Theory for it it amounts to blind obedience to the doctrine of 鈥榤ight is right鈥�, which is not a sound basis for morality, at least from the philosopher鈥檚 perspective.

There are those who, while they accept that a God is not required as the author of morality, will nevertheless maintain that He is necessary as the moral enforcer. Without the threat of divine punishment, people will not behave morally. 鈥淲ithout God, everything is permissible鈥�, says Ivan Karamazov in Dostoevsky鈥檚 novel. AIDS, teenage pregnancies, crime, drug abuse and so on, in this view, are the result of a breakdown in morality caused by a decline in the belief in God. But, again, this is merely another version of the 鈥榤ight is right鈥� doctrine. Do what you are told or the bogey man will get you!

Nor is it supported by empirical evidence. Does it mean that theists are more moral than atheists? What percentage of criminals are atheists? Why is the murder rate in America, which is more religious than Britain, six times higher? In general, people do good because they want to, not because of the hope of a heavenly reward. In a sense, the person who does good for this second reason is not being moral at all, merely greedy, in the same way that the person who doesn鈥檛 steal simply because they fear they will be caught is a prudent rather than a moral person.

So if Nietzsche is right in saying that Christianity is a slave morality, where does ethics come from, if not from religion? One common theme from the Greeks and Hobbes is to explain ethics simply as a device of egoistic prudence. In a pre-ethical society conflict is inevitable, and the state of nature is, as Hobbes put it, 鈥榓 war of every man against every man鈥� (Leviathan, 1651) in which life for most is 鈥榮olitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short鈥�. Survival and social order are only possible through rules arrived at by a reluctant bargain and this social contract is enforced by an independent authority, the state.

However, in the 18th century the notion of enlightened self-interest was regarded as inadequate by many philosophers, who argued that people often act from a sense of justice, compassion, sympathy, friendship and the like. Rousseau and Hume both believed that the origins of ethics are to be found in certain natural feelings of sympathy. Hume, however, dismissed a major role for reason, which 鈥榠s and ought only to be the slave of the passions鈥�. Indeed, he went so far as to say: 鈥溾�楾is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger鈥� (A Treatise of Human Nature). For Hume, the distinction between good and evil must derive from our feelings, not our capacity to reason.

Kant, whose ethics remains the most influential attempt to vindicate universal moral principles without a God, took up Hume鈥檚 challenge to reason, rejecting the link between ethics and feelings and arguing instead that the pure moral law was indeed given by reason alone. To help others because we have kindly feelings towards them is, according to Kant, of no moral worth. An act only has moral worth in so far as it is done of out a sense of duty, which is defined as respect for the pure moral law or, in Kantian terms, the 鈥榗ategorical imperative鈥�.

And what is that? It is an absolute and unconditional duty, which always applies whatever the consequence. For Kant, morality was a system of categorical imperatives, all governed by a basic principle, namely that of universalisability: 鈥淎ct only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law鈥� (The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785). In short, only act on a maxim that you would want to apply to everybody. Another categorical imperative, or another version of the same imperative, is: 鈥淪o act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means鈥�. In other words, we should show respect to others and never treat them as a means to our own ends.

Since Hume and Kant, much ethical debate has focused on the question of the relative roles of feelings and reason. A.J. Ayer, the foremost English exponent of logical positivism, took Hume鈥檚 position arguing that since ethical statements are neither matters of fact or logic, they are therefore expressions of emotion like 鈥榟ooray鈥� and 鈥榖oo鈥� (Language, Truth and Logic, 1936). This narrow, restricting view dominated English philosophy for decades after the Second World War, and it is only fairly recently that its shortcomings have been fully realised. Philosophy since Plato had as one of its main subject areas the question of the good life. To rule ethics out of the scope of philosophy as Ayer, Wittgenstein (鈥淲hereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent鈥�) and others had done was a sickening betrayal of the discipline, for which they ought to have been ashamed.

More recent philosophers have tried to retrace the Kantian path, and rightly so. In his witty short introduction to philosophy, What Does It All Mean? (1987), Thomas Nagel returns to the Golden Rule (the categorical imperative is the Golden Rule with philosophical knobs on) found also in Confucius as well as Jesus. There is one general argument against hurting other people, he says, which can be given to anybody: 鈥淗ow would you like it if someone did that to you?鈥� If you would resent it, you are admitting that you think he would have a reason not to do it to you. And if you admit that, you have to consider what that reason is. Once you admit that another person would have a reason not to harm you in similar circumstances, and once you admit that the reason he would have is very general and doesn鈥檛 apply only to you, or to him, then to be consistent you have to admit that the same reason applies to you now.

鈥淭he basis for morality is a belief that good and harm to particular people (or animals) is good or bad not just from their point of view, but from a more general point of view, which every thinking person can understand. That means that each person has a reason to consider not only his own interests but the interests of others in deciding what to do鈥�.

Hume, Ayer and co. were therefore wrong to dismiss the role of reason in ethics. It means taking into consideration not only the rights of others but also all our relevant desires and not just the desire that happens to be strongest at the moment. In short, it involves us thinking about the consequences of our actions. As Bertrand Russell put, 鈥淎 man is rational in proportion as his intelligence informs and controls his desires鈥� (Can Men Be Rational?, 1935).

It is also in this sense that Leonard Woolf spoke when he remarked: 鈥淭he sordid and savage story of history has been written by man鈥檚 irrationality, and the thin precarious crust of civilisation which has from time to time been built over the bloody mess has always been built by reason鈥� (主播大秀 broadcast, 1949).

As for 鈥榯ruth鈥�, Peter, I would say that ethics must take into account both a correspondence concept of truth (that is, truth relates to the facts, reality etc) and the coherence notion that values are 鈥榯rue鈥� if they are internally consistent with one another. In other words, to give an example, our morality is possibly 鈥榰ntrue鈥� to itself if we both strongly object to killing and believe in severe punishment for it but at the same support a war in which thousands or millions are killed. I say 鈥榩ossibly鈥� because if we think the war is an exception to our general rule, then we need bloody good reasons to justify it. But I can return to the ethical code in a later posting.

Nonplussed: I agree with nearly all that you say, especially about education (you obviously have a special intrerest in this area).

Brian wrote: "I agree ... about the politeness and even rightness of openness. Nonpluss鈥檚 reasons for hiding behind the mask of anonymity I did not find convincing, but it is his choice and we have to live with it. Now we have Les (who has been known to change his mind on this subject 鈥� see Embryology thread) expressing his willingness to hide behind the man behind the mask."

It appears that I am not the only person to change his mind. On this thread you have been denouncing anonymity, especially in print media, yet you yourself publish articles under pseudonyms in the magazine which you edit. I remember one article on "Gutless Journalists" which you signed "Prospero"!!!

But I approve of the changes of heart. Keep them coming!

Brian,

Excellent summary of the philosophers.

By coincidence, I listened to a 鈥楶oint of Inquiry鈥� podcast this morning interviewing Austin Dacy. Turns out he鈥檚 the author of the book 鈥淪ecular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life鈥� - here鈥檚 a bit of the Amazon blurb:

鈥淭he godly claim a monopoly on the language of morality in public debate, while secular liberals stand accused of standing for nothing. Secular liberals have undone themselves. For generations, too many have insisted that questions of conscience-religion, ethics, and values are "private matters" that have no place in public debate. Ironically, this ideology prevents them from subjecting religion to due scrutiny when it encroaches on individual rights and from unabashedly defending their own moral vision in politics for fear of "imposing" their beliefs on others. In this incisive book, philosopher Austin Dacey calls for a bold rethinking of the nature of conscience and its role in public life. Inspired by an earlier liberal tradition he traces to Spinoza and John Stuart Mill, Dacey urges liberals to lift their self-imposed gag order and argues for a secularism based on the objective moral value of questions of conscience.鈥�

Sounded pretty relevant to this discussion. Wasn鈥檛 sure about the use of the word objective in that blurb and his discussion, though.

