Superficially (by design I expect) the advertising makes it look like a course that promotes an open arena for skeptical inquiry but a quick look at the materials on their WEB site seem to suggest to me that this is not quite the case. (the following picture is a poster for the Alpha course at a train station, in this case the poll has been correctly filled in by a passer by :)
Here are some of the questions tackled during the course (according to their site):
Week 1 Who is Jesus?
Week 2 Why did Jesus Die?
Week 3 How can we have Faith?
Week 4 Why and how do I Pray?
Week 5 Why and how should I read the Bible?
Week 6 How does God Guide us?
Week 7 How can I Resist Evil?
Week 8 Why and how should I tell Others?
Week 9 Does God Heal Today?
Week 10 What about the Church?
These are clearly questions that expect certain kinds of answers, if you answer no to this poll then there seems little point in going on to assume all kinds of things about the divinity of Jesus or the characteristics of mystical ghostly forces? If the answer is yes then presumably you don't need this course but what does "probably" mean, i.e. "probably yes" or "probably no". Most atheists I know would answer this question by saying "almost certainly no" since logically you can't really disprove anything with 100% certainty (not even unicorns), however there is no option for 99.999999999% unlikely.
There are a few sceptical reviews of this material on the WEB, here is a good example which is well worth a read and there have been TV documentaries about it this year; however I thought what might be fun is if I were to re-draft the questions into something that an atheist would like to ask,
Week 1 Why is Christianity true and every other religion false?
Week 2 Why do bad things happen to good people?
Week 3 Why do Christians pray when prayer has been proven to be utterly ineffective?
Week 4 Why do Christians cherry pick the parts of the Bible that suit them to believe in?
Week 5 If the Christian God is so great why is he so vague and elusive?
Week 6 If the universe was built just for humans, why is it so fecking huge and inhospitable?
Week 7 If good things are gifts from God, why aren't bad things also gifts?
Week 8 If the Christian God is perfect and we are made in his image why are we so poorly designed?
Week 9 Why does the Christian God hate amputees?
Week 10 Why does the Christian religion require "faith" at all, why isn't it self evident?
PS. Some of these questions are deep and unanswerable (and tongue-in-cheek).
36 comments:
There was a wonderful documentary about the Alpha course a couple of months ago. It would have ENRAGED you so probably best that you missed it.
One of my good friends actually teaches it!
- we agree to disagree (she's still my friend of course :)
Yeah, good questions!
I think part of the paradox is how religions promote faith, yet true faith opposes institutional dogma.
I mean, if Jesus were born today he'd probably be crucufied by the Pope!
Prayer does work - under certain circumstances.
The person being prayed for must have a disease that can be cured by natural remission (no severed limbs).
The person being prayed for must know he or she is being prayed for.
The person being prayed for must believe in the power of prayer.
It's called the placebo effect, and can be a wonderful curative.
CB, I think it also works just fine for the person doing the praying, makes them feel just dandy I expect. :)
OP, If Jesus were born today he'd have to do some pretty neat tricks to convince people, I mean better than Derren Brown! Mind you, at least we could measure him up against the Turin shroud and finally put that one to bed :)
I don't understand why you persist in describing the historical Jesus as some sort of magician with the intention of creating the inference of charlatanry.
The truth is always so much more profound than cynics would have you believe, so I'm disappointed that you make inaccurate comparisons.
Unless you can provide reliable evidence that the historical accounts are fraudulent then they cannot simply be dismissed.
It is far easier to explain the 'miracles' without the intervention of supernatural forces, so calling them 'tricks' is a mistake.
OP,
I think you've been hoodwinked by the wish-thinkers, the truth is always like scooby-doo and not profound at all, pull up the mask and it's always the janitor!!
When you boil it down, your argument is simply the age old "you can't prove a negative" one; it's logically correct but amounts to little more than metaphysical hand waving from a practical point of view.
