Well, well, what do we have here.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A top congressional Republican on Sunday criticized President Barack Obama’s expected decision to reverse the Bush administration’s limits on embryonic stem-cell research, calling it a distraction from the country’s economic slump.
Yada yada yada.
… Obama’s move, scheduled for Monday morning, is part of a broader effort to separate science and politics and “restore scientific integrity in governmental decision-making,” White House domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes said Sunday.
Awesome.
… Because stem cells have the potential to turn into any organ or tissue cell in the body, research advocates say they could yield cures to debilitating conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and spinal injuries. But because work on embryonic stem cells involves the destruction of human embryos, many conservatives supported the limits former President George Bush imposed by executive order in 2001.
Erm, okay. I’ll leave it for Sam Harris to articulate.
More reason. Less unexamined faith please.
Sweet?
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
The world is enraged because George Bush refuses to fund stem cell research that used human embryos.
Now everyone is happy because Barack Obama, the self-proclaimed Christian, does not have such a problem with ethics.
Meanwhile, stem cell research as not funded by President Bush is _illegal_ in Germany, for the same ethical reasons as given by President Bush.
I understand stem cell research without using human embryos is possible.
He seems to argue against himself. If every human cell is a potential human being, why wouldn’t it be possible to use any human cell to make new organs?
More reason, less unexamined faith?
Yeah, sure. And there’s nothing at all wrong with a research method that takes the easier option, that of destroying human embryos. No slippery slopes there, no sir. No encouraged devaluation of human life at all, which isn’t just a religious consideration.
I’ll watch with interest to see just how far Obama will go with this, and whether or not the Dickey-Wicker amendment will be overturned as a by-product of these events.
And here we go, one step closer to cloning experiments, one step closer to designer babies, one step closer to forgetting why, in scientific research, the fastest route is not always the *best* route…
Incidentally, Sam Harris did little more than build a straw-man argument.
Not only did he not answer most of the concerns regarding stem-cell research and the moral issues therein, he made several specific fallacies - one of them is taking a specific religious argument against stem-cell research, generalizing it to encompass all such objections, and then pretending to win against all of the objections by “defeating” that single argument.
He then proceeds to attack religious faith as a source of ignorance, all the while adding these little titbits of what I’d consider *scientifically* unfounded rubbish. Like the matter of cell potential, as Andrew mentioned.
His second fallacy was one he didn’t mention - that stem cell research does not have to be focused on embryos. It’s simply the easy path, not the only path. Harris did little more than try and turn the tables and call the “ignorant” religious to be guilty of prolonging human suffering, playing on the emotional lines of the viewers while advocating “reason”.
And this form of stem cell research remains a slippery slope, both in terms of devaluation of human life and of human cloning, which *further* devalues human life.
I fully support Obama’s decision on this.
It being the “easy” path does not necessarily make it a bad thing. By continuing the Bush era restrictions on the research you would delay scientific advancement considerably. These advancements could alleviate the suffering of millions.
The embryos being researched were going to be discarded either way so arguing over its potential for future life is irrelevant to the issue. Since embryos cant think or feel I can see no non-religious reason for objecting to the research.
These advancements could alleviate the suffering of millions.
Correct. And the medical advancements made via direct experimentation on adult human beings in Nazi Germany also alleviated the suffering of millions. We profited from that research to this very day.
Same for some of the most ground-breaking medical advancements made in the Soviet Union, which in some cases set the course of medical research worldwide.
These are just the most extreme examples in recent history, of just where this current line of thought can bring us.
The embryos being researched were going to be discarded either way
Not quite. The source of stem cells varies between leftovers of in vitro fertilization, aborted fetuses, and cloned fetuses. In fact, the last category is being used more and more often in research as it progresses.
And then you further have the controversy of producing embryos for the purpose of said research - selling them, in fact, for medical research after “producing” them directly for this purpose.
Hence the slippery slope.
Since embryos cant think or feel I can see no non-religious reason for objecting to the research.
You do realize that, specifically by this definition, one can eliminate many mentally ill and comatose adults from the “human” category? In fact, it wasn’t long ago that precisely this was being done across the world.
You may want to find a different argument than your supposed emotional or cognitive superiority for this one.
Been reading about Harris a bit… I knew he reminded me of Richard Dawkins for a reason. That reason, apparently, is because both push forward the idea of religion being the Sum of All Evils in our modern-day world, while being almost utterly ignorant of it, basing their arguments on stereotypes, penny-a-line rumors, and building straw-men.
Harris seems to represent that certain brand of Atheism that doesn’t realize that it’s become a religion in itself. And a rather dogmatic and divisive one, at that.
Correct. And the medical advancements made via direct experimentation on adult human beings in Nazi Germany also alleviated the suffering of millions.
Yes but there is a significant difference between an embryo and an adult. The adults you are talking about were able to think and feel and thus suffer from the horrible actions of the Nazi’s.
