Saturday, May 17, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

These dim-wits believe in anything but God

by Telegraph

Thanks to Monty Burns for the link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/16/do1605.xml

These dim-wits believe in anything but God
By George Pitcher

Parents should be warned that there is a growing threat to their children, undetected by the electric gates and security cameras of their schools. It is insidious because it is absolutist, intolerant and threatens the opportunity for young people to complete their education as rounded individuals with critical, discerning minds.

A parliamentary joint committee on human rights let it be known yesterday that it reckons under-16s should be allowed to opt out of the religious education component of their syllabus if they disagree with its content. The MPs claim that the Government could be breaching pupils' rights to freedom of thought, conscience and belief, as defined under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

"We recommend that the Government reconsiders its objection to permitting a child of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding to withdraw from religious education," intone the parliamentary thought police. "As for religious worship, we recommend that children who are not in the sixth form but who have sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding to be permitted to withdraw."

The National Secular Society (NSS), the dreary ogre behind all this kind of nonsense, chimes in: "Around two thirds of secondary school students do not define themselves as religious and their freedom of conscience - guaranteed in every human rights charter to which the UK is a signatory - is being violated by the Government. School children are a captive audience for both Collective Worship and Religious Education."

I can't be bothered to examine what a bunch of dim-witted MPs can possibly mean in this context by under-16s "of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding". Are they seriously suggesting that the only pupils for whom religious education should be compulsory, against their will, are the immature, thick and ignorant?

The NSS's agenda is simple: it wants to force the next generation to stop thinking about the spiritual, the transcendental and the mysterious, in favour of a negative utilitarianism. That can be the only reason for picking on this particular bit of the syllabus. I would have embraced Satan in order to give up physics at school; not because it may have flown in the face of a fundamentalist creationism that had seeded in my soul, but because latent heat and absolute density bored me to tears.

Now I'm rather glad I did it; not because I learned very much, but because I did learn what it meant to understand something that I didn't want to. That may be worth pondering when a sufficiently mature and intelligent under-16 says he or she doesn't want to study the Abramic faiths "because they're boring", which is all too often what a matter of conscience amounts to when you're young.

Sure, our ideas of society, constitution and legislature owe limitless debt to secularist Romans and Greeks and other civilisations. But to bin what the Judeo-Christian tradition has bequeathed us in terms of responsibility for the stranger, care for the vulnerable, collective consciousness and our sense of what is right and wrong is utterly ludicrous. That's before we consider what it means to appreciate how these values are inculcated in our children's friends by Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism and, yes, by Humanism and Secularism. The enemy of pluralism is not religious education, but secular fundamentalists. And they seem to take no account of the danger of extremists at the margins of religion - better, apparently, to ignore than to understand how they pervert the precepts of the faiths they claim to represent.

You'll forgive me for wheeling out for another appreciation of G.K. Chesterton's old saw that those who stop believing in God don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. We can easily substitute education for God. That's the future towards which these bossy secularists would like to lead our children.

Happily, their cruel and unusual punishments won't reach the statute book. But we should ask them one question - what is it that they are so afraid of?

Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 83 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #181430 by Henri Bergson on May 17, 2008 at 8:21 am

Solution: Rename & alter, 'Religious Studies' to 'Elementary Philosophy & Religion'.

It is important, I believe, that children know about religion so that they can realise how absurd it is. Knowledge is power.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

2. Comment #181432 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 17, 2008 at 8:24 am

Parents should be warned that there is a growing threat to their children, undetected by the electric gates and security cameras of their schools. It is insidious because it is absolutist, intolerant and threatens the opportunity for young people to complete their education as rounded individuals with critical, discerning minds.

OO OO! Uh...is it...Religious fundamentalism?

EDIT: Henri...knowledge is also freedom. :)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

3. Comment #181436 by HoyaSaxa87 on May 17, 2008 at 8:28 am

what kind of secularist group wouldn't want children learning about religion? How are you supposed to resist and argue against something you don't understand?

Religion should be kept out of the science classroom and also not preached about in school. But to not learn about it at all? That's just plain dumb.

Other Comments by HoyaSaxa87

4. Comment #181437 by Henri Bergson on May 17, 2008 at 8:29 am

Freedom = power

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

5. Comment #181438 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 8:29 am

Solution: Rename & alter, 'Religious Studies' to 'Elementary Philosophy & Religion'.

It is important, I believe, that children know about religion so that they can realise how absurd it is. Knowledge is power.