I don't understand why you don't understand :) every one of the billions of mysteries that have ever been solved in the history of humans on this planet has turned out to have a natural cause, why would miracles done by Jesus, or Mithras or Bhudda or Mohamed or Thor be an exception to this?
Here is my logic:
1. Everything is natural
2. The bible documents miracles
3. If the miracles did occur and 1 then they must have been illusions
4. Derren Brown is good at doing illusions
Let me turn your argument back on you,
Can you prove 1 is not true
Steve, the accuracy of step 2 is questionable and the logic of step 3 is therefore flawed.
The Bible documents occurrences which were described as miracles.
If they did, in fact, occur, then to simply dismiss the 'miracles' as illusions isn't good enough - you need to explain what happened and why they were described in that way.
And if you can do that in a way which isn't profoundly enlightening then I'm Scooby Doo!
Throw me a scooby snack and I'll enlighten you :)
I don't disagree with anything you say about accuracy, and you know very well that you or I can't "prove" that Jesus even existed, let alone turn water into wine. But wind back a second, why are you dismissing the fact that every mystery ever solved has turned out to have a natural cause?
Does this fact add no weight at all to my position in your view?
I think it's perfectly fair to dismiss any miracle because of point 1. your argument entirely rests on point 1 being false, I say the weight of evidence for point 1 being true is overwhelming.
Of course this is not a dogmatic position; should anyone prove beyond doubt that something supernatural actually exists then I will change my view immediately.
Steve,
you're layering interpretations on where they don't necessarily exist.
I did not and was not disputing your step one, so that criticism of my argument is redundant. I was however taking issue with your further steps as a means of saying your conclusion is unacceptable.
A miracle is unexplainable, not magical, which makes it contingent on levels of contemporary cultural knowledge.
It's helpful here to examine an example. And you helpfully mention the case where water was turned into wine.
This is perfectly a comprehensible linguistic misdirection.
You have made the assumption that 'wine' in this case is 'wine' as it is today understood (and enjoyed), but can you show me any reason why this assumption should be believed?
Firstly it's important to understand the context of 'wine' in the culture. The function and use of 'wine' was not related to it's alcohol content, but its' sweetness and taste.
So the modern-day concept of turning a non-alcoholic drink into an alcoholic one is erroneous.
Once this perspective is changed it is easy to envisage the miraculous 'wine' as a fruit squash or 'cordial'.
Every part of the world has at some point had new technologies and products introduced, and it fits that somewhere during the late iron age fruit concentrates would have been a by-product of the agricultural revolution, and at some point they must have been introduced to the eastern empire.
A modern equivalent would be to introduce the products of the information revolution to a disbelieving market, y'know, like the mobile phone.
...which makes Jesus and his desciples kind of like the 1st Century Steve Jobs and his R&D workforce...
Now try and tell me that Apple isn't a type of religion, or are you not a Mac user?
Each of the biblical 'miracles' can be explained in similar ways, so you'll forgive me if I do find such attempts to understand profound and illuminating.
OP, I think we're agreeing now (kinda) - miracles can be dismissed at facts but not as allegory? I'm happy with that, most of these books seem like early attempts at philosophy/ethics to me, luckily we have moved on, in the same way that alchemy became chemistry ect.
Without the miracles all the Bible would be is begat, begat, begat etc. however I've never met a Christian, Jew or Muslim who believes that.
As for Mac's vs PC's I have both so what does that say about me...? "geek" I suppose :)
You're trying to have it both ways.
You can't dismiss religion because so-called 'miracles' were magic which never actually happened and then turn round and dismiss it again because if they did they can be explained rationally.
If you want to present a reliable position then you must provide an explanation which fits all the known facts.
I accept that providing a realistic explanation for the 'miracles' creates a real problem for the atheist, because when they are explained adequately the 'miracles' reinforce the rationalist philosophy and believers and atheists alike are exposed as having ulterior (often unconscious) political motives as the cause of their so-called 'belief'.