The source of stem cells varies between leftovers of in vitro fertilization, aborted fetuses, and cloned fetuses.
Even if the embryos were created just for the purpose of research they never had any potential to be born. If they never created the embryo for the experiment it still would not be born so the end result is the same either way
You do realize that, specifically by this definition, one can eliminate many mentally ill and comatose adults from the “human” category?
I don’t see your point with the mentally ill unless your somehow implying that they don’t have thoughts or emotions. As far as a comatose person that is completely brain dead with no hope of ever recovering then they are essentially already dead in my opinion.
You may want to find a different argument than your supposed emotional or cognitive superiority for this one.
Its not that developed humans can think or feel “better” than embryos it’s that embryos can’t think or feel at all.
Harris seems to represent that certain brand of Atheism that doesn’t realize that it’s become a religion in itself. And a rather dogmatic and divisive one, at that.
Even if you define atheism as the absolute belief that God can not exist, a definition I reject, then the only way you could consider it a religion is to stretch the definition of religion to the point that it loses the commonly understood meaning. Many atheists may have a set of dogmatic beliefs about existence but they are not inherent in atheism itself.
Yes but there is a significant difference between an embryo and an adult.
Which is why I offered it as a far more extreme example of pure scientific thought toward issues of morality. Once you begin playing the weighing game - damage to a few to save the many, the ends justify the means, and so on… it doesn’t end well. Which is why medical research in particular requires strict regulation.
Even if the embryos were created just for the purpose of research they never had any potential to be born. If they never created the embryo for the experiment it still would not be born so the end result is the same either way
The potential of birth is not the issue at hand, really. I’d say it’s more a matter of escalation - once you begin experimenting on the first phase of human development, what’s to stop you from moving on? And the deliberate act of destroying said human embryos as part of the research is one of the central issues, along with the possible consequences of human cloning.
Consequences that may include growing a full-bodied human to serve as a “donor” for tissue and organ deficiencies - which, in fact, the precise path stem-cell research is heading down should it focus on embryos as its source. It *must* be an embryo from the patient’s own DNA - otherwise the chances of rejection and cancerous grows increase a thousandfold.
I don’t see your point with the mentally ill unless your somehow implying that they don’t have thoughts or emotions. As far as a comatose person that is completely brain dead with no hope of ever recovering then they are essentially already dead in my opinion.
Depends on how mentally ill the people in question are - it wasn’t that long ago that mentally ill individuals had no basic rights, and were essentially the property of the various state-owned institutions worldwide based on this very argument - that they can’t have the rights of human beings if they are so much more limited than the average human being.
As for comas, how would you define brain death? Medical criteria vary worldwide, as do the tests required for verification. The US criteria are very rigid, the UK criteria still remain unclear and open to mistakes, and the more generally accepted basic tests focus entirely on reflexes and pain reactions - which have an ever-growing series of recoverable comatose states that also fail these very tests…
So are they alive or dead? Do they or do they not have the mental capacity required to define them as “human”, based on your definition?
Does the comatose individual constitute a human being even when his brain-wave scan is flat-lined? Or is it just a matter of us not having the right equipment to measure it properly? And what will we do until we are absolutely certain on this matter?
It’s a matter of relatives and absolutes, Zoxuf. You define humanity as a relative - and that just opens a whole different can of worms…
Its not that developed humans can think or feel “better” than embryos it’s that embryos can’t think or feel at all.
At all parts of its developments stages?
And what of the fetus? Would you claim the same with absolute certainty?
Even if you define atheism as the absolute belief that God can not exist, a definition I reject, then the only way you could consider it a religion is to stretch the definition of religion to the point that it loses the commonly understood meaning. Many atheists may have a set of dogmatic beliefs about existence but they are not inherent in atheism itself.
Hence my assertion that Harris represents a *certain* branch of Atheism, rather atheism at large. Once you have defined yourself as part of a discernible group of like-minded individuals who share a certain creed regarding existence, humanity, and meaning of life via a higher truth, you are part of a religion. God or Gods are not required for the equation. One can be a staunch believer in The Earth, The Collective Mind of Mankind, The Great Alien Mothership, or… last but not least… The Force of Reason.
Both Harris and Dawkins believe in Reason to such an extent that they feel that any “opponent” of it is dangerous. Dawkins coined the terminology that identifies religion as a societal mental virus. Harris wrote in his latest book that in some cases, the beliefs people hold may mean it is ethically justifiable to kill them. Not based on the *action*, but on the *actual belief*.
So now we also have the Holy War. The Great Crusade. It would appear that Harris studied the bad aspects of organized religions for so long that he started imitating them.
Once you begin playing the weighing game - damage to a few to save the many, the ends justify the means, and so on… it doesn’t end well. Which is why medical research in particular requires strict regulation.