Agree

I am sure one of the quickest ways to encourage critical thinking in children is to teach them comparative religion and answer their questions HONESTLY. (I can dream!)

Children should not be forced to attend religious worship though.

Other Comments by PJG

6. Comment #181439 by Philster61 on May 17, 2008 at 8:33 am

The study of religion is not the same as studying religion.You shouldnt have to buy into it in order to understand it.

Other Comments by Philster61

7. Comment #181441 by SilentMike on May 17, 2008 at 8:33 am

Are they seriously suggesting that the only pupils for whom religious education should be compulsory, against their will, are the immature, thick and ignorant?

Sounds like about the right fit.

And they seem to take no account of the danger of extremists at the margins of religion - better, apparently, to ignore than to understand how they pervert the precepts of the faiths they claim to represent.

But reading the books always seems to indicate that the fundamentalists are correct (or at least closer to the original). Doesn't it?

Other Comments by SilentMike

8. Comment #181442 by Caudimordax on May 17, 2008 at 8:34 am

What, exactly, is "negative utilitarianism?"

Other Comments by Caudimordax

9. Comment #181443 by Thurston on May 17, 2008 at 8:35 am

There's a great reply to this in today's Telegraph:

Sir-George Pitcher claims that children are better off learning about theology than thermodynamics. Please let me, as a "dim-witted atheist", suggest why he is wrong.

Simply put: the real world into which children must grow up is not adequately described by the Bronze Age mythologies of Abraham - however intellectually easy it might be to accept their narratives.

The real world is beautifully described by evolution, chemistry, quantum physics and relativity - although these concepts require insight and even a few brain cells.

Mr Pitcher says he failed to "get" science at school, and so he condemned himself to cling, like an eternal child, to myth and magic.

Dr Chris Scanlan
The Queen's College, Oxford

OUCH!

Other Comments by Thurston

10. Comment #181445 by moderndaythomas on May 17, 2008 at 8:36 am

You said it, not me.

intone the parliamentary thought police.

Thought police that allow you to chose what to think for your self? Say that out loud and tell me if it makes sense.

We can easily substitute education for God.

They're on to us!

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

11. Comment #181449 by moderndaythomas on May 17, 2008 at 8:41 am

Henri

It is important, I believe, that children know about religion so that they can realise how absurd it is. Knowledge is power.

I also agree, but young children do little differentiating between real science and the impostor. Teaching about religion should be an elective at a later age more along the lines of anthropology, say.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

12. Comment #181451 by DamnDirtyApe on May 17, 2008 at 8:44 am

Lol @ 'We can easily substitute education for God.'

Well, perhaps they have forgotten that education is also the mechanism the religious use. I mean COME ON - god isn't going to give a vision to every Joe Smith. There have to be flocks for the shepherds, otherwise who will they have to boss about and tell what to do?

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

13. Comment #181453 by Barry Pearson on May 17, 2008 at 8:46 am

Gosh! And again ... gosh!

Is this the George Pitcher described in Wikipedia as:

... a journalist, author, public relations pioneer and an Anglican priest.... Pitcher had undertaken training for ordained ministry in the Church of England and was ordained curate of St Bride's, Fleet Street, London - known as The Media Church

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

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

14. Comment #181455 by Mbee on May 17, 2008 at 8:49 am

those who stop believing in God don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything

This quote (actually a miss quote I think - sorry haven't checked on it) really is completely ridiculous. If these theists actually believe this statement they are showing that they are the dimwits!

I look at the evidence and make conclusions.

Edit: The exact quote is "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." so I guess that is close enough - It still is stupid though!

Other Comments by Mbee

15. Comment #181456 by nalfeshnee on May 17, 2008 at 8:50 am

As one commenter on the Telegraph pointed out, for those not in the know:

REVEREND George Pitcher, CURATE of St Bride's Church, Fleet Street.

Profile and CV (I kid you not) here: http://www.brandrepublic.com/InDepth/Features/772981/PROFILE-Reverend-George-Pitcher/.

All this article is is advertising to try and indoctrinate more people to join his club.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

16. Comment #181458 by Henri Bergson on May 17, 2008 at 8:52 am

MDThomas,

We're talking about 11-16 year olds. I would make it mandatory at around 13 or 14 to avoid the confusion you rightly suggest may occur.

It should be mandatory though else they may never hear critiques of religion, but only the usual "respect religion" and what the religious state. This is important as religion, unfortunately, once again, is taking hold of politics.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

17. Comment #181460 by Corylus on May 17, 2008 at 8:55 am

Sigh.