OP, sorry this is circular, If these events happened and can be explained rationally then by definition they are not miracles are they?, problem solved.
The problem is that there are no facts, so why on earth do you suppose that I need to explain someone else's imaginary facts? This is no problem at all for atheists, all I need to do is point at the mountain of evidence that refutes such imaginary facts and say "I don't believe your myths because"..
Actually I don't have to explain anything at all, I'm not the one proposing that supernatural entities exist?
Exactly. Religion is merely a form of institutionalised philosophy.
Where an institution becomes ossified and disconnected from reality it turns into dogma, which creates divergent forces undermining and supporting the illusion.
But where an institution retains (or regains) its' connection with historical truth it can offer relevant lessons and practical remedies for contemporary life.
I'm concerned that you have fixated upon the dogmatic interpretation of fixed definitions which causes you to miss your target.
To call 'miracles' supernatural is to expound recieved knowledge and only helps entrench the divisions between believers and non-believers.
Surely it holds to the principles of rationalism far better by refusing to unthinkingly accept hand-me-down definitions and work to reconcile both sides of the argument to a heightened understanding of reality.
I also think it is far more effective as a strategy to break down barriers between opposite camps and reestablish the fundamental basis of the institution so it can be prevented from being used as a negative force in society.
Because individual knowledge is necessarily subjective truth cannot be a static concept and we must try to ensure our understanding of facts always continues to advance, otherwise we become conditioned to accept conflicting opinions are inevitable and this results in toleration of the unacceptable.
I'm tempted to expand and say this behaviour pattern repeats itself thoughout the public realm in places such as in parliament. But that much should be obvious.
I'm also tempted to take Chairman Bill up on his definition of 'prayer' (I know how much he likes a raging argument).
To many people prayer is no different from wishing, but it can just as easily be reunderstood as cognitive behaviour where the individual consciously considers their desired result and thereby actively process the causal action which will most likely bring it about.
As a mental training technique 'praying' (or meditating, or whatever) can be very helpful in bringing sense and order to people with chaotic lives and thoughts. It can break down into digestible steps the causal connections of human behaviour, which enables us to regain control of our lives in what can often seem an incomprehensible world.
But then our teachers are often inadequate and resort to ordering us about because they themselves have forgotten (or never knew) the reasons why particular actions are a good idea. If we feel something is meaningless then of course it is natural to dismiss any practical applications that may be obscured to us.
Me, I don't pray, but I do write physical lists of things I need to do the next day before I go to bed (when I've not drunk too much rum, that is). Isn't that essentially the same thing?
ORANJEPAN
Unless you can provide reliable evidence that the historical accounts are fraudulent then they cannot simply be dismissed.
CARR
Well that is easy.
My article Miracles and the Book of Mormon has all the documented evidence that any believer needs to ignore.
Steven,
you've made a classic category mistake.
Your documented evidence disputes the truthful interpretation of the account, not their basis in fact.
The fulfillment of prophecy was (and still is) used as justification for a political cause, not proof of its existence.
Successive political movements build on established narrative patterns because they resonate with verisimilitude in the public mind, so it's no surprise that 'reworkings' occur again and again.
Take a more familiar subject - Alexander the Great. He invaded the East partly because he wanted to impose himself as a new Greek hero deserving of worship and partly because military reality drew his army deeper into the territory.
Caesar was deified because his miltary campaigns were modelled on this and they were successful.
Such iconography retains its' power through the crusader centuries, Napoleon and even into Bush and Blair's Iraqi invasion.
In many ways it may be more accurate to describe these people not as believers in the supernatural, but people who have faith in their own ability to direct a victorious war through political strategy.
Which gets me back to a more forceful concept, that political argument has all the characteristics of supernatural power, that non-secular religions are political in form and purpose and that philosophy is spiritual.
From my point of view I ask how can the damaging and destructive aspects of these processes be mitigated against effectively, not how can I best affirm my own existence.