I was not trying to imply that the ends justify the means merely to address your comment that they are just taking the “easy” path and show that there is harm in not doing so. If it was the case that the research caused suffering I would not support it.
The potential of birth is not the issue at hand, really. I’d say it’s more a matter of escalation - once you begin experimenting on the first phase of human development, what’s to stop you from moving on?.
There is always a slippery slope as you put it but that should not stop us from considering the issue at hand.
Depends on how mentally ill the people in question are
Please correct me if I am wrong but I am not away of any mental illness that prevents all forms of thought and emotion.
As for comas, how would you define brain death? Medical criteria vary worldwide, as do the tests required for verification.
My comment about the comatose person was a hypothetical, as we can never be 100% certain that a person is brain dead with no hope of ever recovering. We should probably error on the side of caution in this regard but my point was that if something can’t think or feel and will never be able to do so then no harm can be done to them.
At all parts of its developments stages? And what of the fetus? Would you claim the same with absolute certainty?
An embryo never has a brain to think or feel with. I am no expert on fetus development so I won’t speculate on when during this stage a functional brain forms.
Hence my assertion that Harris represents a *certain* branch of Atheism, rather atheism at large.
Fair enough, but why call his views a branch of atheism then and not a more accurate description like a materialist or humanist. There can be people that share many of Harris’s views about reason and still believe in God as well as people that don’t believe in a God but are very spiritual.
Once you have defined yourself as part of a discernible group of like-minded individuals who share a certain creed regarding existence, humanity, and meaning of life via a higher truth, you are part of a religion.
I agree with that but calling his branch of atheism a religion is like calling a branch of non Santa Clause believers a religion because some of them have a certain set of beliefs about existence that is not directly related to not believing in Santa. If on the other hand you said materialism or humanism was a religion I would probably agree with you even though most peoples concept of the word religion includes the supernatural.
If it was the case that the research caused suffering I would not support it.
*nod* The problem is that direct physical suffering is not the only criteria - and in fact, I’d say that the existence of suffering in this case is quite debatable.
There is always a slippery slope as you put it but that should not stop us from considering the issue at hand.
The slippery slope does not always exist, and is in fact open to avoidance or at the very least - minimization. The path of embryo stem cell research begins the slide, in my opinion, and is an aspect of the research that is worthy of proper debate and consideration.
Please correct me if I am wrong but I am not away of any mental illness that prevents all forms of thought and emotion.
The most negative symptoms of schizophrenia are total lack of emotional response.
And one can be born with severe disorders that result, as far as external analysis can ascertain, in no emotional or self-awareness processes at all.
We should probably error on the side of caution in this regard but my point was that if something can’t think or feel and will never be able to do so then no harm can be done to them.
I fail to understand the definition of “harm” as defined by the perception of said harm by he or that which is harmed. So if you are born without the proper nervous response to pain, I can cut off pieces of your skin and it would not be “harm” because you are unable to physically experience it and never had a reason to understand what it is that happens, having not experienced pain before?
And as far as “and will never be able to do so” is concerned… This is where you enter extremely murky ground. If I develop embryos for the sole purpose of the research, then it is not a matter of the ability of said embryo to potentially develop further.
I am simply preventing it from doing so by placing it in my lab environment. It is my *choice*, and the result of my own actions, that removes the embryo’s development path. It is not a fact of life.
The same for cloned embryos. It is merely a creation of artificial conditions in order to prevent the further development, not a lack of potential in and by itself.
Which is part of the problem, really.
An embryo never has a brain to think or feel with. I am no expert on fetus development so I won’t speculate on when during this stage a functional brain forms.
Wrong, I’m afraid. The brain is already formed by the end of the 4th week, and begins currently-discernible activity on the 6th week. The very definition of the fetal phase is that *all* body organs have already been formed, and grow from that point onwards - the brain doesn’t have to wait for the other organs to fully form.
The fetal phase begins only on the 9th week.
Fair enough, but why call his views a branch of atheism then and not a more accurate description like a materialist or humanist. There can be people that share many of Harris’s views about reason and still believe in God as well as people that don’t believe in a God but are very spiritual.
Harris identifies himself as an Atheist and a Humanist, while the connection to Materialism is not very accurate. And its his identification and focus on Atheism that seems to actively define both his beliefs and his focus on Reason as the guiding force.
I agree with that but calling his branch of atheism a religion is like calling a branch of non Santa Clause believers a religion because some of them have a certain set of beliefs about existence that is not directly related to not believing in Santa.
As far as Harris is concerned, and he is not alone in this opinion, Atheism is directly related to focusing your life entirely on Reason and eliminating all forms of “ignorant thought”. You are confusing the literal meaning of the term with the group identification of it.
“Jew” means “of Judea”. “Islam” means submission. “Baha’i” comes from the word splendor. Removing the attached meanings of the words and focusing entirely on the literal meaning brings us nowhere.
