Tuesday, April 1, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Who wants to kill the elderly?

by Times Online

Thanks to Mark for the link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article3648835.ece

Who wants to kill the elderly?
I'm still waiting to hear back from the Bishop of Durham
David Aaronovitch

Last week, irked by what I saw as the use of wild exaggeration by church leaders in the embryology Bill debate, I challenged one of them - the Bishop of Durham - to justify one of his more outrageous claims. Tom Wright had accused the "militantly atheist and secularist lobby" behind the Bill (a Bill, as it happens, supported and sponsored by many practising Christians) of believing "that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people."

I didn't choose to quarrel with Dr Wright's characterisation of abortion. What I did ask for, however, was any evidence whatsoever that any significant secular or atheist body of opinion advocates "the right to kill surplus old people".

Bishop Wright's reply to my challenge, carried on Thursday's letters page in The Times, was to refuse to reply to it until I had answered a further series of questions that he set for me. This is, of course, odd. A cynic might think that the Bishop was playing for time while a diocesan search squad parsed the texts of old Polly Toynbee columns looking for gerontocide.

So let me answer the Bishop's questions. "Is there," he asks me, "any difference between humans and other animals and does this difference matter?" Yes, humans are the most advanced species on earth in terms of emotional and psychological capacity and yes, that makes a difference. But it doesn't, for me, affect whether research can be carried out on hybrid cell clusters.

Question two. What makes me think I "can reduce the function of religion to the provision of �comfort and companionship'" instead of seeing it as a "public truth"? Being an atheist, I suppose. I see religion as a cultural and psychological construct, which fulfils certain almost universal needs and which, as a consequence, I am disinclined to condemn. I am more than content to live alongside the religious in amity, but I don't think I should be expected to acknowledge a public truth that I actually think is a public myth.

The Bishop's third question, "where in St Paul's letters to the Corinthians - or anywhere else for that matter - does the Apostle attack the �sinful mixing' which Mr Aaronovitch seems to think is the sole subject matter of Leviticus?" is based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote, which I daresay is my fault. The point I was attempting to make is that the religious change their own rules when it suits them. What was an abomination in the Old Testament was suddenly permitted under the Apostles, and particularly by Paul. If this wasn't the case the Bishop would be (and here I speculate) a whole foreskin lighter.

So Bishop, your turn. Who is it, of any significance whatsoever, who advocates the "killing of surplus old people"?

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, April 1, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 57 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #153268 by sidfaiwu on April 1, 2008 at 10:26 am

Who is it, of any significance whatsoever, who advocates the "killing of surplus old people"?

This guy: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34122.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

2. Comment #153274 by The Reverend Dark on April 1, 2008 at 10:33 am

Well it wasn't me.**

I support a great deal of charity, specifically Widows, Orphans and Unwed Mothers.

Helping them all get their start.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

** Although another Sarcastic Fat Bastard, the glorious Alexie Sayle once commented about charity in that every weekend he took a busload of senior citizens out to the wilderness, and left them there.

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

3. Comment #153278 by Teratornis on April 1, 2008 at 10:42 am

So Bishop, your turn. Who is it, of any significance whatsoever, who advocates the "killing of surplus old people"?

Perhaps the good Bishop conflates assisted suicide with murder. I'm not sure whether Jack Kevorkian's significance reaches across the pond, but here in the U.S. he has been significant enough to receive news coverage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

Assisting someone who wants to commit suicide is not exactly the same as killing them. Neither is selling an automobile and a bottle of vodka to an irresponsible driver before he crashes into pedestrians on a crowded sidewalk. Perhaps in the former case, the distinction is lost on the Bishop.

While we're on the subject of the elderly, it's worth noting that in the U.S., about one third of a person's lifetime medical care costs typically occur in the last year of life. Given that health care costs in the U.S. are increasing several times faster than real incomes, if present trends continue it's only a question of time before it simply becomes impossible to keep all the old people alive as long as technology allows. There won't be enough young, productive people to support them. This is probably already true in countries with low birth rates.

If the Bishop really cares about old people, he should quit wasting his brain cells on theological waffle and join the scientific effort to reduce health care costs. Presumably someone is working on that.

Other Comments by Teratornis

4. Comment #153280 by Janus on April 1, 2008 at 10:47 am

I see religion as a cultural and psychological construct, which fulfils certain almost universal needs and which, as a consequence, I am disinclined to condemn.

Really?