My interest in education is just a combination of being a product of the segregated Northern Irish education system and living in England as they apparently attempt to reproduce it.

Nonplussed, Rather than 鈥渏umping from one extreme to the other鈥�, I am simply asking for a bit of consistency. You can鈥檛 really call for equal rights to be afforded in the teaching of ethics and then call for the religious point of view to be excluded just because it is religious or because you don鈥檛 agree with it. And don鈥檛 come back with the I object to state funding stuff; I presume that if you had your choice you would deliberately choose to fund the teaching of atheism in schools but not theism. That, if true, is inconsistent. You may of course really be saying that 鈥榓ll possible answers鈥� are given equal footing in the classroom, with the religious view included. At this stage I am not sure of your stance.

In terms of education generally however, you seem to be saying that the state has a legitimate right to use the educational system to communicate its ethical worldview, if so, I disagree. Indeed I would argue that this sets a dangerous precedent for both theist and atheist alike, opening up to the possibility of creeping totalitarianism, church, humanist, military or otherwise. Hence the deliberate oxymoron 鈥榮ecular theocracy鈥�. Frankly the less state involvement in education the better. Indeed at a purely practical level, given the current performance levels, we鈥檇 be best sticking with literacy and numeracy.

Therefore I have sympathy with your view that schools are not the place for indoctrination, but this must mean all indoctrination. The churches appear not to have recognised the problem (from their point of view) of receiving state funding and of using the institutions of the state to communicate their message. Doing so inevitably will lead to compromise, on their part, or acting in a way that would be perceived as discriminatory. They would be better not seeking the funding in the first place. I for one do not believe that we as christians have a right to it.

The trouble you seem to be having is that the underlying structures of the state have, for many, many years been Judeo-Christian. Its ethics are, whether we like it or not, woven into the fabric of our society. Why do we have for example Roman Catholic or CofE schools? Probably because at some point the churches were the only people prepared to educate many of the various sections of our society. If this was, as you say, an attempt to 鈥渕arshal social disapproval for taboo breaking (rather) than genuinely developing ethical thought鈥�, or even education, then that was poor, but it would also seem to leave you holding a spectacularly cynical point of view.

What however, you are unable to consistently argue, is that the state removes the ethical voice of the church and then replaces it with an ethical voice of its own. It鈥檚 sort of like arguing that you can say 鈥榩o-tay-to鈥� but I can鈥檛 say 鈥榩o-tah-to鈥�! Anyway, if you do I will simply turn all of your arguments back on you.

One more simple point. You regularly mention that 鈥榬eligious observance is falling in the UK鈥�, I agree, but the latest ComRes poll broadcast on Radio Four鈥檚 鈥楽unday鈥� programme indicates that 57% of people in Britain believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I mean, the resurrection, not merely his historical existence? That鈥檚 a big call! So, if you鈥檒l pardon the pun, christianity might not be as dead as we think!

Les:

Apart from changing your mind twice on the Embryology Bill (for, then against, and now apparently for), you have even changed your mind about giving up!

You are quite right about my use of a pseudonym in a Diary column. I assure you that it is merely following journalist diary tradition and to avoid a too frequent appearance of the same name. As you know, not too many local humanists are prepared to put their ideas in print, although the situation is hopefully changing now that the magazine has more writers from all over Ireland. Moreover, although I have used a pseudonym, I will if asked unveil it and did so in the case to which you refer. On this blog, I have never used a pseudonym and am quite prepared to put myself entirely on the line.

Also, your reference to 鈥楪utless Journalists鈥� is inacurrate and personalises the issue 聽鈥� itself a dubious journalistic trait. The item was about 鈥楪utless Journalism鈥� and pointed to a systemic or structural failure of journalism in general in Northern Ireland.

Let us return to nonpluss鈥檚 original posting:

鈥淚f I had a platform I would raise the issue of why we let self-serving interest groups highjack public debate on such matters鈥�.

We seem to have established two main reasons why the media in general do this:

1. Pressure from privileged interest groups, e.g. the main churches.

2. Absence of alternative scientific/secular voices.

Let us return to this second reason. There are several possible explanations of it:

(1) The media do not ask them enough.
(2) They are reluctant to 鈥榗ompromise鈥� their professional objectivity;
(3) They are reluctant to challenge the privileged groups. Why? They don鈥檛 want to appear offensive? They want to preserve or establish an image of respectability? They lack moral and intellectual courage to speak out? In extreme cases they fear for their lives or jobs?

But, whatever the reason, if those who fall into category 2 are regularly 鈥榟iding behind a mask of anonymity鈥�, then I鈥檓 afraid they are effectively allowing the pressure from the churches and other privileged groups to succeed because the fact of the matter is that the media want to identify a viewpoint because they assume that the public don't want to read abstract discussion/argument but prefer soundbites, simplifications and personalisations. It seems to me that in order to counter this tendency, we need at least to let it be known who we are.

In other words, the churches succeed partly by default of the lack of clearly identified public opposition to them on many issues.

[Take 4 - this is getting ridiculous]

Brian,

Excellent summary of the philosophers.

By coincidence, I listened to a 鈥楶oint of Inquiry鈥� podcast today interviewing Austin Dacy. Turns out he鈥檚 the author of: 鈥淪ecular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life鈥� - here鈥檚 a bit of the Amazon blurb:

鈥淭he godly claim a monopoly on the language of morality in public debate, while secular liberals stand accused of standing for nothing. Secular liberals have undone themselves. For generations, too many have insisted that questions of conscience-religion, ethics, and values are "private matters" that have no place in public debate. Ironically, this ideology prevents them from subjecting religion to due scrutiny when it encroaches on individual rights and from unabashedly defending their own moral vision in politics for fear of "imposing" their beliefs on others. In this incisive book, philosopher Austin Dacey calls for a bold rethinking of the nature of conscience and its role in public life. Inspired by an earlier liberal tradition he traces to Spinoza and John Stuart Mill, Dacey urges liberals to lift their self-imposed gag order and argues for a secularism based on the objective moral value of questions of conscience.鈥�

He has a US focus, but it sounded pretty relevant to this discussion. Wasn鈥檛 sure about the use of the word objective in that blurb and his discussion, though. He lectures in ethics so I鈥檓 sure it wasn鈥檛 casually used, but I am curious to know what lies be hind it.

My interest in education is just a combination of being a product of the segregated Northern Irish education system and living in England as they apparently attempt to reproduce it.

PB!

"full marks for distortion."

You accusing someone else of distortion!?!? now I have seen everything! I did not actually think it was possible for you to be an even bigger hypocrite but there you go!

And PB you *are* a sterotype!

XX

DD

First of all everyone is correct, posting is a disaster. A bit like buses, first you can鈥檛 post at all and then you get 2 at once. Sorry it was the same one. I blame the media in general and the 主播大秀 in particular, doesn鈥檛 everyone?

Brian, you quote an awful lot of people! (post 28)

I asked you how you made the leap from Socrates鈥� alternatives about a good god鈥檚 will and an ethical framework, to the word 鈥榤ust鈥�; and it appears that you are saying that logically it must be accepted because the alternatives given are either (i) true, or (ii) the only alternatives available. Sort of circular, don鈥檛 you think?

And then you start all over again, 鈥榳e are morally bound to seek the truth..鈥� So we鈥檙e morally bound (do you really mean bound?, as in religio, root re - ligare meaning "bind, connect") to seek the truth because, we鈥檙e, er, em, morally bound to seek the truth?

And then you tell me that it all has to do with 鈥渢he 鈥榗ategorical imperative鈥� 鈥�, the 鈥渁bsolute and unconditional duty, which always applies whatever the consequence鈥�, (do you really mean absolute?) So the categorical imperative is the framework by which we define and derive our morals? And we arrive at the notion of categorical imperative by reason and the general acceptance that we do to others as we do to ourselves? (which as you point out was, among others, a Jesus thing.) And then we are to believe that our success at this is in proportion to our intelligence. Thing is, sometimes it takes really intelligent people to commit really cruel acts.