If on the other hand you said materialism or humanism was a religion I would probably agree with you even though most peoples concept of the word religion includes the supernatural.
Religion does not require the supernatural, though it is a common trend. And yes, both Materialism and Humanism are quite similar to religion - though most of their adherents would actively disagree.
The slippery slope does not always exist, and is in fact open to avoidance or at the very least - minimization.
The slippery slope argument is overused in my opinion. There will always be people who try to use the current standing in attempt to justify doing more but this does not take away from the merit of the subject in question. It just points out that we should debate the issues thoroughly before going forward.
And one can be born with severe disorders that result, as far as external analysis can ascertain, in no emotional or self-awareness processes at all.
Even without emotional response or self-awareness, if they have thoughts or experiences no matter how distorted they deserve respect. I am not convinced that they don’t and even if it appeared that was the case, we should probably error on the side of caution like in the comatose scenario.
I fail to understand the definition of “harm” as defined by the perception of said harm by he or that which is harmed.
By harm I mean causing suffering, physical or otherwise, or depriving of future experiences.
It is my *choice*, and the result of my own actions, that removes the embryo’s development path.
Embryos created in the lab would never have a womb to grow in either way. The other option of never creating it wouldn’t result in any difference in this regard.
Wrong, I’m afraid. The brain is already formed by the end of the 4th week,
I am no expert on the subject so ill concede the point. But as I understand it the embryos are used before this period unless we are talking about the ones from abortions.
As far as Harris is concerned, and he is not alone in this opinion, Atheism is directly related to focusing your life entirely on Reason and eliminating all forms of “ignorant thought”.
Yes but his views are not caused by being an atheist. I would argue that his views on reason are why he is an atheist and not the other way around. If that group of non Santa Clause believers didn’t believe because it conflicted with some specific belief system they held, would it not be silly to call them a branch of non Santa Clause believers, when their disbelief in Santa is not the reason for the beliefs you are referring to. Really though we are just arguing semantics. I see the term atheist misused so often that I get a little defensive.
Hi Roman, sorry for the late reply, been busy. Zoxuf did a good job arguing many of the points you raised.
Like you, I share your concerns in regards to this potentially being a slippery slope, but like Zoxuf, I don’t think that means we should discard stem cell research entirely altogether.
It just means we should argue its real potential benefits and real potential negative effects very, very vigorously, before we proceed with anything.
I happen to believe that banning all forms of stem cell research altogether is preposterous and utterly ridiculous, heck maybe even immoral.
And there are also some religious scholars who happen to believe the same thing.
Some religious traditions teach that because life begins at conception, any research that destroys a human embryo, as this research does, is tantamount to murder and is never justified. The Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention are among those that oppose the research.
Other more liberal traditions, including mainline Protestant and Jewish institutions, believe the promise to relieve suffering is paramount. In 2004, the governing body of the Episcopal Church said it would favor the research as long as it used embryos that otherwise would have been destroyed, that embryos were not created for research purposes, or were not bought and sold.
Under Jewish law, an embryo is genetic material that does not have the status of a person. According to the Talmud, the embryo is “simply water” in the first 40 days of gestation. Healing and preserving human life takes precedence over all the other commandments in Judaism. (ehm…
)
Some groups and faiths are divided on the issue. Muslims disagree over — among other things — whether an embryo in the early stage of development has a soul. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon church, has not taken a position.
The Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical pastor from Orlando, Fla., who serves on an Obama White House advisory panel, said he was encouraged by Monday’s developments.
“The principle is still that it’s not only understandable but in some ways moral to use embryonic stem cells that are destined for destruction for research for helping people,” he said. “I think we have to tread very lightly and very carefully, and I think we have to be vigilant for years to come.”
Well, there we go… as we see in the above quote, this isn’t a matter of atheism Vs religion, but rather open-mindedness and reason (which exist in religions, although to varying degrees) Vs closed dogmatism.
In regards to your opinion on Sam Harris…
“I knew he reminded me of Richard Dawkins for a reason. That reason, apparently, is because both push forward the idea of religion being the Sum of All Evils in our modern-day world, while being almost utterly ignorant of it, basing their arguments on stereotypes, penny-a-line rumors, and building straw-men.”
Well, you certainly haven’t read enough Roman. That’s an unfair and quick judgement.
There’s a reason I didn’t become an atheist after delving into atheist literature. I have severe disagreements with some critical aspects of atheism, and I’m not a big fan of Richard Dawkins. He strikes me as a scientist who is a dogmatic reductionist materialist.
Harris, I’ve come to like because he’s very different from the Four Horsemen of Atheism who also include Hitchens and Daniel Dennet. In fact on numerous aspects he’s actually critical of them.
Here, please take the time to read this long article of a speech he gave at an atheist summit where Dawkins and many other prominent atheists were present.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html
Or watch the video of the speech. Its called The Problem with Atheism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2oJgsGR6c
On some things I have severe disagreements with Harris too, but overall (despite his tone) I’d say I still like his unique approach to reason.