I don't think I should be expected to acknowledge a public truth that I actually think is a public myth

You just called a strongly held belief of many people a "myth". Sounds like a condemnation to me.

Other Comments by Janus

5. Comment #153289 by Nighttripper on April 1, 2008 at 10:56 am

You just called a strongly held belief of many people a "myth". Sounds like a condemnation to me.

No, he said that he thinks that it's a myth. That's just voicing an opinion.

Other Comments by Nighttripper

6. Comment #153293 by Janus on April 1, 2008 at 11:03 am

No, he said that he thinks that it's a myth. That's just voicing an opinion.

I think you're an idiot.

Whoa there! Don't be offended. I said that I think you're an idiot. That's just voicing an opinion.

Other Comments by Janus

7. Comment #153294 by Sally Luxmoore on April 1, 2008 at 11:03 am

the "militantly atheist and secularist lobby"

How can I join this eminently sensible organisation? It's talked about so often that it must be real. I'd rather not wear a uniform, though - do you think it has a peaceful wing?
How could so many religious believers be wrong?

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

8. Comment #153309 by upsidedawn on April 1, 2008 at 11:21 am

One might be offended by someone's opinion. Yet that still doesn't make the opinion a condemnation.

Other Comments by upsidedawn

9. Comment #153312 by icanus on April 1, 2008 at 11:25 am

So, religious groups want to stifle research that promises to improve the quality and duration of people's lives - old people included - and we're the ones who want to "kill surplus old people"?.

I guess just letting them die of diseases we could have cured is the way to go?

Other Comments by icanus

10. Comment #153320 by Janus on April 1, 2008 at 11:36 am

One might be offended by someone's opinion. Yet that still doesn't make the opinion a condemnation.

Yes, it does. A strongly negative opinion is a condemnation. A condemnation is a strongly negative opinion.

If you want to prove me wrong, all you have to do is explain to me what the difference in meaning is between "Religion is a myth", and "I think religion is a myth".

There is no difference. The sentence "religion is a myth" implies an "I think" before it. To specify that a claim about reality is "only what I think" is redundant. Of course it's only what I think. What else could it be?

That electrons exist is "only" what scientists and scientifically literate people think. The same goes for the belief that the Earth is round and every other widely accepted belief. Likewise, that religion is a myth is "only" what rational people think.

I'm sorry if I sound harsh. I don't really blame you (or anyone else) for believing that specifying that a claim is "just an opinion" somehow makes it weaker or less offensive (if it's negative) or less subject to criticism. It's a logical fallacy that is very, very common, and very, very few people realize that it is a fallacy.

Other Comments by Janus

11. Comment #153324 by upsidedawn on April 1, 2008 at 11:44 am

Well, I'm certainly no genius, but "I think you are wrong," would definitely just be my opinion, and not in any way a condemnation of you.

Other Comments by upsidedawn

12. Comment #153330 by Janus on April 1, 2008 at 11:50 am

Well, the word 'condemnation' is a pretty strong one. Would you consider the simple statement "You are wrong" a condemnation?

At most, the "I think" may indicate a lesser level of certainty, but the belief is still held strongly enough to, well, be a belief. If this belief is strongly negative, it's a condemnation.

Okay, enough arguing about the meaning of words for today. :)

Other Comments by Janus

13. Comment #153334 by zendal_darkman on April 1, 2008 at 11:57 am

run to the hills! The "militantly atheist and secularist lobby" are a'commin, and they care little for sincerely held beliefs.

Other Comments by zendal_darkman

14. Comment #153340 by Storeo on April 1, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Con·demnation [of belief X]
a.

1. Pronouncing [belief X] to be wrong, guilty, worthless, or forfeited; adjudged or sentenced to punishment, destruction, or confiscation.

Sounds (to me) a bit stronger than positing belief X to be a myth.

Other Comments by Storeo

15. Comment #153352 by fides_et_ratio on April 1, 2008 at 12:15 pm

I'm with Janus on this one. Every set of words spoken starts as a thought, it's just that conversations would be incredibly long-winded if we had to preface each set of words with, 'I think', so we don't.

On the point. I suspect the Bishop could point to every MP, journalist and opiner who's ever uttered in favour of (so-called (voluntary)) euthanasia.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

16. Comment #153360 by sidfaiwu on April 1, 2008 at 12:21 pm

The odd thing is that I don't consider 'myth' to be a negative term. It's a special class of stories that hold particular importance to the society that has them. Thus 'myth' = 'extremely important story'. Implicitly, he is recognizing Christianity's importance in Western culture (good or bad, it certainly is of high historical importance).