Hi OP, thanks for the detail, much goodness to chew over in there!
I would hope that I'm not fixated on the fundies, I do not intend to be; as I have said before my main beef is with the principal of "faith" and the idea that real knowledge can be gained using it and especially the kind of knowledge that some would like to base secular power upon.
I think that if you are a rationalist then it is very difficult to compromise with faith; for example as a scientist you can't ignore a little bit of data because it doesn't fit what you would like the theory to be (even if you really believe it's true). This is what it would be like for me to meet the theist half way, i.e. it's not the same as politics. I don't see how serious barriers would be realistically broken down without compromise of some kind, other than simple tolerance. I am a firm believer in the principal that in any argument the solution is not always somewhere in the middle, i.e. it is possible for one side to be completely wrong.
I would consider prayer to be different from wishing, I do wish for things but I don't pray; fundamentally that would involve a belief in someone to pray to.
Meditation is an interesting one, there is no doubt in my mind that our mental state can be altered by meditation and the like. This may be useful in some scenarios, more research should be done. Regardless though, this fact says nothing about the validity of the supernatural.
As for drinking rum, well, that stuff will certainly alter your mental state, possibly even for the better, I guess that depends who you're with at the time though :)
Now I find comment that interesting.
Why do you have a beef more with what people believe than what they do?
It is impossible for a rationalist NOT to compromise with faith because to be fully rational you must accept there are limits to individual knowledge and that therefore faith (be it in rationalism or whatever) is what is used to fill those knowledge gaps.
You accept you have a systematic belief system, but you deny that it is one in order to create a logical basis to deny competing belief systems. This is perverse, illogical and will mean you are actively entrenching that which you disagree with.
For me this is a matter of freedom. If an individual doesn't accept freedom of conscience then that person is assuming the role of the thought police.
Worse still, it is a matter of pure pragmatism because that person has abdicated any power to influence behaviour because they wish to enforce it.
You make two mistakes where you say "my main beef is with the principal of "faith" and the idea that real knowledge can be gained using it and especially the kind of knowledge that some would like to base secular power upon."
Firstly you place an artificial constraint on what knowledge can be, and secondly on how knowledge can be used.
This contradicts your claims to rationalism and shows you to be doing in that sentence exactly what you you decry!
And this brings me back to the political-philosophical point.
Rationalism is fine, but you are undermining your own argument by placing it in opposition to other belief systems. This assumes limits and creates conflicts where none need exist. It is a reactionary and conservative understanding of how ideas interact.
It is also anti-science, because at the heart of our faith in science is the belief that there is a unifying theory of all existence.
Furthermore the strategic point is worth mentioning again. If you state that rationalism is a faith then the faithful who oppose it on those grounds must reconcile themselves to it.
I guess it comes down to a choice of whether you are more worried about what people think or what people do (if you say that one informs the other I will agree, but so too must you also agree that it does so in different ways for different people, and is therefore not something you can legislate for - literally and figuratively).
So if you'll indulge me a bit further, while it is interesting to compare the differences between prayer, meditation and wishing (or sitting down quietly with a cup of tea) do you disagree that they can fulfil the same function for practicioners despite the way they diverge in objectifying, subjectifying and nominalising the means of doing and that the variety of ways of fulfilling that function is a necessary complement of techniques to allow people in different psychological states of mind to benefit (provided of course that equal access is assured)?
I must say that sitting down quietly with a cup of tea to write a list is my preferred method, but I also know many people don't have the luxury of 5 spare minutes to organise their thoughts and won't create the mental space to do so...
OP,
Because its foundational; i.e. the cranky beliefs are there because fundamentally (some) people think that stuff they make up in their heads is actually "knowledge" rather than what it really is, i.e. opinion (informed or otherwise) or simply delusion.
Why must gaps be filled?
What is worse, to fill a gap with made up BS (which conveniently aligns to a narrow self interest), or just say "we don't know"?