Plus, he’s actually said on numerous occasions that he doesn’t truly see himself as an atheist or identify as such. It’s just that he’s been lumped with atheists and out of convenience accepted the label.
On top of that, the guy dedicated an entire chapter to mysticism and spiritual experience in his book The End of Faith where he actually showers lots of praise on those things. And because of the chapter, he received lots of heat from militant atheist who want to throw the baby with the bath water.
You’re not entirely right about Harris being guilty of straw-men arguments, because those “straw-men” aren’t non-existent or false. They *exist*, they’re real, because there are religious people out there who do indeed advocate the kind of stuff he speaks of.
Where Harris is guilty is generalizing the arguments advocated by the super religious to entire moderate religious communities that are not monolithic, and for that Harris deserves criticism. But then again, those who are moderate, are so precisely because they’re less literalist in their approach to scripture.
@Drima,
I happen to believe that banning all forms of stem cell research altogether is preposterous and utterly ridiculous, heck maybe even immoral.
I’d agree with that, but you seem to imply that all forms of stem cell research are controversial in nature - as is the case with embryonic stem cells. That is hardly the case, and this notion that we have *only* embryonic stem cell research before us as a possible medical advancement is false.
Not only does it purposefully reduce the scope of the debate, it plays on emotional violin strings by turning the objector to the controversial research into a suffering-prolonging bastard. After all, didn’t said bastard just object to the *sole* available medical path for the salvation of many people? At which point, he is a bad person, and his “ignorance” becomes dangerous.
And by that small mental feat, we just reduced several people into non-people. And that is something Mr. Sam Harris did as well.
And there are also some religious scholars who happen to believe the same thing.
…
Under Jewish law, an embryo is genetic material that does not have the status of a person. According to the Talmud, the embryo is “simply water” in the first 40 days of gestation. Healing and preserving human life takes precedence over all the other commandments in Judaism. (ehm…
)
Amusing. I always like people, journalists in particular, telling me what my religion believes. The first mistake, by the way, and I thought you realized this by now, Drima… is assuming that a wide-reaching consensus exists in Judaism on the matter.
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/preemb.html
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/stemcellres.html
While these articles were written by a more liberal-minded opinion of Orthodox Judaism, the author still attempted to cover as much as possible and to show both the lack of consensus, and sheer amount of it!
Well, you certainly haven’t read enough Roman. That’s an unfair and quick judgement.
My opinion of Harris includes his supposed “dispensation” for meditative exercises and the like. I’ll explain below.
There’s a reason I didn’t become an atheist after delving into atheist literature. I have severe disagreements with some critical aspects of atheism, and I’m not a big fan of Richard Dawkins. He strikes me as a scientist who is a dogmatic reductionist materialist.
That’s a fairly accurate assessment of Dawkins. Dawkins has a very… direct approach in life, to say the least.
Harris, I’ve come to like because he’s very different from the Four Horsemen of Atheism who also include Hitchens and Daniel Dennet. In fact on numerous aspects he’s actually critical of them.
Yes… and I have a bridge to sell you on that one. Harris is the nice guy. And Dawkins is the terrier of the lot. This does not change the fact that Harris views religion as ignorant and dangerous, and that it should disappear from the face of the earth. He simply wants to prioritize the enemy, to change the discourse… to make it all a *nicer* endeavor, and paint it slightly differently.
From your own link, Drima, Harris simply doesn’t approve of the “Atheist” niche market because it limits their endeavor to Convert the Ignorant. And he leaves the weaker branches of Ignorant Humanity with our own little feel-good tablet.
Mysticism. Meditation. The popularized crap of the New Age as a sort of placebo, as an alternative to the cyanide pill or religion.
Thanks, but no thanks. Harris may be the milder voice of the so-called “Horsemen”, but he’s still one of them. It may be a war of ideas, but it remains a war.
And don’t have time for wars.
I’m glad that Harris sees some of the problems of the “Atheist” label - I just don’t like the why’s of it.
On top of that, the guy dedicated an entire chapter to mysticism and spiritual experience in his book The End of Faith where he actually showers lots of praise on those things. And because of the chapter, he received lots of heat from militant atheist who want to throw the baby with the bath water.
*nod* Unfortunately, Harris also wants to throw the baby away with the bathwater. One of the babies, anyway. He just likes one them while being more than willing to throw the other away.
You’re not entirely right about Harris being guilty of straw-men arguments, because those “straw-men” aren’t non-existent or false. They *exist*, they’re real, because there are religious people out there who do indeed advocate the kind of stuff he speaks of.
When I take an argument that applies to 10% of my detractors, or even to 25%… or hell, even to half… and then project it to *all* my detractors, I use a straw-man argument. I use the easy option of projecting these arguments to all my detractors because I don’t have to bother answering them all anymore. I’ve won, you see.