This is about children being able to opt out of collective worship, not only education.

See the press release from the National Secular Society on this subject.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/legalactionthreatenedoverreligio.html

I can't be bothered to examine what a bunch of dim-witted MPs can possibly mean in this context by under-16s "of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding".

Can't be bothered to read a recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights have to say??!

What a dreadful indictment upon not only his journalistic skills, but his morals. Doesn't say a great deal for his understanding of the separation of church and state either. Or, for that matter, his respect for officials elected by the people.

Other Comments by Corylus

18. Comment #181461 by Ailes du Serpent on May 17, 2008 at 8:56 am

Forgive me my lack of expertise about the british newspaper landscape, but surely this must be a satirical op-ed piece ?

I mean, maybe I have no reading comprehension, but as far as I see it, it's about giving children the opportunity to opt out of (mandatory, or how is it handled in UK ?) religious classes, if he/she (and their parents, I presume) want to.

And the article makes it sound like 1984 is right around the corner and the state forces children to atheism, etc.

That's why I originally thought this was satire, because I have a hard time believing someone can rage against the "secular thought police" while simultaneously denying people the choice of their conscience to opt out of religious indoctrination.

The real issue this brings up is, and excuse again my lack of expertise, the nature of the religious classes. I assume this is about courses in public (state-run) schools ? Are they (a) non-proselytizing and do you learn facts about world religions, history and culture, or is it (b) just an extension of sunday praise and worship ?

Other Comments by Ailes du Serpent

19. Comment #181463 by Henri Bergson on May 17, 2008 at 9:01 am

Collective worship should be banned as child abuse, in a sense. But I do think the NSS have got Religious Education wrong here: it should be compulsory but never taught as fact.

Sweden have just (or are about to I think) passed a law which forbids religion being taught as the truth. This is the position the NSS should adopt.

Richard Dawkins himself stresses the need for religious education, so that one knows one's enemy.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

20. Comment #181464 by moderndaythomas on May 17, 2008 at 9:02 am

Ailes

The real issue this brings up is, and excuse again my lack of expertise, the nature of the religious classes. I assume this is about courses in public (state-run) schools ? Are they (a) non-proselytizing and do you learn facts about world religions, history and culture, or is it (b) just an extension of sunday praise and worship ?

A good question. I'm not from the UK myself and and across the Atlantic in Canada, my kids have had some lessons in ancient cultures as well as aboriginal(native) cultures and spirituality.
But a modern, powerful and influential religion gets no time in schools.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

21. Comment #181466 by AshtonBlack on May 17, 2008 at 9:04 am

me (as a member of the NSS) = "A Dreary Ogre."

George Pitcher = Delusional Lunatic.

Yay for the NSS!!

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

22. Comment #181470 by Henri Bergson on May 17, 2008 at 9:13 am

I can tell you about GCSE Religious Studies, as I once taught it as easter revision in a college in London (as I wanted the money then).

There are three boards, all of whom have varying syllabi. But they are not much different. Most of it is very basic: the fundamentals of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, sometimes Buddhism and Hinduism. There is some mention of Marx, Darwin and other atheists, but not much.

It reeks of political correctness: all religions must be respected. However, the fact that it includes a number of religions means that students will reflect on that fact, eroding their families' beliefs, if they have any.

There is some more interesting stuff such as the transition from the dark ages to the enlightenment. This, I believe, is useful to all people and shows the danger of slipping back into the shadow.

What is the deciding factor, however, is the teacher. Usually RS is taught by religious people, this unjustly influences students' views. I quickly pointed out, for example, that the ontological argument is fatally flawed by logic, something their usual teacher had not dwelled upon...

---

Having said that, I did find some of the RS stuff infuriatingly pointless non-information. It should be replaced, as mentioned, with the GCSE 'Elementary Philosophy and Religion' or 'sociology & psychology' or 'history of religion'...

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

23. Comment #181477 by Szymanowski on May 17, 2008 at 9:23 am

I agree with M. Bergson, though I think the article may have somewhat misrepresented the NSS's aims.

Other Comments by Szymanowski

24. Comment #181478 by jeepyjay on May 17, 2008 at 9:25 am

The NSS's agenda is simple: it wants to force the next generation to stop thinking about the spiritual, the transcendental and the mysterious, in favour of a negative utilitarianism.