Which brings me back to your original premise. Maybe, and I鈥檓 just spitballing here, maybe there is another option. Maybe good gods issue non-arbitrary ethical commands. Maybe they are bound by their own characters rather than an independent standard of right and wrong. This option would at least allow the gods to remain gods rather than rendering them subordinate to another (higher?) code, thus making any notion of their god-ness nonsense. All I鈥檓 saying is that the alternatives you present do not, in and of themselves, demand that I accept them. In short they present no 鈥榤ust鈥�.

And that leads to the problem of Jesus. He did indeed refer to what you call 鈥楾he Golden Rule/Categorical Imperative鈥�, but he claimed he was the author of the rule, which few other people appear to have done. This within your worldview would make him a 鈥榖ogey man鈥� and his followers mercenary. Unless of course there was a third option.

Furthermore, even if I concede a concept of ethics independent of God, which of course they would have to be if God did not exist, your Golden Rule must find a way of dealing with the problem of forgiveness. Not simply because the ethics you describe will, by their very nature be situational ethics, based on consensus, but also because they provide no imperative to forgive. How should I deal with the irrational, the uncivilised or more especially with those who are just plain cruel? Is there anything in your worldview which provides not only a consistent standard of justice, but drives me beyond justice to mercy. Is there anything which drives me to embrace my enemy except the hope that he has or will stop assaulting me?

Anyway apart from all of that, all I have to do is suggest that people act morally, on the basis of reason because they hope for the 鈥榬eward鈥� of civilisation. Which makes your worldview as mercenary as mine.

The last thing I want to say at this point is that both yourself and Nonplussed are beginning to sound like American Fundamentalist Christians with the language you use...

why (do) we let self-serving interest groups highjack public debate on such matters
Pressure from privileged interest groups, e.g. the main churches.
(the media) are reluctant to 鈥榗ompromise鈥� their professional objectivity;
They are reluctant to challenge the privileged groups

Surely it鈥檚 not a conspiracy? Surely you guys aren鈥檛 having a crisis of identity. Maybe the church is better at getting its message out because our PR man is in sovereign control of all the universe. That couldn鈥檛 be true, could it? Or maybe Les is right, maybe we all need a change of heart?

Pb. As you requested, I reread your post. Your intention may well be otherwise, but I feel I made a reasonable interpretation of what you actually wrote.

You may not have intended to demean the Parkinson鈥檚 sufferer鈥檚 pain, but you did very quickly dismiss it without qualification. It sounded harsh to me.
Your original post did not say 鈥減ain in its own right is not an informed position from which to legislate on such important matters鈥�. You said she 鈥渄oes not appear to be any better informed than me. she only justifies such research on account of her pain鈥� 鈥� much more dismissively worded. In any case, sufferers have every right to be heard so that those who are legislating can balance all the consequences of their decision.

I don鈥檛 doubt that commercial interests exist, what I question is why you would decide that is the likely reason for a Parkinson sufferer to write to a newspaper in support of research into that disease.
A willingness to attribute malign intent in such a situation gave me the impression of one who feels his values are being deliberately targeted, as opposed to suffering collateral damage from research with other, honourable motives. Hence my comments about personalisation. Additionally, until the assertion that dividing skin cells are people is better made, I read your arguments as defending your values, not theirs.

I had characterised references to Frankenstein and such as emotional manipulation and you then chastised me for not tackling the 鈥榚motive humanist-liberal type polemic鈥�. You then queried why 鈥渢he most controversial proposed research is always purely considered for the most heart rending and emotional exceptional cases鈥� and diminished the importance of a sufferer鈥檚 opinion. This sounded very much like drawing equivalence to me.

You sought to favour the 鈥榡udeo christian鈥� heritage over the 鈥榤isery and sadness鈥� you say results from humanism in order to argue for the acceptance of religious morality in this instance. I was merely pointing out that the religious tradition you cherish has had to be considerably tempered by wider, enlightenment principles before arriving at today鈥檚 happy state of affairs. I was not implying that you favoured theocracy, just that, as we thankfully no longer have one, arguments must do more than cite religious privilege.

I wasn鈥檛 aware that your point about scientists not caring if less controversial approaches exist was your central one as it only merited half a sentence and a link in your original post. Scientists wish to explore whatever approaches appear to offer potential. If you wish them to not enter a room, it is insufficient to say that other rooms are available, you have to provide valid reasons why that room is out of bounds. The other rooms are already being explored 鈥� it is in the nature of science that it is difficult to predict in advance which will offer the best rewards. The alternative approach you linked to is in the very early stages, unproven and, as I understand it, is itself only possible due to discoveries arising from work the church would also have banned.

I didn鈥檛 avoid your womb perspective. I countered it by pushing your approach to an even earlier stage in the process. I had hoped to illustrate that you have chosen the instant that cow eggshell meets human skin-cell for your definition of personhood. This is not self evident to all and cannot just be asserted. You may have rested your case too soon.

If my 鈥楾rue Believer鈥� comment misrepresents your position then I apologise for any mischaracterization. However, you asserted that 鈥渢he precendents are on God鈥檚 side of this argument鈥�. Claiming to know god鈥檚 side of the argument, given the existence of believers who disagree, does little to discourage this wrong impression.

Peter, as I am not calling for atheist schools, I think I am being consistent.

I favour a secular approach which, contrary to what many religious leaders seem to believe, is not synonymous with atheism. It is quite possible to help develop ethical thinking without having to start with either 鈥淕od says鈥︹�� or 鈥淭here are no gods鈥�. You can have discussions of society, norms, consequences and such without imposing a theological viewpoint.

I鈥檓 glad you (seem to) agree that schools are not the place for indoctrination, but I do not think they should keep completely silent on these matters. If schools are to enforce standards of behaviour and teach kids how to function in society, they cannot just avoid these issues. By getting a more rounded view of the tensions at play, I would hope it would make them more able to understand the decisions they will later have to take for themselves.
I do not accept that this amounts to just an alternative form of indoctrination. The state should not impose a narrow set of beliefs, but kids should be educated about fundamental individual rights, why society needs rules, why we have arrived at our current set even though they permit behaviours some see as immoral, and so on.

Again, I am not expecting the religious view to be excluded. I favour teaching about religions and their different perspectives as well as some of the reasons atheists remain unconvinced. I just don鈥檛 think schools should teach any particular one of them as being true. Here is part of religious think tank Ekklesia鈥檚 reaction to the recent NUT multi-faith schools proposals:
"As part of the recognition of the place of schools in their local and global communities, it is also right that provision should be made for believers to have space for voluntary devotions and for after-school activities related to their beliefs - in exactly the same way as other clubs, social and non-religious cultural activities are recognised. This is something that both believers and non-believers should be able to support, in addition to properly pedagogic (informative and evaluative) education within the curriculum concerning our different life stances and beliefs.
"But what the NUT seems to be proposing, on the other hand, goes in a very different direction - towards making 鈥渃onfessional鈥� (conviction based) religious teaching a core school activity. That confuses the role of the school with that of the church, mosque, temple, gurdwara or synagogue. Moreover, as currently conceived, a 鈥榤ulti-faith agenda鈥� will not make proper provision, as it should, for the needs of the growing number of non-religious pupils"

Fire brigades first started as private companies that only put out fires in subscribers鈥� houses. The historic origins of religious schools are not a strong enough reason to think them a good idea now, and certainly do not support further expansion. Several former Education Secretaries have made comments to the effect that such schools would not be introduced from scratch today, but they felt unable to tackle the subject of undoing history.

My comments about marshalling social disapproval were not related to schools, per se, so I hope I escape the charge of spectacular cynicism (on this occasion, at least). I was referring to how the wider society achieved conformity through intolerance and rejection of anyone straying from the very straight and narrow. Fear of social exclusion often figured much more highly than weighing the ethics of the situation in peoples consideration of how to behave (in public, at least).
My point was that the church鈥檚 over-reliance on fear of consequences failed them when those social consequences greatly diminished. We have to put more work into explaining how to actively evaluate the ethics of a situation now that proscriptive lists of banned behaviour are harder to enforce. This is more difficult to do, but seems vital now the shortcuts don鈥檛 work so well.