Then to rub salt into the wound the "faith based" lobby advocate that we base government, medical, educational, ethical policy on the made up BS part. I don't see anything illogical or flawed about objecting to that?
As for placing a constraint on what knowledge can be, absolutely! that's the whole point. I don't want to be told what to do based upon what was "revealed" to someone else in his dream; and I'm sure you wouldn't either! So what we are talking about is the difference between theory and practice.
I don't have "faith" in science in the sense we are using that word, I don't need to because I have evidence to look at. I'm not sure why you think there must be a unifying theory at all? there might be, there might not be, it changes nothing.
I agree different people arrive at enlightenment via different mechanisms, that's kind of the problem. Whilst we can't obviously base policy wholly on something like science (because there are gaps as we know) we can base the evidence and the rationale for policy on scientific principals, i.e. evidential (as best we can). It is simple to highlight and campaign against ideas that are not falsifiable (which is my stance), again, I see nothing illogical about that, quite the opposite since experience shows that such ideas almost invariably lead to suffering and injustice.
So why won't you put your arguments together? You'll have a more effective way of fighting your opponents.
I'm seriously concerned about your objection to 'revealed' knowledge - have you never had a eureka moment when the dam has burst and you see the light?
Filling the gaps in our knowledge is what we do every day - it's an endless task, but it's not one which can be given up unless we want to starve.
I'm glad you are getting more explicit in your political opposition to the particular lobby, as this shows your true objection to be against the policies advocated by a partisan section of society.
And this is where a political consciousness can start to be of more help to achieving your goal.
Non-believers will reassured by your ability to speak to them, but you will need to adopt a new strategy and tone if you ever want to make converts to your cause.
Not only do different people reach conclusions ('enlightenment') through different mechanisms, but we all reach decisions about the right course of action according to that outlook.
Walk for a while in the shoes of your enemy and you quickly come to see how their circumstances lead them to place different emphases on the same questions.
This is the well-spring of controversy and precisely why we need to be very careful in how we make our approaches by making sure we speak the same language as those we want to reach. It's no good barking at another species if we want to communicate.
As often as not you spend your time talking about christians, so as an example I'll talk about Islam.
When the London bombers mounted their campaign and the 'war on terror' was at its' height there was a concerted effort to argue that the suicide bombers were unrepresentative of Islam, and that they had recieved a distorted interpretation of what they felt their religious duty was.
It was completely unrealistic and undesirable on all levels to expel all muslims from the country, but the threat to social stability and cohesion was serious and had to be countered. So whatever doubts we had about policies adopted by nominally islamic countries it was important to hold them to a higher standard.
The same is true for any group you may disagree with - you will not convince them of anything if you impose your terms, you must show that any undesirable action on their behalf is contrary to their own beliefs: nobody will be told they are wrong, we must all come to see it for ourselves.
Parents who refuse their children treatments on religious grounds will treat any condemnation by non-believers as confirmation of why they hold their beliefs. So if you want to influence them it becomes necessary to get them to discover where the gap in their knowledge is - and do so on their terms.
So while I can admit my sympathy with the practicalities of what you propose on almost all of your posts I am completely dismayed that you latch onto stereotypical misconceptions to make your case.
Take the example of the child who died in Wisconsin - you called that child sacrifice, without even examining the actual arguments made.
As CB asked - "what was their intent?" If they had been asked that and been required to make the case for their preferred course of action I'm damn sure they would have been confronted with and forced to account for their own contradictions.
Instead you relied upon what you think their beliefs consisted of, as evidenced by your insulting and judgemental language. Clearly you aren't concerned with their best interests, so why should they worry about what you have to say?
In other words the responsibility for the death of the child also lies with everyone who failed to engage sufficiently with them, and they do actually make a strong point that lessons of effective communication can be learned from the case.
OP, I'm not sure what you mean by "put together", do you mean document as a kind of manifesto or some such?
