On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, James Guinee wrote:
>
> <snip> I came across a neat book called
> "Seduced by Science" by Steven Goldberg. Has anyone read it?
>
> I'll admit I got it from the library looking for scientific support for
> fundamentalism. Instead, I got hit over the head by an apparently pro-
> religious person that religious types are harming themselves by trying to
> compete with science (and he uses the medicalization of prayer as a good
> example!).
>
> He makes the cogent argument that since so many teachings and beliefs of
> religion are not testable (yes, I know, many of you have argued this before!)
> that religion is only going to lose when it plays in science's ballpark.
Wow! Rapproachement! Good for you, Jim.
> Just as science cannot teach much about morality, religion
> cannot teach much about science. It doesn't mean they can't
> have some partnership, but not much of one.
Despite the warm fuzzy feeling engendered by Jim's post, I can't
let this one pass, although I'm probably out of my philosophical
depth here. But I'm not willing to concede that religion teaches
us about morality (in an absolute sense, whatever that means),
only that it imposes a particular view on us which is defined as
moral. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the view it imposes
often leads to teachings which are instead _immoral_.
I've got a number of examples, but here's just one. I believe it
is more moral to save one life than to let two die. Seems
uncontroversial, no?
Yet in a remarkable case in Britain some months ago, religious
authorities decided otherwise, impelled by their religious
beliefs. The case involved a set of conjoined twins, one of whom
could not survive alone, yet was killing the other member of the
pair. Religious authorities were apparently unanimous in
concluding that both should die ("God's will"). Fortunately, the
court decided otherwise, the babies were separated, and the life
of one was saved. This case, it seems to me, illustrates the fact
that religious teachings, defined as moral, lead one to make
decisions that are immoral by other standards (that is, standards
in which religious considerations are excluded).
see Dyer, C. (2000). Doctrine of necessity could allow separation
of twins. British Medical Journal, 321, 653
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7262/653/a
and
http://www8.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/UK/09/22/britain.twins.03/
-Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at:
http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