Victory for Reason!
“Not only does it purposefully reduce the scope of the debate, it plays on emotional violin strings by turning the objector to the controversial research into a suffering-prolonging bastard.”
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the objectors are doing so out of some nefarious plot to prolong suffering. I think most of us can agree that both sides have noble intentions but that we feel the others view is misguided. The benefit of the research however is relevant to the subject in question. The possible benefits give us a reason why we should do it and now the burden is on the detractors to give a reason for not doing so.
“At which point, he is a bad person, and his “ignorance” becomes dangerous. And by that small mental feat, we just reduced several people into non-people.”
Dangerously ignorant yes, bad person …. no. I think your seeing something that just isn’t there. I have not heard any comments of his suggesting that believers are bad people or somehow less human.
“ This does not change the fact that Harris views religion as ignorant and dangerous, and that it should disappear from the face of the earth.”
There is nothing wrong with having the desire to live in a world without religion just as there is nothing wrong with someone that believes wanting everyone to believe and enjoy an afterlife. Both sides are convinced they know the truth and want to share it with the other. What matters is how we go about resolving these conflicting views and find the truth. As long as both sides attempt to do so peacefully through debate with respect to one another’s motives I don’t see any problem.
@Zoxuf,
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the objectors are doing so out of some nefarious plot to prolong suffering.
Agreed. And I never implied any accusations of “nefarious plots”. What I heard from Harris was a more-than-implied accusation that the ignorance of the religious was directly causing serious harm, even if the did not intend it.
I think most of us can agree that both sides have noble intentions but that we feel the others view is misguided.
*nod* Agreed. But some rhetoric, on both sides of the field, can have little basis with reality and more focused on putting down the other side. I don’t approve of that sort of thing, usually.
The benefit of the research however is relevant to the subject in question. The possible benefits give us a reason why we should do it and now the burden is on the detractors to give a reason for not doing so.
It is not merely the *benefit* of the research that is relevant. It is also the damage that it brings. I for one believe that one should first weigh the ethical and moral aspects of the action rushing to its supposed benefit.
Dangerously ignorant yes, bad person …. no.
Really? Consider the following hypothetical scenario:
I drive in my car. You walk on the sidewalk. You observe me running over a little girl who was crossing the street, in the properly marked crossing. When you accuse me of manslaughter, I say that I was simply unaware of the laws of the land, and that I did not expect anyone to cross the road in such a matter.
You would then tell me that being ignorant of the law does not excuse my crime.
In the same manner, in this little speech made by Harris, being ignorant of the “facts of science” does not excuse the supposed stifling of the debate. It does not excuse the fact that life-saving research is being put aside by “unreasonable” and “ignorant” considerations. It does not excuse the fact that the girl suffering from burns all over her body is not being healed today because of ME, the ignorant religious person.
Bad religious ignorant has-been! Bad!
There is nothing wrong with having the desire to live in a world without religion just as there is nothing wrong with someone that believes wanting everyone to believe and enjoy an afterlife. Both sides are convinced they know the truth and want to share it with the other.
Being Jewish, that “sharing the Truth” part doesn’t quite resonate with me. I tire of it rather quickly, and prefer the “to each his own” side of the affair. I don’t need to save the whole planet to feel better about my beliefs.
What matters is how we go about resolving these conflicting views and find the truth. As long as both sides attempt to do so peacefully through debate with respect to one another’s motives I don’t see any problem.
Neither do I. It’s when the dialogue becomes “the disease of religion” or “the unbelieving murderers” that I don’t like it. Harris doesn’t quite go as far, but he skirts rather close to it.
“What I heard from Harris was a more-than-implied accusation that the ignorance of the religious was directly causing serious harm, even if the did not intend it.”
He did but the disdain is for the unfounded beliefs that cause said
harm and not the individuals who hold the belief. I can not speak for Harris but I see no reason to believe he views the religious as “suffering-prolonging bastards” or “bad people”. The God of many religions on the other hand does not show the same respect for non-believers.
“It is not merely the *benefit* of the research that is relevant. It is also the damage that it brings.”
I still do not see the damage you are talking about. What exactly is it that is being damaged? Are you referring to the physical structure of an embryo? The soul? The mind? My concern is for the mind but I am not really sure what your position is. If you are concerned about the soul or the mind when in your opinion does said thing come into existence? At conception or after a functioning brain forms?
“Really? Consider the following hypothetical scenario:”
That is not really a fair comparison. The driver was responsible for knowing the law when he started driving. If he did not know he could have easily researched the subject and found out. The truth of the laws is not something being debated so there should be no confusion to anyone wishing to know them. Religion on the other hand is something people are taught, often from a young age. While I would suggest they are ignorant of reality they believe they know the truth. The driver was not taught a false set of laws and then expected to overcome them to avoid hitting the girl.