But you are confusing things again, a moment of inspiration is not the same as "revealed" knowledge [sic]. I can be sitting in the bath or even dreaming and suddenly figure out how to solve a complex problem (I have done this before) but this is not the same as believing God says homosexuality is evil.
It is pure confirmation bias if you disregard the 99 times out of 100 that your "intuition" was wrong (it's probably more than this) and conclude that because you get it right once that intuition or revelation is the same as knowledge, what you are missing in your comment is the "testing" part.
It's clear that you are very keen on a compromise or an accommodation style of approach; I wouldn't disagree at the high level because it's an entirely reasonable strategy. However I would make two observations which influence me, a) it's already (unsuccessfully) been tried and b) there are other approaches which have been more successful. For example, the abolitionists didn't argue from a position of "it's ok to keep fewer slaves" or suffragettes that "its ok if some woman can't vote" etc. A position of "remove religion from the public square" seems perfectly reasonable (as a position) to me?
OP, I can't find much in your 11:37AM post to agree with, it reads to me like a lot of relativist "fluff"; have you thought for a second that the misconceptions might be yours?
If you killed someone in order to uphold a set of dogmatic beliefs or "propitiate a deity", the correct word for that is "sacrifice", it's the most accurate word to describe this case.
"Parents who refuse their children treatments on religious grounds will treat any condemnation by non-believers as confirmation of why they hold their beliefs." - why?, wouldn't that simply confirm delusional behaviour? If I condemn you for drink-driving would that make you do it more?, c'mon OP this is crazy talk, you are letting your apologetic tendencies get the better of you :)
I have no concern for the interests of the parents in this case they are consenting adults and can believe whatever they like. My concern is for the children of people like this and ensuring that they are protected.
I am not judging these people, they have already been judged by a jury of their peers and found guilty; I am commenting on the verdict and what I think is a woefully inadequate sentence resulting from it; I wonder what this judge (a Christian) would have passed down if these people were drink-drivers and had killed a young girl? - clearly we will never know, but there would have probably been no intent there either.
You don't seem to make the obvious connection between this illustrative case and the impaired argument you are trying to make; i.e. you advocate "engagement" as the solution, but you ignore the fact that "faith" at best obscures engagement and at worst prevents it. This is because you cannot use "evidence" to change these people's minds, evidence has no value to them. No doubt in Wisconsin somewhere at this very moment there are believers sitting in a church, clasping hands and discussing how this couple didn't pray hard enough.
Are the examples you give really comparing like with like?
Firstly religion is not as monolithic as you attempt to paint it, and was actually the prime motivation of Wilberforce and many Suffragettes (Alice Paul, Christabel Pankhust etc).
So in completely removing religion from the public realm you'd lose the support from a strong intellectual tradition for those particular policies which you do support.
Also, it is only your definition that 'revealed' knowledge is not the same as 'inspiration'. Are you sure that it is the only defintion?
So I think you need support your assertion that 'accomodation' with religion is unhelpful and inevitably unsuccessful in order to support your argument that it is religion itself which is undesirable.
At this point I'll point out that in this country we have attempted to expel and suppress 'undesirable' religions or beliefs on numerous occasions. These broke down due to the immense impracticalities of the task and, much more worryingly, have lasting negative consequences to this day. I have no wish to associate myself with any such persecution or repeat these errors.
Religion isn't monolithic, again you are putting words into my mouth, "faith" is monolithic though which is what I am talking about.
Sure, Wilberforce was probably motivated by his conscience which I suppose may be as a result of his evangelical background (we'll never know), but we shouldn't conveniently forget the fact that most of the objections to abolition came from religious constituents, who felt the Bible justified their position (revealed knowledge again!). My point was about the binary nature of these campaigns, not the motivation for them.
You mean like the USA? all I am suggesting is some kind of secular constitution, removal of religious privilege and a downgrading of the status of religions, perhaps by removing their tax-free status for example.