On the subject of the state using schools to communicate its ethical world view, you say: 鈥溾�� I disagree. Indeed I would argue that this sets a dangerous precedent for both theist and atheist alike, opening up to the possibility of creeping totalitarianism, church, humanist, military or otherwise.鈥�
As the precedent has been well and truly set by religious schools, are you agreeing that they should also provide only secular education? I have to say, I did not get this impression from your previous posts that seemed to justify such activity on grounds such as free speech. I could have saved myself a lot of typing.

I鈥檓 not hugely impressed that a poll finds 57% believe in the resurrection. In the survey you quote only 30% believe in a bodily resurrection and it finds 7% of atheists agreeing that Jesus was the Son of God. There is a world of difference between nodding assent to a common idea and an active belief in what is a monumental proposal that should alter and constrain one鈥檚 daily behaviour. To fight stat with stat, a previous, robustly sized, survey found only 22% believing in a personal creator god who heard their prayers. It does raise the very tricky subject of what it means to say you believe something, and I don鈥檛 know how to robustly measure this in such a subject other than to look at what people do, rather than what they say.

Peter,

Labelling people who object to religious behaviour as 鈥榝undamentalist鈥� is hardly original but, yet again, the word has been used with little justification.

The example of mine that you cite to justify slurring me as using fundamentalist language is 鈥渨hy (do) we let self-serving interest groups highjack public debate on such matters鈥�.

Firstly, this was in response to the Scottish Cardinal鈥檚 speech. This was as blatant and unequivocal an example of self-serving misinformation and falsehood from the religious as we have seen in recent times (and you want to claim god as their PR guy?). Despite containing no new information, it led the news bulletins on rhetoric value alone and most subsequent debate was framed in terms of 鈥榬eligious conscience鈥�.
I view such a distorted approach as harmful. Even if the legislation is eventually passed it may be the poorer for a lack of scrutiny of the detailed wording, with so much of the debate being consumed correcting misleading impressions. Am I not entitled to strongly object to such a state of affairs?

Secondly. You seemed to have missed that my point was as much about the manner in which the rest of us respond to such religious pronouncements. I made a call for greater engagement in the debate and not have it simply run on religious terms by default. I even referred to a book that places the blame firmly on failings of the secular approach. I at no time demanded a ban on religious PR. Self-criticism is neither fundamentalism nor an identity crisis.

Likewise, you extract a part of Brian鈥檚 post where he listed a variety of possible reasons as to why the secular argument is not effectively heard. Trying to unpack and analyse the situation to determine how much is habit, laziness, deference and self-censorship is reasonable if you have a particular interest in encouraging greater open secular engagement with these issues. This does not qualify as jumping to conspiracy theories.

I feel I have highlighted valid concerns, sought to explain my position when questioned and pressed only for a debate that is more reflective of the reality of the situation, that admits religious and non-religious on a level playing field. To take this trouble but then be labelled with fundamentalism is aggravating. I believe that my posts in this thread have been as far from fundamentalism as is possible whilst still expressing my opinion.

Before you toss around the fundamentalist word, please reflect on an imbalance underlying this debate. If opponents to the research succeed then supporters are denied or delayed access to whatever treatments might have arisen. If supporters succeed then the opponents will be under no obligation to be subjected to any treatments arising from it. Refer to my last response to pb should you feel that opponents selflessly act in defence of voiceless third parties.

Some people may well believe that 鈥済ood gods issue non-arbitrary ethical commands鈥�. The problem is that the gods don鈥檛 speak for themselves. All we have are thousands of self-proclaimed spokesmen who do not seem to agree over much of what they say these gods have told them.
Given this inconsistency, and the presence of a growing number who do not believe in gods at all, we need some other basis upon which to agree what is to be permitted. That means a debate centred more on demonstrable positions. If some hear commands to the contrary, they can hardly be binding on those of us who doubt their provenance.

Nonplussed, I had already written the following paragraph before reading post 39. But now having done so wish to point out that I had no intention of aggravating you. It was a sort of tongue in cheek comment, with is obviously hard to communicate merely in text. I made it because there is a degree of similarity in the language you used, like 鈥榟ijack鈥� and the sort of thing I hear from certain christians. I simply found it amusing! I was not accusing you of being fundamentalist per se. Therefore the following is also true.

I have to say, Nonplussed, that I am impressed with your willingness to engage in constructive debate. Too often debates relating to religion, ethics, secularism etc. resemble a slanging match which would not be out of place in a school playground.

What I would like to do then is to push this notion of consistency a bit further. You say you favour a secular approach to education and, that it is possible to develop ethical thinking without having to start with either 鈥淕od says...鈥� or 鈥淭here are no gods鈥�.

The trouble however is this, (and I know you have pointed this out) ethics concern human behaviour. They concern determining accepted rules relating to human behaviour, and as soon as you talk about, behavior and rules and rights, this is already a belief system. It (secularism as you call it) is as much a belief system as theism, pantheism or atheism. It鈥檚 just another way to live. You are quite correct, it need not be, synonymous with atheism, but it is non the less a belief system. And as soon as you start teaching beliefs, whatever they are, then you start teaching something different to, for example, Maths. Whether or not we have an ethical basis for Maths might well be a question we want to ask, but it is a different question.

The bottom line is this, there is nothing in say, Maths or Science, that demands that I behave in a particular way. The agreement we reach about our ethical code must be arrived at in a different way and that way is dependent on what we believe. For example, quoting from Ekklesia鈥檚 response to the NUT, we read concerns about making 鈥榗onviction based religious teaching a core activity鈥�. Fair enough. As a Christian I probably would choose not to send my child to a school that demanded adherence to the Koran, but, at the simplest level, telling a child to sit in his seat in Maths class and listen up still requires a conviction, a confessional, of some sort. However the problem of sitting up and listening is such a basic behaviour, that most people of all faiths and none, will agree to this code. Although ask the different groups for the basis of their agreement and I suspect you will get different answers. Those that don鈥檛 agree will probably teach their kids at home.

More importantly you also say that, various beliefs or non beliefs should be included in the curriculum, but you 鈥榡ust don鈥檛 think schools should teach any particular one of them as being true鈥�. Again that view is a belief system, and if the state were to demand that all children attending these schools adhere to this view then, like the example given about the Koran, I would probably choose not to sent my children to those schools. Why, because I defend the right of each parent to educate their own children as they see fit. The Muslim parent, the Christian parent and the Secular parent, that鈥檚 what I thought democracy was.

So, on the basic question of consistency, I am simply suggesting that secular education is no less 鈥榝aith鈥� based than religious education, and that maybe a truly inclusive state would fund everybody.

Nonplussed, you say,

鈥淚t does raise the very tricky subject of what it means to say you believe something, and I don鈥檛 know how to robustly measure this in such a subject other than to look at what people do, rather than what they say.鈥�

A very fair comment.

So if I indulge in a little self-criticism myself, it is unfortunate, shameful even, that the actions of christians often do not reflect what they say they believe. If we say we believe in the resurrection then that belief 鈥榮hould alter and constrain (our) daily behaviour鈥�.

On this point you are quite correct.

Peter:

You are a hard taskmaster (#35). You ask me about truth, duty, reciprocity, justice, media conspiracies etc without explaining any of your own opinions, except to slip in little hints that maybe, just maybe, God/Jesus is the answer to all our problems. I鈥檓 not buying it, Peter, it鈥檚 a complete cop-out. Also, I suggest you leave pyschoanalysis out of it, for two can play at that game.

MORALITY AND RELIGION
You say that 鈥淢aybe good gods issue non-arbitrary ethical commands. Maybe they are bound by their own characters rather than an independent standard of right and wrong鈥�. But who determines that the gods are good? Themselves? Then their goodness is arbitrary and their commands to us are equally so. If the gods command us to do what is good, then either (1) the actions are good because they command them or (2) they command them because they are good. For Plato/Leibnitz/Russell et al there is no logical escape from these two alternatives. But perhaps your logic is different from theirs and mine. Russell put it as follows: 鈥淚f you are quite sure that there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God鈥檚 fiat or is it not? If it is due to God鈥檚 fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God鈥檚 fiat, because God鈥檚 fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them鈥� (鈥榃hy I am not a Christian鈥�).