Of course, the other implication is that the stories are not inherently true simply because it is that culture's myth.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

17. Comment #153362 by mr-zero on April 1, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Janus - you're an idiot.
Z

Other Comments by mr-zero

18. Comment #153374 by Podaar on April 1, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Comment #153324 by upsidedawn

Well, I'm certainly no genius, but "I think you are wrong," would definitely just be my opinion, and not in any way a condemnation of you.

Yes, but it is a condemnation of his opinion.
Edit: I think

Other Comments by Podaar

19. Comment #153392 by BicycleRepairMan on April 1, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Janus: I think all religious myths are, well.. myths, but that doesnt mean I condemn them, or the people believing in them. I dont see why you would equal the two.

Condemnation implies a very strong negative stance ie: "I condemn murder" I dont simply "disagree" with murder, or think its "a bad idea" I condemn it. theres a huge difference. There are some ideas in the christian faith that I feel more strongly against than others, but I wouldnt go so far as to condemn any and all christianity, or its myths.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

20. Comment #153464 by michabo on April 1, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Janus,

A conclusion is not an opinion. They are not condemnations.

Saying "I believe religions are myths" is not an opinion, it is an evaluation of facts, it is a conclusion. If someone is upset by this, then they have a problem with reality.

Condemnations are reserved for moral disagreements, such as disagreeing over actions. You may condemn me for expressing my conclusions, but I don't think you fully understand what it means to say that a religion is a myth if you think this is a condemnation.

Other Comments by michabo

21. Comment #153468 by Teratornis on April 1, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Comment #153280 by Janus:

I see religion as a cultural and psychological construct, which fulfils certain almost universal needs and which, as a consequence, I am disinclined to condemn.

Really?

Well, lots of people feel disinclined to condemn drinking, another cultural construct which fulfills certain almost universal needs. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey

Recreational use of ethanol has many similarities to religion. Perhaps not coincidenally a number of religions have incorporated psychoactive drugs into their religious practices.

Recreational drugs cause an enormous amount of objective harm, but much of the harm results from a minority of irresponsible users (many of whom are enrolled in colleges at a given time).

Irresponsible drinkers are analogous to the fanatical elements within religion. The vast majority of religious people aren't about to personally blow up abortion clinics or commit suicide attacks, but opponents of religion like to argue that moderate religion provides cover to immoderate religion.

I quite agree that moderate religion enables extreme religion, and I wonder why we do not similarly condemn moderate drinking, which provides similar cover to problem drinking.

If anyone can tell me how to square that particular circle I'd like to hear it.

Other Comments by Teratornis

22. Comment #153489 by Dinah on April 1, 2008 at 1:59 pm

I think there is a difference between 'killing old people' and not keeping people alive who are suffering unbearably. This is a difficult moral area, but we are often more compassionate to animals in this respect than to other human beings, being encouraged to put a pet out of its misery - sometimes risking prosecution for not doing so - but forbidden on pain of prosecution to do the same for our own kind. Of course, the religious lobby who believe life is bestowed and taken away by their god will always oppose any kind of euthanasia, no matter how much suffering this means for individuals.

Lord Joffe's Bill allowing voluntary euthanasia in very limited circumstances has been continually opposed by the religious in Parliament.

Anyone worried about being kept alive against their wishes should make a Living Will. There is no guarantee its instructions will be followed, but it is better than doing nothing.

Other Comments by Dinah

23. Comment #153497 by michabo on April 1, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Teratornis,

"I quite agree that moderate religion enables extreme religion, and I wonder why we do not similarly condemn moderate drinking, which provides similar cover to problem drinking."

I think the problem with religious fundamentalism isn't so much the amount that religion is practised, but that it results in very negative behaviour. We can and should condemn this behaviour. This is the same with drinking, where the problem isn't that people are consuming alcohol, but that they can be harmful to themselves or others after drinking. We can and should condemn this harmful behaviour.

So there are some similarities.

But there are some differences.

Religious moderates or liberals are generally not harmful, but they argue that we should "respect" faith and dogmatic belief. That protects them, but there's no clear difference between the dogmatic, unsupported belief of a moderate and a fundamentalist. They want to argue that the problem with fundies is that their actions are wrong, but if their beliefs are accurate, then their actions are perfectly justifiable (I know that if I thought I would be tortured unless I behaved a certain way, then I would change my behaviour!). The moderates refuse to attack the delusional nature of the belief and the dogma, because it will come back to strike them.