I'm saying accommodation would be difficult rather than unhelpful, certainly dishonest; it's a binary thing. I am not advocating that religion be banned or anything like that; just removed from a privileged position, I'm looking for equality more than anything.
If you can point out where I suggest that we "oppress" or "expel" religious people then please do, if I have done then its an error, that is not my view.
Don't you find it odd that a mere suggestion that we make religion equal in our society to other organised bodies, such as say a political parties or corporations, stirs up such a reaction in you and many others; I bet there are plenty of politicians who wished they could exert such subconscious power over us.
Calling a person delusional does nothing to snap them out of any delusions they may be under. In fact it often feeds into their distorted views.
I worry that you say you are not judging them, yet you call the sentence "woefully inadequate". What additional knowledge do you have that the jury did not?
Please can you show me any evidence that 'faith' obscures or prevents engagement (by that I don't mean any social pressure exerted by the congregation, but the faith itself).
You are probably right about that; I struggle to think what could snap them out of it; for now, ridiculing the ideas and adopting an outspoken approach is proving more effective with the fence-sitters than the hardcore followers, but then I think that may be all we can realistically hope for.
Its Judges that set the sentence, not the Jury, the Jury had already found these people guilty of second degree reckless manslaughter. For example if one of my employees were to die from a work related accident and it were proven that I was negligent as an employer, I would serve a minimum of 2 years in prison. Therefore, I think that 6 months spread over 6 years for standing by and watching your child die for several days (against the advice of onlookers) is utterly inadequate as a deterrent, its also a question of precedent.
How could I fruitfully engage with someone regarding evolution education who regards Genesis as a literal truth; it wouldn't matter that I could provide a mountain of evidence to support the merits of it they would be prevented from engaging with me because of their "faith" position.
Aha! I see where the difference is.
Your strategy is aimed at addressing the wider audience, while I'm looking at talking to the subject.
The main thing for me is that without compassion for the situation of those people (they may be under emotional stress, social pressure, be lacking in education or whatever) and emphasising concern for the sick child over any feelings we have about their beliefs and actions, then I can completely understand why they would ignore the best intentions of advisors.
I would say that it is important to remember this was a real person and a real life, not just an example of a wider phenomenon. If there are lessons to be drawn from the case about the beliefs of the individuals involved then they should be apparent. If you believe in evidence and standing on facts then you should be able to lead us to the conclusion without ramming the tube down our throats and forcefeeding us.
On the sentence involved in this case I won't give an opinion without having all the details. But I will say I think there is a different order of involvement and responsibility between employers and family members, which must have some bearing - it's the power of attorney question.
As an illustration I'll ask what you think about the euthanasia issue, or switching off life-support for unresponsive coma patients. It's not completely comparable because although the child was competent they weren't legally independent, it does nevertheless raise an important point about the line between universal morality and personal choice, as well as the legal difficulty in differentiating the two.
OP, you should really read the witness statements, they are unbelievable.
It's difficult as a parent to believe these people belong to our species let alone have compassion for them. These are educated people, in fact one of them tried CPR on the child after she had died - so much for faith in prayer.
I have more sympathy for people who murder and steal to feed a drug habit than these two, at least I can understand that. It is unfortunate that their society sees fit to execute one and slap the other on the wrist.
I have no problem differentiating the two, these people were legally responsible for their child (full stop); in the case of the coma patient it is up to next of kin to decide but WITH evidential back up from experts involved (not "revelation" from a pastor with no more medical knowledge than my 8 year old son!), plus the kin can always contest any decision in the courts before they pull the plug, that little girl had no such "personal choice"
I find it incredible that Christians such as these would defend their right to effectively kill their own daughter as a matter of "choice" and yet I bet anything that they are also "pro-life", their God certainly does work in mysterious ways.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to prejudge the action of performing CPR on her child after death. It could easily be emotional trauma rather than the behaviour of a competent but misguided person.