TRUTH

Sure, words like morality, truth, duty etc are all human concepts, but there are also realities independent of us, e.g. the earth existed long before us and the universe even longer. 鈥楥omment is free, but facts are sacred鈥�, as C.P. Scott would say. In other words, factual truth is objective, while values are subjective but 鈥榮hould鈥� take account of facts. We are morally bound to seek the truth if we believe that truth is important (BTW, Plato/Socrates were Greek and therefore the idea of being 鈥榖ound鈥� to something has nothing to do with the word 鈥榬eligio鈥�, which is Latin). And it is important because knowledge enriches our lives. I don鈥檛 like philosophies like, for example, Kierkegaard鈥檚 which denigrate objective truth and knowledge. It seems to me that they are evasions or acts of desperation because knowledge is a powerful weapon on the onslaught against the whole god delusion. The religious don鈥檛 want to face up to the truth, so they make light of truth in general. But, Peter, the tide of knowledge 聽鈥� astronomical, physical, archeological, geological, biological etc 聽鈥� will continue to wash away the sea of faith, whether you like it or not.

DUTY
I said that Kant sought to bring reason back into ethics and argued that as rational beings, we should act out of duty to 聽鈥� respect for 聽鈥� the moral law. A moral law is one that is universalisable. Some actions if universalised will contradict the possibility of those actions. Take, for example, lying. You shouldn't lie, says Kant, because if everyone lied, there would be no sense in lying. Lying, to be coherent, requires a general practice of truth-telling. I am not saying that his argument is foolproof but nevertheless I think he was right to make the effort. The principle of reciprocity was expressed by Jesus but also by others before him, e.g. Confucius.

MERCY/FORGIVENESS
Humanists believe in humaneness, a philosophy of reason, love and humanity. We have no more or fewer problems with forgiveness than anyone else. But we believe, for example, in voluntary euthanasia, which is a far more humane and merciful end than a rigid religious opposition to euthanasia. We also believe in a humane approach to sex, whereas religions tend to treat it oppressively. Indeed, on a whole range of issues I think you will find that humanism is more loving, kind and merciful than most of the major religions.

MEDIA CONSPIRACY
I don鈥檛 think that either nonplussed or myself are saying that there is a media conspiracy to favour privileged interest groups like the churches. What I think we would say is that there are certain tacitly agreed assumptions that their voices should be heard whereas this is not true to the same extent of other groups, e.g. secularists, anti-Iraq war activists etc. We are not alone in this view. See Guardians of Power by David Edwards and David Cromwell and Flat Earth News by Nick Davies.

EDUCATION
I have a problem with your suggestion that parents have the right to decide on the education of their children. Do you mean that they can 鈥榯each鈥� them whatever they want? Hardly. Presumably you go along with the idea of an agreed 鈥榗urriculum鈥� of some sort.
And what about the rights iof the child? Is the child not a person in its own right? Can you guarantee that a parent will protect its child鈥檚 right to think for itself? On religious education, I think that children have a right to learn about ALL the main world views, including religious and secular. I also think that morality should not be treated as an appendage of religion. Therefore I favour something along the lines of the Scottish system of 鈥楻eligious and Moral Education鈥� and I would argue that all children should be taught it, whether they go to a state-funded school or a 鈥榝aith鈥� school (鈥榝aith schools鈥� would have no funding from the state and would have to sustain themselves).

Non plussed

thanks, a much more reflective response.

I guess my first response was quite brief which may have allowed room for misunderstanding though I feel you did jump too quick on a few points.

If you read my post again I was not making any definitive statements about this research as I honestyly know so little about it.

But I do think it quite naive of you to suggest that scientists are merely interested in science, while dismissing the influence of commerce on them, directly on indirectly.

I restate my case that I am suspcious that only the highest morals are cited in favour of the most controversial reasearch.

It just seems too much too me.

I have heard of senior govt ministers who oppose proposals that would encourage more adoption of children who would otherwise be aborted, and apparently on fervent ideological grounds.

I cant help but feel that the same spirit pervades much of this debate.

ie it almost seems that a reactionary liberal kneejerk response to anything that seems pro-life.

Yes the enlightenment had a major influence on western democracy but dont forget it cost the lives of multitudes of people to overthrow the divine rights of kings, I would say needlessly.

Just look at the absolute chaos of the french revolution.

John Wesley is crediedt with moderating any similar influence in the UK.

So I wouldnt like to live in a theocracy and think a secualr influence is a useful balance to religious subculture in govt.

Ref slavery, just for the record the early church had a large percentage of slaves, with many of the apostles describing themselves as slaves in their letters.

Paul's letter to Philemon was a case staudy in freeing a slave which was published to the church and used widely to oppose slavery in the US.

"Slavery" in the bible was for petty criminals, POWs, and those who needed a welfare net. Anyone forcing another into slavery was to be punished by death.

Most slaves were household servants, with manual labour done by hired labour.

A commercial trade in kidnapping and trading people was punishable by death.

Pauls letter to philemon was the start of a quiet revolution against slavery. He could not instigate an open revolt in the roman empire.

ref empricism, this is a very modern investion in the history of science and to presume to use it against God would horrify the mainly christian leaders of the scientific revolution.

for the vast majority of the history of science it was the study of the uniformity of natural causes in an open system (supernatural world).

The enlightenment overturned this worldview cocnlsuively only around 100 years ago.

so I hope you are not presuming to suggest that science disproves or frowns on the idea of God.

I also restate my case that the authority is on God's side of the arguemtn a\nd without apology.

Christian faith plus enlightenment thinking equals the most desireable socieites to live in today.

Elightenment thinking without Christian influence equals materialistic socieites that brought misery.

I think you are strongly overstating the case of the enlightenment making desireable socieites though.

The entire british legal system is founded on the bible, and people such as wilberforce headed campaigns such as british education, penal reform, abolition of slavery etc etc.

To me the french revolution is the epitome of what enlightenment thinking has in its own right and it was chaos with bloof running in the streets, country and town across France. it was a disaster.

again, i do think religious subculture is dangerous if in total power, but is still the foundation of most desierable socities.

PB

Hi Brian,

You say I am a hard taskmaster. I think I鈥檒l take that as a compliment; I鈥檓 being no harder on the secular humanist view of the world than I am on my own, which is, just so we are clear, Judeo-Christian/Biblical Christianity. The trouble is, on the basis of a lot of the comments on this blog, it appears that saying this opens me up to ridicule, purely on the basis that the view is religious. Religion? If it floats its guilty, if it drowns its not.

On the other accusations, 鈥榗op-out鈥� and 鈥榩sychoanalysis鈥�, I don鈥檛 think that (1) asking questions in a genuine attempt to understand your thinking, or that hinting at the notion of God as an answer counts as cop-out; there might have be some rhetorical overstatement, but its hardly a crime. And (2) psychoanalysis? I merely challenged your assumptions. What I said was, 鈥淚f we are going to assume nothing, then nothing really must mean nothing, nothing at all...鈥� with the word 鈥榳e鈥� meaning me also. I鈥檝e whispered enough heresy to myself over the years to know that its not a 鈥榞ame鈥�.

I don鈥檛 particularly want to debate the arbitrary god issue again, we obviously disagree, but philosophically you can鈥檛 accuse the gods of arbitrary commands simply because they determine themselves to be good. You say, 鈥渋f (the difference between right and wrong) is due to God鈥檚 fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong鈥�. But, Brian, the first statement need not necessarily imply the other, which is what you are insisting it must do. This 鈥榠f...then鈥� argument does not have to be true. You have not established a must.