For alcohol though, we can have a beer or a glass of wine and not be violent. There's no inherent problem with taking mind-altering drugs in moderation, and a moderate drinker can have a consistent moral stance by attacking the behaviour of drunks with no fear of hypocrisy. The problem only comes up if you're puritanical, opposing drinking on religious/dogmatic grounds (as people seem to do with marijuana). Then, there is some sort of magical taint and you have to make up some imaginary line, one one side "safe" and the other "diseased".

Other Comments by michabo

24. Comment #153539 by Janus on April 1, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Ugh. I didn't think I'd derail the thread to this extent.

michabo wrote:

Janus,

A conclusion is not an opinion. They are not condemnations.

Saying "I believe religions are myths" is not an opinion, it is an evaluation of facts, it is a conclusion. If someone is upset by this, then they have a problem with reality.

Condemnations are reserved for moral disagreements, such as disagreeing over actions. You may condemn me for expressing my conclusions, but I don't think you fully understand what it means to say that a religion is a myth if you think this is a condemnation.

By the way, are you the michabo from christanforums? I stopped posting on that forum a while ago. Oh man, those were the days.

Anyway. You're right, obviously. Merely stating a fact (or something that is believed to be a fact) is not itself a moral judgment. However, some statements of fact can imply a moral judgment because most people who live in the same society (or similar societies) share certain moral premises. For example, stating that Louis the 14th "ruthlessly drove his own people into abject poverty so as to fund the building of various castles, bridges, monuments, etc" isn't a moral judgment, but if the speaker is like the vast, vast majority of people, we can assume that he harbors negative feelings towards the French king because of the stated fact.

Likewise, most people consider it at least somewhat morally reprehensible to be deluded, to willfully believe that a falsehood is true. Saying that religion is a myth implies a condemnation of religious believers for believing a myth.

Other Comments by Janus

25. Comment #153599 by michabo on April 1, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Hey Janus - thought I recognized your avatar. Yeah, haven't been back to CF for a long time, I guess I must still have some religious dialogue left in me though :)

Saying that religion is a myth implies a condemnation of religious believers for believing a myth.

What is being condemned? I think that most people, religious or otherwise, don't want to think they believe in myths so the problem isn't that one person is condemning another, it's that the religious person might end up condemning themselves. Surely the issue is with what is real.

I guess I'm reminded of the position of many liberal theologians who act as if it doesn't matter whether their beliefs are accurate or not, just whether that belief is helpful. If that's true, then they should understand that they could easily be believing in myths and not care, yet they seem offended if you imply that their religious beliefs are mythical. They try to have it both ways and fail at both.

Ironically, it's the fundies who seem to not get upset by accusations that their beliefs are mythical. They know that their beliefs are true and think that anyone who can't see that are the delusional ones.

Other Comments by michabo

26. Comment #153602 by dloubet on April 1, 2008 at 4:27 pm

To the religious, the very existence of atheists implies a condemnation on the atheist's part. To them, the very fact that we don't agree with them means we think we're smarter than they are.

And that's just the starting point of the dialogue.

Other Comments by dloubet

27. Comment #153615 by Russell Blackford on April 1, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Actually, a lot of people claim that there is a "duty to die", applicable to the elderly, but, in my experience, the duty to diers are usually folk who are more or less hostile to advanced biomedical research.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

28. Comment #153619 by Bobington on April 1, 2008 at 4:58 pm

A 'duty to die'???

I wasn't aware that was optional.

Other Comments by Bobington

29. Comment #153630 by occam's machete on April 1, 2008 at 5:28 pm

When moderate drinkers expect the rest of us to have a sip now and then, or to have part of our taxes devoted to financing institutions to spread moderate drinking even further, or to sit by while our leaders extol the virtues of moderate drinkers and never pass a law without consulting at least one prominent moderate drinker representative... THEN you'll have an analogy.

Other Comments by occam's machete

30. Comment #153644 by MaxD on April 1, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Teratornis,
are you a teetotaler?
Also,
others have noted the weakness of the analogy but let me add another. I, as a drinker, do not try to force my love of Guiness and Jameson on my fellow humans, nor do I hold myself morally superior because of my choice of poison. Clearly I am better than those assholes who wallow away the hours sipping Boone's Farm, but.....
So...where is the circle you needed squared?