Clearly there was no intent to hasten their childs' death, so I want to know whether you think the charge was accurate.
I also want to ask you about how a profusion of information can overwhelm logic.
It's one of the weaknesses of democracy as a social system that it can be easy to lose sight of the correct way to address problems (tyrrany of majority etc).
The MMR vaccine is a good example of this.
Were the scare stories valid? If so, were they given the correct weight? But if not, should we always ignore contradictory reports and how can we distinguish them anyway?
OP, so you don't think it's odd that their defence is that they don't think modern medicine works and that the power of prayer is better, and yet when it came to the crunch they desperately used CPR and called 911.. It just doesn't stack up for me.
I agree with you that ignorance is not a crime, but clearly these people were not ignorant.
Anyway, yes I agree the MMR thing and now the HPV vaccines are great examples of herd mentality; we seem to be so cocooned in our shrink wrapped world that we forget that "certainty" does not exist; we struggle to weigh up the true probability of situations in order to choose the best path etc.
Evidence is the only way to sort it out, but then you have the problem of obtaining it and understanding it. Our science education is woefully inadequate IMO, we could do more and there is always the problem that if people get the choice between the X-Factor or the discovery channel we know which one they go for :)
I wholly agree it is odd, but when convictions are shaken the natural response it obviously counter-intuitive.
It sounds to me most likely that they hadn't coldly calculated their moral and ethical positions, and had allowed themselves to be influenced to the detriment of their own interest. But I also think we can be a bit hasty in pronouncing the cause and motivation.
One of important components is to follow up results sufficiently, so I'd be interested to find out what impact the sentence has had on them and whether they say they would do things differently and how.
I'm highly dubious that most current prison regimes do anything except provide negative reinforcement for behaviour, so what practical benefit is the punishment except as an expression of our own indignant outrage?
Therefore I need to return again to my point about strategy - is it about proving who is correct, or is it about changing beheviour for the better?
I think it's conceivable that these people thought that medicine doesn't work (or that medicine is usurping the lord almighty's power or whatever else they might have thought), and when their daughter died they thought "holy shit" and were willing to try absolutely anything and everything at that point. Maybe they believed god was going to sort it out until she died and then they had second thoughts (which of course they should have).
And for the record, I think that people who accept that the HPV vaccine is a good idea are displaying herd mentality as well. It's the acceptance of the authority of someone that something is okay/safe/good, and there is seldom any first-hand consideration of evidence involved. Or at least I haven't yet found anyone who advocates the use of the HPV vax (including the dozen or so physicians whom I have spoken to about it) who has actually looked at the studies and tried to determine out whether the conclusions drawn actually followed from the observations. So in effect, this has an aspect of trust and faith as well.
OP, It's about both surely; merely changing behaviour via carrot or stick is a sticking plaster approach; to really stamp it out you have to change the Zeitgeist, like has been done with racism or drink driving etc. our collective conciousness has been raised and it's stuck in our brains now (well, most of us!)
There now exists a social stigma associated with racism, sexism and DD even I can remember when this was absolutely not the case.
When it comes to matters of health, education and government etc. I think people need to feel that (regardless of particular faith) "superstition" is not appropriate in the same way that we feel racism or sexism is not appropriate in the public square. The question is how do you educate people toward that, well, one way would be to show people that they are indeed wrong, i.e. in this case, praying doesn't work.
Hi Lisa, I think you have a strong argument about HPV if the evidence of the studies etc. doesn't support it either from an efficacy or safety point of view; I haven't seen such evidence, and I believe it is hard to get a licence if either of these conditions are not met, however, it has happened in the past I suppose so I should look at it more closely.
However I wouldn't say that trusting in the process, if fundamentally the process has been proven to be reliable is a herd mentality, quite the opposite. If we can't trust the process and we clearly can't all become biochemists overnight then we might as well get the chicken bones out and give them a good shake in order to decide, I can't believe that is the case with HPV though?
Post a Comment