More importantly it raises the issue of how we know. Secular humanism, being primarily rationalist, says that we know on the basis of science and reason. And yes, science and reason are a good thing. Nowhere have I said that 鈥榝aith鈥� implies an abhorrence of either, although Christians are often accused of this. Of course we are indebted to science and reason, no Christian with half a brain is going to say otherwise, but, we will also say that knowledge can be and is revealed, as well as observed or thought. And no, revelation does not imply theism, every court in the land permits testimony.

On the point of mercy and forgiveness, yes I do have a view, and it has to do with more than being humane. Being humane is good, but I specifically asked how I might solve the problem of embracing/forgiving my enemy and at the same time uphold justice. The Christian has an answer to this; that God both arranged a punishment (upholding justice) and was the one punished (thereby absolving another). Justice is upheld at a cost only to himself and forgiveness is extended.

Peter, my own humour has often failed to survive email, so I can generally sympathise with the problem. However, I鈥檓 not sure I can fully accept it on this occasion for, even as fodder for a joke, the labels 鈥榝undamentalist鈥� and 鈥榗onspiracy鈥� imply more than just the use of keywords such as 鈥榟ijack鈥�. Nonetheless, I鈥檒l move on - thanks for the clarification and the kind words that followed.

Your previous post almost had me thinking you were against indoctrination in schools. From your latest post to me, I now take you to only consider indoctrination wrong in state schools - School indoctrination is fine for you as long as the parents are choosing the school.

I believe this to be a harmful approach. It is achieving 鈥榝airness鈥� by fragmentation. It is encouraging the development of kids in separate bubbles where they never properly explore views contrary to their parents鈥� beliefs.

When I said schools should teach about religions but not that any one of them is true, I wasn鈥檛 implying they should teach that all of them are false. Comparing and contrasting should be possible without forming an attack on any beliefs held by the kids and I don鈥檛 see how you can view this as a competing belief system in its own right.

I am disappointed that you cannot view the secular education approach I outlined earlier as sufficiently accommodating. We should not have to negotiate one theology of manners before agreeing a school behaviour code. Regardless of belief system, we have a lot of values in common, and have to learn how to negotiate our smaller number of differences. We cannot do this if we never meet someone holding different assumptions. It鈥檚 hard to learn the value of free speech if everyone mostly agrees with you.

If a belief system can only survive if taught to the young entirely in isolation, it may not be all that robust. YEC absolutely does require a bubble to survive for it rejects reality so comprehensively, but more mainstream beliefs that have reached a far more comfortable accommodation with modernity should be able to thrive despite exposure to the alternatives. If you thought yours could not, it would not seem to reflect a high level of confidence in your position.

Would you set any limits on the choices of parents? Would children have any protection to ensure the accuracy of what they are taught? If free speech is the objective could there be, for example, National Front schools for parents more exercised with questions of race than religion? Would the Luddite science of the creationists and the revisionist history of the holocaust deniers both be fine?
I think it downright abusive to give kids this distorted a view of the real world around them. This exceeds the bounds of respecting difference, but seems the logical conclusion of your balkanised approach to education.

When your equate Christian, Muslim and Secular parents I think you miss the intended meaning of secular in this context. Secular education refers to a framework accepting of all but privileging none, believer and disbeliever alike. The only 鈥榝aith鈥� values held by a secular education should be some distillation of our society鈥檚 shared values. If you don鈥檛 think we have a sufficient number of them then that鈥檚 depressing, but all the more reason to favour an education system that brings kids together rather than reinforcing fragmentation.

Given this meaning of secular, I think it is not only consistent within itself, but far more consistent with the society in which it operates 鈥� multiple beliefs having to coexist. It is also more easily achievable than to attempt the provision of a separate school for every flavour of belief within range of every child.

Hi Peter:

You are trying to assert that the Christian god is both synonymous with and the source of all goodness, love, justice, mercy, etc., in the world and that all such acts are examples of god working through individuals. In reply I would make a number of points:

1. This idea of a personal god is not shared by Hindus, Buddhists, non-believers etc 聽鈥� in fact, about 2 billion people. Are you saying that a third of the world鈥檚 population have no moral sense, no idea of justice or mercy?

2. Before the monotheistic personal god religions, people generally believed in many gods, some good, some bad, some peaceful, some warlike. Again, are you seriously suggesting that for thousands of years, perhaps even half a million, people had no capacity for goodness or forgiveness? Certainly, in print you will find many references to these virtues. Read Confucius, the Buddha, Lao Tzu. The last, perhaps born about 600 BC, is reported as saying: 鈥淩ecompense to none evil for evil; repay evil with good鈥�.

3. Justice and mercy are confused and contradictory concepts as outlined in Holy Books like the Bible. Let鈥檚 take the Old Testament first. God promises to give Abraham the land of the Hittites (Gen. 15:20), who are to be driven from the land (Ex. 33.2, Ex. 34:11). Those that stay are to be killed: 鈥淭hou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth鈥�. (Deut. 20: 16-17). Not much mercy here, but presumably that is God鈥檚 justice. Then God orders King Saul to kill the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:2-26). Saul fails to do so, and God orders that his kingdom is taken from him. That is God鈥檚 justice, Peter. The next king, David, defying God鈥檚 justice, has a Hittite among his 30 most mighty warriors, 鈥楿riah the Hittite鈥� (1 Chron. 11:41). God allows him to remain as king, even though he is not following God鈥檚 command that all Hittites should be killed? Has God suddenly become merciful to both David and the Hittites? Well... then David has Uriah killed. is God pleased that David has at least obeyed his command? Not a bit of it. apparently, killing a Hittite is against God鈥檚 command (1 Kings: 15:5). God decides to punish David for killing a Hittite, not with the death penalty as God鈥檚 law commands, but with the kidnapping and rape of his wives (2 Sam. 12:11)! This may or may not be merciful to David, but what it is to his wives is anyone鈥檚 guess. But the story isn鈥檛 over yet. David admits that he messed up, and so God takes away his sin (2 Sam. 12:13). But He commands: 鈥渢he child also that is born unto thee shall surely die鈥� (2 Sam. 12:14). The baby, incidentally, doesn鈥檛 even a quick death but is sick for a week, presumably in pain or discomfort (2 Sam. 12:18). Peter, if you can make sense of the justice and mercy of God in the above, then you鈥檙e a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

4. Moving on to the New Testament, you say: 鈥淕od both arranged a punishment (upholding justice) and was the one punished (thereby absolving another). Justice is upheld at a cost only to himself and forgiveness is extended鈥�. Here again, as with David鈥檚 baby son, we have the idea of the innocent being punished in place of the guilty. It is just a variation of the tradition of the scapegoat. In most ancient cultures and in the Old Testament there developed a tradition of the scapegoat, where often an animal, and later a human, would have all the evil and 鈥榮in鈥� of the tribe placed on him, and then he/she/it was driven away or killed, thereby cleansing the people and diverting the wrath of their particular god/gods. It is a very old shamanistic practice 聽鈥� an offering of a virgin, infant, prisoner, etc, to appease the gods. So, here comes Jesus, the scapegoat and sacrificial lamb, now removing the evil from not just the tribe, but the world, although the world outside Palestine aren鈥檛 aware of it. This time we have a father demonstrating love by subjecting his son to death by torture but with the refinement that the father is not trying to impress god, for he is god, but to impress us all. Sorry, but it leaves me cold.

5. As for substantive justice, we have to ask ourselves: was Jesus concerned about creating a more 鈥榡ust鈥� world? Was he concerned about equality and the rights of women? Was he concerned about the spread of science and education? Was he, in short, a social and political reformer? The answer is that his political philosophy 鈥� if we can give a series of disjointed and contradictory pronouncements such a grandiose title 鈥撀犅� is not at all progressive, and certainly not Humanist. In no way was this man a socialist, as is sometimes claimed. For a start, he encouraged the beating of slaves. (Luke 12:47). He never denounced slavery and incorporated the master-slave relationship into many of his parables.
听听听
As for poverty, he certainly seemed to align himself with the poor and oppressed and condemned the rich, who would find more difficulty than a camel going through the eye of a needle in entering heaven. Luke 6:24 is quite explicit: 鈥淲oe unto you that are rich, for you have received your consolation鈥�. When the rich man asked him what he needed to do to 鈥榠nherit eternal life鈥� (Mark 10:17), his reply was unequivocal: 鈥淕o thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor鈥� (Mark 10:21). But, although he condemned the rich and lived among and preached to the poor, he did nothing or said nothing that could be construed as a coherent policy to alleviate poverty. On the contrary, 鈥淵e have the poor with you always鈥�.