Other Comments by MaxD

31. Comment #153646 by Russell Blackford on April 1, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Bobington, we all die eventually - but the issue is about whether the elderly should die sooner rather than later. The supposed duty to die is a duty for the elderly not to try to stay alive beyond a certain point. As I said, it tends to be people with a Luddite perpective who argue for this, not people who support advanced biomedical research. The bishop has things exactly backwards.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

32. Comment #153648 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 6:15 pm

But it doesn't, for me, affect whether research can be carried out on hybrid cell clusters.

Uh, are the religious folks in the UK who are now opposing the idea of combining human and non-human DNA aware of how we make insulin?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

33. Comment #153654 by MaxD on April 1, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Doc Benway!
This kind of thing you are talking about, is exactly the kind of thing religious folks like to ignore, not know, or understand.

Other Comments by MaxD

34. Comment #153657 by Wosret on April 1, 2008 at 6:58 pm

I don't like the guy writing this. He's too wishy-washy for my tastes. Alos, he's one of those "I don't need religion, but almost everyone else does" types. Which piss me off.

any difference between humans and other animals and does this difference matter?

This is a really odd question. Pick out any animal and it is different than other animals in some way, that is what makes it it's own species. The second part of the question is far too ambiguous to answer. Does it matter? In what way? and to whom? Do the differences matter? This requires context. If I want someone to repair my TV, then I'd sooner call a TV repair man than a horse. If I want something to ride to town, then I'd sooner get a horse than a person.

The implication is clear that our differences are suppose to make us universally and objectively better than any other animal. This is of course nonsense, and it is not disputed. That bothers me. Animal's differences make them better at what they do, we are no exception.

Other Comments by Wosret

35. Comment #153684 by Saerain on April 1, 2008 at 8:32 pm

21. Comment #153468 by Teratornis on April 1, 2008 at 1:45 pm

I quite agree that moderate religion enables extreme religion, and I wonder why we do not similarly condemn moderate drinking, which provides similar cover to problem drinking.

Oh, I agree, and I do condemn it equally, if not more so than superstition, and definitely more than any other detrimental consumption.

Other Comments by Saerain

36. Comment #153686 by theantitheist on April 1, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Hey the more people writting on our side the better. We need the wissy washy as well as the "shrill" militants.

More the better in my book.

Other Comments by theantitheist

37. Comment #153723 by Teratornis on April 2, 2008 at 12:12 am

Comment #153497 by michabo:

I think the problem with religious fundamentalism isn't so much the amount that religion is practised, but that it results in very negative behaviour.

I suggest a different metric, the amount of sacred text taken literally. Ask yourself:

1. In the absence of cultures where the practice of Islam is widespread, how many fundamentalist Muslims would there be?

2. In the absence of cultures where the practice of drinking is widespread, how many drunks would there be?

We can and should condemn this behaviour. This is the same with drinking, where the problem isn't that people are consuming alcohol, but that they can be harmful to themselves or others after drinking. We can and should condemn this harmful behaviour.

What if, instead of merely condemning a harmful behavior, we looked for ways to actually reduce it?

We might, for example, compare the alcoholism rates in countries where moderate drinking is widespread, vs. countries where drinking is rare.

I would imagine that in a largely secular country like Sweden, the incidence of religious fundamentalism is lower than in a more religious country like the United States. There would probably be more religious fundamentalism in an even more intensely religious country like Saudi Arabia.

So there are some similarities.

But there are some differences.

How about this similarity:

1. Religious moderate says: "Not my religion!"
2. Moderate drinker says: "Not my drinking!"

When you tell religious moderates that their moderate religion "gives cover" to extreme religion, that makes as much sense to them as when you tell moderate drinkers that they are somehow facilitating the problem drinkers.

If we expect religious moderates to take responsibility for religious extremists, then I think we should be fair and expect moderate drinkers to take the same responsibility for drunks.

Note that one way to do this is to tax alcoholic beverages and use the proceeds to treat alcoholism. Similarly we could tax all religion and use the proceeds to deprogram the fanatics.

Religious moderates or liberals are generally not harmful, but they argue that we should "respect" faith and dogmatic belief. That protects them, but there's no clear difference between the dogmatic, unsupported belief of a moderate and a fundamentalist. They want to argue that the problem with fundies is that their actions are wrong, but if their beliefs are accurate, then their actions are perfectly justifiable (I know that if I thought I would be tortured unless I behaved a certain way, then I would change my behaviour!). The moderates refuse to attack the delusional nature of the belief and the dogma, because it will come back to strike them.