“Being Jewish, that “sharing the Truth” part doesn’t quite resonate with me.”
That is your right but I am of the opinion that truth is worth arguing for especially when the stakes are so high. If the religious are right then depending on the religion the poor non-believers will suffer greatly or miss out in the afterlife. If the atheists are right then religious concepts that cloud an accurate view of reality or help promote violence and intolerance are unnecessary.
@Zoxuf,
He did but the disdain is for the unfounded beliefs that cause said
harm and not the individuals who hold the belief. I can not speak for Harris but I see no reason to believe he views the religious as “suffering-prolonging bastards” or “bad people”.
*shrug* Unfortunately, I see do see it. Being ignorant of the *facts* still makes you complicit to a crime if you go against them in a manner that brings about suffering and pain. After all, I could have chosen to not believe in my ignorance and lies. I could have instead chosen to follow the path of reason. If I do not choose to think, then it remains my fault for doing so.
The God of many religions on the other hand does not show the same respect for non-believers.
Neither does the non-God of many many non-believers show much respect for believers, as the last couple of centuries showed rather actively.
I still do not see the damage you are talking about. What exactly is it that is being damaged?
Again, you imply that damage must be direct and immediate if we are to consider its existence. I disagree with that view.
As for the formation of soul or mind… can’t say that I know for sure. I prefer to err on the side of caution.
That is not really a fair comparison. The driver was responsible for knowing the law when he started driving.
…
While I would suggest they are ignorant of reality they believe they know the truth. The driver was not taught a false set of laws and then expected to overcome them to avoid hitting the girl.
Cause and effect, effect and cause, Zoxuf! Believing that the law is different from what it is does not change it. If I come from another country, where a different set of laws exists, my complete certainty of its universal applicability worldwide does not excuse me from committing a crime where it doesn’t apply.
And it precisely this that you must realize - for the people for whom it is TRUTH, there is no debate. There is only law. And they treat the actual debate on the matter in the same light. It does not matter which side of the debate you start out on in this case, or any other, it only matters that the people who even *dare* debate the matter with you are criminals. And in which case, one must shift the debate and turn it into a “debate” where there is nothing other than consensus.
I’m afraid that Harris erred in that aspect of it as well, when he talked of “changing” the debate.
If the religious are right then depending on the religion the poor non-believers will suffer greatly or miss out in the afterlife.
Why? Why is it a zero-sum game, a binary either-or? It is only religious fundamentalists who seek to convert all others around them with the complete and utter certainty that there *mustn’t* be any alternative.
Judaism never sought to convert the world, and while it has a very basic general code in terms of the rest of mankind, it doesn’t see it as set requirement. Context varies a great deal across the world, and who are we to understand matters of divine judgment beyond what little we know?
And if I remember correctly, the Catholic Church believes (and believed this even in its more extreme days) that one cannot be judged for his false beliefs if he is not actively familiar, and refuses, the alternative. One cannot be held to account for ignorance in terms of faith in one of the largest Christian denominations.
Why should atheists instead follow in the path of the most extreme religious thinkers? The ones who say “It’s our way, or the Hellfire way”? What is the benefit in this game of binary truth or dare?
The complete smug satisfaction of exclusivity?
If the atheists are right then religious concepts that cloud an accurate view of reality or help promote violence and intolerance are unnecessary.
Religion also promotes lack of violence and tolerance. Religion can promote a great deal of things.
“*shrug* Unfortunately, I see do see it. Being ignorant of the *facts* still makes you complicit to a crime if you go against them in a manner that brings about suffering and pain.”
If being ignorant was a crime all of humanity would be guilty.
“Neither does the non-God of many many non-believers show much respect for believers, as the last couple of centuries showed rather actively.”
Perhaps, but the problem is still one of religion as you defined it earlier. Instead of God they worshiped individuals or the state. Most atheists today are not against religion as much as they are against the blind faith in it that causes so many problems.
“Again, you imply that damage must be direct and immediate if we are to consider its existence. I disagree with that view.”
How do you define damage and when is it applicable in the case of stem cells?
“As for the formation of soul or mind… can’t say that I know for sure. I prefer to err on the side of caution.”
I agree but I think pre brain formation is plenty cautious enough.
“If I come from another country, where a different set of laws exists, my complete certainty of its universal applicability worldwide does not excuse me from committing a crime where it doesn’t apply.”
The scenario is getting a little ridiculous at this point. If the person somehow believed that the driving laws of his country applied in all countries, then I would consider him a fool who should have his driver’s license taken away, but not a bad person. It is far more likely that the scenario you originally described would involve someone that simply didn’t care enough to learn the law.
“And it precisely this that you must realize - for the people for whom it is TRUTH, there is no debate.”
That is exactly the type of mentality that I and many atheists are fighting against.
“What is the benefit in this game of binary truth or dare?”