The message instead seemed to be that the poor should be content with their state, for their reward would come in the next life: 鈥淏lessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven鈥� (Matthew 5:3). The essence of the Sermon on the Mount is that the poor, the hungry and the wretched should accept the status quo because they will receive justice eventually in a spiritual dimension beyond this world. As such, the political philosophy of Jesus is a profoundly reactionary message which fails to provide any practical scheme for the good of society. To tell people to 鈥榯rust in god鈥�, to disregard the world, to have no thought for tomorrow, to welcome poverty, to neglect their home and families, to let evil happen is really to compel them to opt out of the human struggle in favour of an escape into an unreal mental world.

7. Finally, Peter, in my experience showing forgiveness, mercy, etc. is a characteristic of some people at certain times. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are religious, but whether they want to share a common humanity.

Non plussed.

there is a tension in the idea of creating one life only for the purpose of destroying it to save another life.

I suggest that people should have the choice of sacrificing themselves.

i know you dispute when life begins, which I would suggest is at fertisilation.

in the interests of honest discussion, at what satge of your emrbyonic development whould you have said would have been the cut off point after which you would not have been happy to have been harvested for a greater good?

PB

non plussed you were sceptical when I expressed suspicion that commercial interests in emvbryonic research could be using PR techniques to manipulate public opinion on the matter.

here is an interesting report on the scale of commerical interests;-

I am sure none of them would ream of using PR companies!

I see a quote in the telegraph today suggesting that we are too afraid to use hybrid cells because nobdy knows what impact they will have on the human body.

I also saw it suggested on the net; Embryonic research may be the answer but that nobody has stated the question.

I do get the whiff that this is more about the rush to patents and money that real concern for public health.

in any event, should research require the deliberate killing of any embyronic person I question its value.

Anyone here would would have volunteered to sacrifice themselves as an embryon, please step forward.

PB

Brian, Thank you for your thoughtful reply, it was not 鈥榬idicule鈥�. Nor am I Gunga Din, but I didn鈥檛 miss the irony!

Yes I am saying that the Christian God is synonymous with, and the source of all goodness etc. and, by extension, that the goodness, mercy and so on that we see in the actions of the human race are, what shall we say, his fingerprints. You then pose a number of questions, which I believe I can answer; but please realise this, I am not saying that these are easy answers. It is to be regretted that much of the Christian church has communicated a blind, unquestioning 鈥榝aith鈥�, often ignoring, what I referred to as the problem of evil. If you were to suggest that the response, 鈥榡ust believe鈥� was insufficient, I would agree.

1. A personal god, or not? No, one need not believe in the Christian God in order to have a sense of justice or mercy. The activities of God, are not driven by my believing or disbelieving. My actions do not establish his existence, his establish mine. Of course there is evidence of morality in a variety of communities, it can, I believe, be understood in terms of 鈥榝ingerprint鈥�.

2. Human history? Generally I think this point can be answered by referring to what I have already said. On the specific point of, 鈥淩ecompense to none evil for evil; repay evil with good鈥�, that is indeed commendable, and apparently merciful, but makes no mention of justice, which is, I think, the main point of the tension with which we might struggle. Which brings us to point three.

3. Justice and Mercy? So, where do we start? I鈥檓 not so sure that these are contradictory concepts. Yes, at a personal and societal, level, the realisation of these concepts in our interactions with one another is extremely problematic, our own 鈥楾roubles鈥� being a case in point. One man鈥檚 鈥榤ercy鈥� is often another鈥檚 injustice. You refer to the Bible, which, because it is an account of history in literature, must be interpreted and it is possible for me to do this differently to the way you have done without damaging the text.

If God is acting with intent, then we must ask why he should determine that one nation (Abram) has land while others were displaced. There are a number of answers, one being the establishment of a safe haven for a nation escaping slavery. How do you do this without a war? We can鈥檛 solve this problem today without what are called 鈥榡ust鈥� wars. It is not hatred against Hittites per se. Secondly, if God is telling us a story about himself in order that we understand real good, real justice and real mercy then real things have to happen. The philosophical problem is that 鈥榮omething鈥� does exist. Real crap happens. Much is explainable by empirical evidence and reason, but some is not. We need another explanation. There are a whole range of human dignities and horrors that science cannot explain. Science and reason can explain many things, but on their own they cannot explain why impersonal atoms/energy produce the personality of man, unless you are going to say time plus chance. That view leaves me cold, literally stone cold.

On the point of Saul and David. Am I comfortable with the death of babies? No. With the 鈥渒idnapping and rape of his wives鈥�? well the story doesn鈥檛 actually say they were raped and kidnapped, no more than David kidnapped or raped Bathsheba. What it says is, that as a result of the actions of the king, his household suffered. In other words, what David did to Uriah, God did to David. God acts as Uriah鈥檚 defender and voice when he couldn鈥檛 speak for himself. It鈥檚 justice, it鈥檚 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Should we like it, no, we鈥檙e not supposed to, but equality of suffering is what justice ultimately entails. The story tells us we need something more than, (not something contradictory to) justice. It is what we call mercy. Justice and mercy travel the same road, but mercy goes further than justice. If I am to be merciful I must first be just. Forgiveness is more than forgetting. Forgetting minimises suffering, mercy does not. This explains how David can be absolved while at the same time justice is done for Uriah. Explaining how, is different to simply stating that I ought not repay evil with evil. This also gives us an historical answer. Justice for those generations who failed to receive it.

4. Innocence. I suppose it all depends who we think is innocent. But at a basic level I do not drive a dichotomy between Jesus and God, father and son. To limit our concept to the human notion of son would be to miss the point of the story. I said God arranged the punishment and was punished. The story tells us that Jesus was the very same as God. There is no hint of conflict here, there is agreement. Christians miss this point too. This is not the Marquis de Sade taking pleasure in torture. It is a different story. Specifically, on the point of personal innocence and guilt it explains how I can be absolved. GK Chesterton writing to The Times on the subject of 鈥淲hat鈥檚 Wrong With the World鈥�, wrote, Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely yours...

Brian this answer is already too long, and questions remain, I may come back to it later. I don鈥檛 like every aspect of the answer, but I know that for all my knowledge, I am enough of a problem in the world to lead me to conclude that I can鈥檛 reason myself to a better one. Nor if the God of the Bible exists will I dare call him to account. If he exists, I can鈥檛 dismiss him simply because I don鈥檛 like him.

Dear Brian,

You say ethics "does not depend on religion".

Again you say "a standard of right and wrong that is independent of god's will must be accepted".

How have you logically arrived at these views?

Einstein uses the words "sympathy,education......;no religious basis is necessary".What is Einstein's logical system for these words and statements.

His Theories on Special and General Relativity have a logical system,but even that does not mean they are "true".

Surely you have to explain what you mean by words like "truth","logic" before you use words like "...does not..." or "....must be...".

Your statements seem like religious dogma which I assume you oppose.

Looking forward to your reply,

David.

Hi Peter:

Thanks for the reply. I find your reasoning about the justice of the Old Testament God very unconvincing. You seem to be saying that God, by his own laws, is just, which simply means that 鈥楪od is God鈥�. But if justice is God simply being God, then mercy, which in your view seems to be beyond justice, would be God NOT being God 聽鈥� which is very confusing. But it seems to imply that heads you win, tails I lose, because any example I give you where God is breaking his own just rules will be explained by you you in terms of His mercy, and vice versa.