I'm having a little trouble understanding that paragraph. The history of religion is full of conflicts and arguments between different sects and schisms, ranging from doctrinal disputes to open warfare. Religious moderates don't use the atheist's arguments against religious extremists, of course, but they can certainly scold whatever they find excessive.

Over here in the States, we watched Republican evangelicals squirming with discomfort over (Presidential candidate) Mitt Romney, because evangelicals consider Mormonism to be a cult rather than genuine Christianity. The cool thing about religious intolerance is that it tends to wedge apart allies of convenience.

The pro-choice movement in the U.S. might do better to remind its opponents of all the irresolvable doctrinal disputes they have with each other. Focus on the issue of whether we should pray to Mary, and remind the Catholic and Protestant folks of all the scores they have to settle with each other.

For alcohol though, we can have a beer or a glass of wine and not be violent. There's no inherent problem with taking mind-altering drugs in moderation, and a moderate drinker can have a consistent moral stance by attacking the behaviour of drunks with no fear of hypocrisy. The problem only comes up if you're puritanical, opposing drinking on religious/dogmatic grounds (as people seem to do with marijuana). Then, there is some sort of magical taint and you have to make up some imaginary line, one one side "safe" and the other "diseased".

The only way there's "no inherent problem" would be if the moderate drinker lives alone on a desert island and brews his own hooch, and there is nobody else around to be influenced.

Everybody else who lives in society and participates in culture and an economy is having an influence on other people. The individual's influence may be small, like the tiniest trickle of water down a mountainside in Peru, but when all those trickles run together they add up to the Amazon River.

When a large percentage of people in a given region are moderate drinkers, there will be a large alcoholic beverage (i.e. recreational drug) industry to supply them with drink. This industry will naturally look to increase its profit, because that's why industries exist. It will hire business school graduates who will determine that profits depend strongly on how much each customer drinks. The industry will then hire advertising professionals whose paychecks depend on their ability to persuade people to drink more. Given that these people tend to keep working, they must have some ability to do what they get paid to do.

There is the cultural norm phenomenon. People tend to be slavish conformists, so we all naturally feel strong pressure to model our behavior after the behavior of people around us. If everyone around us is at least a moderate drinker, we will all feel some pressure to be at least moderate drinkers too.

In any population of humans, a small percentage of people happen to be prone to taking various things to extremes. People who are prone to alcoholism are thus highly vulnerable in a culture where drinking is widespread and alchohol is easily obtained. This became clear during the European conquest of North America, when native cultures which had no prior experience with alcohol got their first taste of it. Before the White Man arrived, there were no problem drinkers in Native American tribes. Afterward, alcoholism was rampant. (It's possible Europeans have evolved some (but clearly not enough) genetic and/or social resistance to alcohol, during centuries of being poisoned by it, much as Europeans were no longer quite as devastated by measles, smallpox, etc., as the Native Americans were.)

We see much the same thing with gambling. Most people can go to a casino and know when to stop throwing away their hard-earned money. But a small percentage of people become compulsive gamblers, throw away all their money, then borrow more and throw that away too. It's a lot easier for that small susceptible percentage to get in big trouble when every town has legalized gambling, and the casinos are running advertisements on television. Of course it goes without saying that every smart casino makes sure its marks enjoy plenty of "free" drinks, since the function of alcohol is to make people more stupid.

If we are going to hold religious moderates even partly responsible for religious extremists, then we should be logically consistent and hold moderate drinkers, moderate gamblers, responsible drivers, etc., partly responsible for the extreme and irresponsible types who take the respective activities too far. This is especially true for automobile use when it becomes pervasive - then even the most incompetent drivers feel overwhelming pressure to drive, because they have no other way to get around. This is why in the U.S. it is routine to hear of drivers with multiple DUI convictions continuing to get back into their cars until they finally kill enough people to get sent to jail for a long time. As long as they are out of jail, they will keep finding ways to get back behind the wheel.

If we're going to exclaim, "Not my drinking!" (or gambling, or driving, etc.) then let's be logically consistent and cut religious moderates the same slack when they exclaim "Not my religion!" Otherwise we're just being hypocritical.

Other Comments by Teratornis

38. Comment #153732 by mrjonno on April 2, 2008 at 12:33 am

I think the difference between alcohol and religion is while both can be 'fun', serve a need etc only one claims to be good and to be respected.