I care about the beliefs of others because they affect me and society as a whole. They don’t have to agree with me but I would prefer if their views were based on rationality and not blind faith in ancient texts.
“Religion also promotes lack of violence and tolerance. Religion can promote a great deal of things.”
Peaceful people will do peaceful things and violent people will do violent things but it takes religion for otherwise peaceful people to do violent things. As for religion promoting tolerance … I have not seen much of that.
Zoxuf,
If being ignorant was a crime all of humanity would be guilty.
In most cases of defining ignorance as a crime, it is merely the level and the effect of the ignorance that measure its criminality. The rest is just details.
Perhaps, but the problem is still one of religion as you defined it earlier. Instead of God they worshiped individuals or the state.
One does not have to be religious to be a blind follower. One does not have to have a group of like-minded individuals who define a certain way of life as Eternal Truth.
One must simply follow, as most of humanity does, that which was defined by others to be the status-quo.
Most atheists today are not against religion as much as they are against the blind faith in it that causes so many problems.
And yet this fight for Reason, and against blind faith, can result in the bending and actual breaking of its founding principle - without people even noticing! The same can happen to any adherent of any ideal.
And by then, the people in question have already broken one of their own basic premises - that dangerous blind faith is the sole repository of their opponents in the organized religion side of the debate - by their very existence.
How do you define damage and when is it applicable in the case of stem cells?
Direct damage to a noticeable phase of human development, resulting in the slip of moral and ethical standards and which will bring further suffering down the road.
Crossing the threshold of cloning without seeking a viable alternative, opening the door to what will possibly become the greatest crime of our future if keep taking the easy option.
Damage to our long-term future for short-term gains.
It is far more likely that the scenario you originally described would involve someone that simply didn’t care enough to learn the law.
Not really. My hypothetical person simply believed there was no alternatives to the rules he was taught and caused noticeable harm to another in the process of discovering that they did, actually, exist.
That is exactly the type of mentality that I and many atheists are fighting against.
And precisely the mentality that many other atheists have developed, while being completely certain that it can only be held by those not like them.
Welcome to humanity. It was never organized religion that made us fanatics - it was us who made organized religion fanatical.
I care about the beliefs of others because they affect me and society as a whole. They don’t have to agree with me but I would prefer if their views were based on rationality and not blind faith in ancient texts.
Your belief in a self-built logic and moral system as the best path for humanity is itself blind, in its lack of recognition for alternatives.
And in terms of morality, empathy is not “reasonable”. Not even for the survival of the species as a whole. It is also another external development to the reason-based system, attached to it by what I can only consider to be a mistake.
Reason alone is cold, amoral, and utterly without remorse.
Peaceful people will do peaceful things and violent people will do violent things but it takes religion for otherwise peaceful people to do violent things.
I have often heard that adage, and yet a brief glance at human history and behavior disproves it immediately. It does not take religion to make good people to evil. It takes a very good liar to tell them that the evil is, in fact, good. And that liar can be a priest or a scientist or the man serving you spaghetti and meatballs.
But overall I’d say it takes religion to make an evil man do good.
Or for that matter, to define what good an evil are, because for the reason-based thinking man it is just all infinite shades of gray…
As for religion promoting tolerance … I have not seen much of that.
Then your encounters with religious individuals have been rather limited.
“In most cases of defining ignorance as a crime, it is merely the level and the effect of the ignorance that measure its criminality.”
I still think you are putting to much importance on the damage he caused. The law is designed so that people who knowingly break it can not claim they didn’t know as an excuse. Also what is criminal and what makes someone a “bad person” does not have to be the same thing.
“One does not have to be religious to be a blind follower.”
No they do not but most religions encourage it and do not look favorably on those that doubt its teachings.
“Direct damage to a noticeable phase of human development, resulting in the slip of moral and ethical standards and which will bring further suffering down the road.”
Your concern for what might be done in the future aside, what is immoral or unethical about “damaging” this particular phase of human development? If you were 100% certain that they would not take it any further would you be ok with it?
“And precisely the mentality that many other atheists have developed, while being completely certain that it can only be held by those not like them.”
Im sure many have but that is not my position nor have I heard anything from Harris that would suggest it is his. My views are continually being revised and are open to being questioned.
“Your belief in a self-built logic and moral system as the best path for humanity is itself blind, in its lack of recognition for alternatives.”
Best path … maybe not, but my concern is for discovering the truth. Because if my position is right then both moral systems have been authored by man and stripping away the divinity of the religious based ones leaves them open to what I view as some much needed reform.
“And in terms of morality, empathy is not “reasonable”. Not even for the survival of the species as a whole.”
I never said empathy was based on reason. I just said its existence can be explained by evolution.
“Reason alone is cold, amoral, and utterly without remorse.”
You make it sound like I am advocating for the abolishment of human emotion. I can assure you that is not the case.
Leave a Comment