Let us take the punishment for David killing Uriah. God says: 鈥淏ehold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine own eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun鈥� (2 Sam. 12:11). This, Peter, IS kidnapping and rape, surely? It also seems to imply that God is merciful towards David but dispenses justice through the treatment of his wives (multiple rapes as punishment for murder).

You have also avoided explaining the death of David鈥檚 son. Was this just or merciful? As a result of David鈥檚 actions, you say that his 鈥榟ousehold鈥� suffered, but this not good enough. Why should the son or indeed the household be punished for the sins of the father, Peter? Why indeed should we all be punished for the alleged sin of Adam? Why should Jesus be punished for 鈥榦ur sin鈥�?

It is all a strange notion of justice. Surely, it is unjust to punish the innocent. It is the guilty who deserve punishment. Take civilian casualties in war. The implication of the above is that it was good to drop a bomb on the civilians of Hiroshima, Dresden, Baghdad etc because they had to suffer for the sins of their nation or ruler. Or even to argue that the IRA were right to punish civilians because of the crime of unionism or imperialism. Frankly, it is nonsense and dangerous nonsense at that. If any individual/group does anything that we think is wrong, the implication is that it is just to punish all those who are related to them in any way (friends, countrymen etc). It is an appalling morality.

In the New Testament, we see that God violates his own system of law by damning minor misdemeanours such as theft and blasphemy. The worst crime of all seems to be a refusal to believe in him. Justice here means Hell where there will be a gnashing of teeth for all eternity. Not very just. And certainly not at all merciful (arrogant, yes, merciful, decidedly not).

I am also concerned that you seem preoccupied with retributive justice and have nothing at all to say about distributive justice. We know it is a very unjust world: misery and suffering for some, wealth and happiness for others; starvation alongside luxury; illness beside rude health, etc, etc. Here the Christian has to argue that justice is not attained in this world 聽鈥� even if it is some of the other instances above 聽鈥� but injustice will be remedied in the next. But how on earth can we expect such a god to guarantee justice in another world in view of his weird notions of it when he intervenes in this one? When indeed is his justice exercised in some cases in this world but not in others? How can we possibly know? Is he playing mind games with us?

Dear Brian,

You had a post in one of the blogs that now seems to have been removed.I am nearly sure it was the blog about the geology programme on 主播大秀1.

In it you said that science 鈥渕ay be proof without certainty鈥�.Well is it 鈥減roof without certainty鈥� or not?

Surely it would need to be proof with certainty otherwise how can you say before this that 鈥渟cience is truth鈥�.Do you have any certainty about this statement?If you do have certainty do you have any proof for the same?

What do you mean by proof?What do you mean by certainty?

If someone is going to make scientific claims about how the earth came to be and how old it is then they should tell us

1) the assumptions made (all theories have them)

2) the errors in any measurements made (all physical measurements have them)

This program did not start with observation,proceeding to questions about how to explain what is observed.It made assumptions without telling the watchers of the program.

I studied Geology in school and it is full of assumptions about strata and chemical processes.These were not stated to the class when we studied the subject as impressionable teenagers.

David Agnew

David (#48):

I have already explained why morality does not depend on religion and don鈥檛 propose to retrace my steps on this question. Anyhow, the onus is on whoever thinks it does to explain why. If you think it does, then by all means tell us why.

As for truth, well here goes (in somewhat simplified form):

鈥溾�橶hat is truth?' said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer"聽鈥� Francis Bacon
鈥淢en occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened 聽鈥� Winston Churchill
鈥淗uman kind ... cannot bear very much reality鈥� 聽鈥� T.S. Eliot

I think there are two kinds of truth: first of all, objective truth, which is that which corresponds with factual reality; and, secondly, subjective truth, which is that which coheres with our general system of values. My particular system of values would take into account objective truths.

Objective truth presupposes certain basic laws of logic. I shall mention three. The first is called the law of bivalence, which stipulates that any unambiguous, declarative statement must be either true or false. It cannot be neither true nor false; nor can it be both true and false. 鈥淢y dog Molly is sitting on the mat鈥� is either true or false. Another fundamental law of logic expresses the same concept in a slightly different way, namely the law of excluded middle, which affirms that 鈥渆ither A or non-A鈥�. My dog Molly is either sitting on the mat or she is not. One more principle of logic reinforces the other two. The principle of contradiction states that 鈥淎 cannot be non-A in the same way and in the same respect鈥�. It cannot be true that my dog Molly both is sitting on the mat and is not sitting on the mat. Similarly, it cannot be true that god both exists and does not exist. Either he (she, it, they) exists, or he doesn鈥檛. I think he (she/ it/they) doesn鈥檛. Of course, much depends on what we mean by 鈥榞od(s)鈥�, or perhaps even 鈥榚xists鈥�.

The correspondence view of truth entails that propositional or declarative statements are subject to various kinds of verification and falsification. A statement can be proven false if it can be shown to disagree with objective reality. The photographs from outer space depicting the earth as a blue orb (along with other kinds of evidence) falsified any stubborn flat-earth claims. Certainly, not all falsification is as straightforward as this; but if statements are true or false by virtue of their relationship to what they attempt to describe, this makes possible the marshaling of evidence for their veracity or falsity. I would say that an all-loving, all-knowing God is falsified by the reality of misery, suffering, earthquakes, hurricanes, badness, cruelty, etc. etc. The negatives certainly aren鈥檛 all our fault 聽鈥� disabled babies or tsunamis being obvious examples.

Basically, then, following Aristotle, a proposition is true if things in reality are as it says they are; otherwise it is false. Truth (and falsity) is therefore a function or consequence of what the world is like, not of what we want to believe about the world. It says that the truth or falsity of a statement is an 鈥榦bjective鈥� matter, not a function of what we perceive; i.e., it is not, in general, a 鈥榮ubjective鈥� matter. In this sense, truth does not lie in the eye of the beholder or the beliefs of the believer. The facts are true, whether we like it or not. In other words, there is a world out there independent of our minds. I agree, though, that there is no higher-order verification of the correspondence theory and I also agree that relativism, multicultarlism and postmodernism have all tried to usurp the absolutist notion of truth. But, everyday, phsicists, biologists, architects, and myriad others in their work implictly endorse this correspondence asumption and it brings practical rewards in all spheres of human activity. The postmodern idea that anything goes would not be much use to a planemaker.

Logic (from the Greek 鈥榣ogos鈥�, meaning word, reason, rule, principle) is the use of correct reasoning or valid arguments. A logical deduction with premises and a conclusion implied by the premises might be: 鈥淎ll dogs are descended from the wolf; Molly is a dog; therefore Molly is descended from the wolf鈥�. It is part of the correspondence theory.

Thus an objective truth is a truth of fact or logic.

Subjective truth is different. It cannot be verified or falisified by reality. It relates to statements of good or bad, right or wrong, aesthetic or ugly etc. Subjective truths are truths of value: 鈥渓ife is sweet鈥�; 鈥渃ricket is a bore鈥�; 鈥淭ony Blair is a war criminal鈥�; 鈥渨hite wine is better than red鈥�; 鈥済od is a sadist鈥�; etc. Here I would favour the coherence theory: that a value judgment is 鈥榯rue鈥� if it coheres with, is consistent with, our general system of values. So if we have a general rule that it is wrong to kill, then it is wrong to support or participate in wars in which thousands, perhaps millions, will be killed. We might, on the other hand, make a principle that private killing is wrong but public killing (by the state) might be justified in certain circumstances.

David (#50):

I have just seen your post 50. I'll give it more thought. You are somewhat prone to asking me to define everything while you define little or nothing (a bit like Peter). But my remark about 'proof without certainty' was contrasted with religious belief, which is 'certainty without proof'. A scientist would believe that his theories are probable rather than certain, so 'proof' refers to solid evidence in support of them, whereas a religious believer 'knows' what his believes is true without any evidence or proof whatsoever. He is dogmatic, whereas a scientist is tentative and is aware that theories are subject to possible modification in the light of new discoveries.

PS
Has the impressionable teenager become an even more impressionable adult?