No one seriously claims drinking a beer makes you a better person, no one says teaching the young to enjoy beer is vital for society etc (unless you are a pastafarian etc). In no country in the world is alcohol not seriously restricted in its use, no minors, restrictions that you can do while under the influence and where you can buy the stuff etc

Other Comments by mrjonno

39. Comment #153738 by Teratornis on April 2, 2008 at 1:01 am

Comment #153644 by MaxD:

Teratornis,
are you a teetotaler?

Are you a drunk?

"Teetotaler" is a term I find as amusingly incongruous as Sam Harris finds the word "atheist," and for closely analogous reasons (do we need a word for people who don't believe in astrology?). Do you also have a special term for people who don't shoot up with smack? (Are you a smacktotaler?) How about people who refrain from beheading people they disagree with? Got a word for them?

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to coin a word like "drunk," because getting drunk is an action.

I prefer not to hand my money to an industry which profits when drunk drivers kill pedestrians, cyclists, and children. Just as I prefer not to hand my money to the Wahhabi theocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia in exchange for petroleum. Life without imported petroleum would involve some sacrifice, but life without recreational drugs is effortless. That is, effortless for anyone who doesn't get himself addicted.

Also,
others have noted the weakness of the analogy but let me add another.

Every comparison we would call an analogy has weaknesses. An analogy with no weaknesses is more properly an identity.

I, as a drinker, do not try to force my love of Guiness and Jameson on my fellow humans,

The vast majority of Christians don't try to force their love of Jesus on anyone either - they can all hide behind the same lame cop-out. You probably pass thousands of Christians every year who make no attempt whatsoever to preach to you. You probably know lots of people who hold religious beliefs they haven't shared. (Rumor has it that some Christians wait until after having sex before they mention their religious affiliation to a new partner. Imagine the angst when an Episcopalian hooks up with a Lutheran, and each one realizes they are unequally yoked to an unbeliever.)

However, when Christians drop their money in the plate, they are paying professional Christians to try to influence everybody else.

Similarly, when you buy your recreational drugs, you are paying an industry to do its best to poison more people, by using state-of-the-art advertising technology, professional lobbyists to subvert governments, and so on.

Do you have a breathalyzer interlock installed in your car, to insure there is no chance you will ever drive while you are drunk, and no chance that anyone else could drive your car while drunk either?

nor do I hold myself morally superior because of my choice of poison.

Yes, I don't get any sense of moral superiority from you at all. Being a real paragon of deference, humility, and circumspection myself, I deeply admire these traits in other people.

Clearly I am better than those assholes who wallow away the hours sipping Boone's Farm, but.....
So...where is the circle you needed squared?

Let's start with "choice" of "poison."

Why would anyone choose a poison?

By the way, how often do you post while drunk?

Other Comments by Teratornis

40. Comment #153740 by Teratornis on April 2, 2008 at 1:18 am

Comment #153732 by mrjonno:

I think the difference between alcohol and religion is while both can be 'fun', serve a need etc only one claims to be good and to be respected.

Then why do drunks get so defensive when I call them drunks?

Drunks demand respect as much as anyone else. Look at all the drunks here flailing around trying to distance drinking from religion.

When Marx called religion the opiate of the people, he wasn't only making a point about religion.

No one seriously claims drinking a beer makes you a better person,

If only getting drunk increased a person's self-doubt! Then we might not have so many drunks confidently climbing into cars and murdering thousands of people each year.

I think when a drunk insists on driving, that's about as serious a claim to competence that a person can make. Serious in terms of consequences.

"I'm not as think as you drunk I am" (sic)

In no country in the world is alcohol not seriously restricted in its use, no minors, restrictions that you can do while under the influence and where you can buy the stuff etc

Most people who are habitual drunks got hooked as teenagers. As did most people who are habitual smokers.

Making religion unlawful for minors might actually increase its appeal to young people, if the example of alcohol is any guide.

Did anyone reading this, who grew up in a country with these restrictions on underaged drinking, have the slightest difficulty obtaining alchohol as a teenager?

Other Comments by Teratornis

41. Comment #153752 by AKirkland on April 2, 2008 at 1:52 am

Teratornis, you actually make a really good point. Although it's not a perfect analogy (which, as you pointed out, is what makes it an analogy and not an identity) there are a lot of similarities here, and one of them is that people are getting "offended" and defensive when you try to push your point. The reactions that a lot of people are having here to the alcohol/religion analogy is similar to the reaction that Christians have when you try to point out the inconsistencies in their position. It's true that alcohol is a legal drug (being much more dangerous than cannabis, and not just because it's more popular) simply because it is embedded in our culture and is supported by a majority of "moderate" drinkers who would never drink and drive (or blow up abortion clinics...).

Personally, I justify my moderate drinking by only buying top-shelf stuff from independant boutique brewers and distilleries... that way I'm not supporting the big corporations. It's a bit of a cop-out, but hey, I like the taste!

Other Comments by AKirkland

42. Comment #153754 by Nighttripper on April 2, 2008 at 1:55 am

Did anyone reading this, who grew up in a country with these restrictions on underaged drinking, have the slightest difficulty obtaining alchohol as a teenager?

Speaking from The Netherlands; nope. But they did step up on enforcing the minimum age for buying cigarettes and alcohol in the supermarkets the last few years. Still, there are plenty of other ways to get it.

Other Comments by Nighttripper

43. Comment #153757 by Quetzalcoatl on April 2, 2008 at 1:58 am

Teratornis-

No problem. House parties are the friend of the under-age drinker.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

44. Comment #153771 by Russell Blackford on April 2, 2008 at 3:46 am

I've never much bought into this business about moderate religionists being "enablers". My problem is more that so many ostensibly moderate ones aren't really so moderate when you scratch the surface. Besides, the real enablers are often not religious moderates but non-believer who believe in belief.

All that said, I don't see any analogy with drinking alcohol. First, alcohol is a positively good thing in relatively small quantities (as are many other recreational drugs). I don't think that that's necessarily the case with religion. Second, people who drink alcohol in relatively small quantities don't go around saying that everybody must respect drunken yobbos. If there are some moderate religionists who go around saying that we must respect the crazy religionists (and there probably are quite a few), then once more the analogy breaks down.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

45. Comment #153775 by nalfeshnee on April 2, 2008 at 3:56 am

Might I respectfully point out that anyone who surmises "condemnation" from the statement "I think religion is a myth" clearly hasn't heard Hitchens expounding on this very statement.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

46. Comment #153780 by black wolf on April 2, 2008 at 4:33 am

It's talked about so often that it must be real. I'd rather not wear a uniform, though - do you think it has a peaceful wing?

Of course it's real. As theologists have explained to us countless times, the capability to find a word for something, however nebulous the definition of that word may be, makes that something real. Ergo, the militant lobby does exist.
For your benefit, you can join our secret police, the MilASecPo. They wear civil, and you have the free choice to wear anything from sandals to combat boots. You can even stay in a foxhole as long as you wish. Isn't that great?

Other Comments by black wolf

47. Comment #153809 by RobDinsmore on April 2, 2008 at 5:43 am

I just want to chime in on my agreement to what has already been posted.

The author claims that religion is a myth but he does not condemn the belief in that myth for he concedes that it may have some value. Actually he goes a little further than that and says it fulfills a universal need.

I, of course, condemn this idea. Myths have no value outside of entertainment or as the subject of scientific inquiry. There is no universal need for a myth based world view, though it does seem likely that it is a universal phenomenon, at least in human culture.

Other Comments by RobDinsmore

48. Comment #153827 by AKirkland on April 2, 2008 at 6:10 am

The idea that religion fulfils a universal need that everyone except the claimer of this fallacy has is quite patronising I find, and so I too condemn the idea.

However, in his defence, he is trying to start a discussion with a Christian Bishop who has already revealed himself as a bit of a nutter, so the author could simply be trying to avoid being too "strident" to the man in order to encourage a decent response.

Other Comments by AKirkland

49. Comment #153828 by j.mills on April 2, 2008 at 6:12 am

Posters above are offering voluntary euthanasia as a possible escape-clause for the Bishop, but that can't be described as "killing surplus old people". It's nothing to do with 'surplus' - what's the RIGHT number of old people anyway?

The case for voluntary euthanasia is actually about VALUING the individual's freedom so highly that we accord him/her the right to choose when to die. Whether you support it or not, it's the OPPOSITE of the utilitarian caricature the Bishop implies.

Other Comments by j.mills

50. Comment #153853 by CJ22 on April 2, 2008 at 6:47 am

Alcohol is heavily taxed in the UK. Religion, rather the reverse. I'd be much more sanguine about religion if it suffered regular tax increases in the annual budget, like most other vices do.

Other Comments by CJ22

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last