Translation: The NSS's agenda is simple: it wants to force the next generation to stop thinking about meaningless theological waffle, in favour of something clearly useful and worthwhile.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

25. Comment #181485 by Sally Luxmoore on May 17, 2008 at 9:36 am

Given that the UK is very largely a secular society, perhaps we should encourage schools to keep on with what they're doing; turning out people bored with the very idea of religion and antipathetic to bible bashers like this one.

At least it's better than it used to be. When I was at school there was never any mention of any religion other than Christianity. Comparative religion is an improvement.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

26. Comment #181486 by Geoff on May 17, 2008 at 9:37 am

But to bin what the Judeo-Christian tradition has bequeathed us in terms of responsibility for the stranger, care for the vulnerable, collective consciousness and our sense of what is right and wrong is utterly ludicrous.

That has to be satire, surely?

Other Comments by Geoff

27. Comment #181498 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 10:02 am

Hmmm - the guy wrote a reply to the letter by Chris Sanlan posted at 9 above:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/faithbook/may08/queens-college-letter.htm

I had to laugh at this bit though:

And it's good to have confirmed that it's not just religious types that have a monopoly on misrepresenting the truth.

Hahahaha

Other Comments by PJG

28. Comment #181505 by eddington on May 17, 2008 at 10:24 am

Currently its the law (enforced by OFSTED or ESTYN) that every child must take part in collective worship everyday. Personally I find it appauling when we (I'm currently in a sixth form) get told such fallacies as morals come from religion.
If anything in the UK we tend to suffer from a lack of religious education. Generally the sexism and genocide in the bible are not mentioned.

Other Comments by eddington

29. Comment #181508 by phil rimmer on May 17, 2008 at 10:25 am

Solution: Rename & alter, 'Religious Studies' to 'Elementary Philosophy & Religion'.

Spot on!

I have proposed elsewhere that churches should see it as bad form to for children (of primary school age, through to 13 or so, for instance) to be made to join in with their services. Such children should be offered a simultaneous Sunday-school-type session of philosophy and comparative religion (inevitably with an added sprinkling of love and niceness). I think more enlightened churches may see the moral superiority of this approach, (the informed faith of its new young adult congregation being preferable to the mindless indoctrination of the kids at the rabble rousing church down the road.)

Slowly does it.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

30. Comment #181517 by Demotruk on May 17, 2008 at 10:40 am

I opted out of religion in secondary school, but it was different at the time, Catholicism was taught as true, and only a small mention was given to other religions.

I think it's different in a class that teaches about religion. As long as they're only teaching what people believe, I don't see why you should opt-out. It's important to understand what people are widely deluded about, as it could affect you some day.

Other Comments by Demotruk

31. Comment #181529 by Mr. Grape on May 17, 2008 at 11:05 am

"That may be worth pondering when a sufficiently mature and intelligent under-16 says he or she doesn't want to study the Abramic faiths "because they're boring", which is all too often what a matter of conscience amounts to when you're young."

Completely useless "education" IS boring. Why would you want to waste your time learning about more ignorant ways to pray to a god, when you can be taking on literature, science, arts, etc? I understand wanting to be well rounded in religious history, if only to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

I don't know what world this writer is living in, but where I'm at when a person turns 18 they do not receives gifts of "maturity" or "intelligence." Throughout my life I've generally found out from the people I've met that if you are an immature asshole at 16, the trend will continue.

Other Comments by Mr. Grape

32. Comment #181538 by Dinah on May 17, 2008 at 11:38 am

It is somewhat dishonest of the Telegraph to have printed this article without mentioning that its author is a Church of England cleric. Since there are many schools in England run by the Church of England, he has a vested interest in trying to maintain the status quo by retaining religious indoctrination in schools. Nevertheless, I agree with other people on this thread that pupils should be taught about the different faiths, their warts-and-all histories and their doctrines. If children know nothing about religion they will have no defence against proselytising outside of school - how can they oppose something they know nothing about? Keeping religion out of schools in the US hasn't done a lot for the promotion of reason and rationality in that country.

Other Comments by Dinah

33. Comment #181548 by alexmzk on May 17, 2008 at 12:20 pm

he's disagreeing for entirely the wrong reasons. religious studies is an important subject that allows young students to view each major religion in comparison to each other, learn the key traits, belief systems and so on. it is a very healthy way to look at such a major topic.

it is by no means being instructed "in the spiritual" like some sort of Harry-Potter-esque non-subject.

i think that it should remain compulsory until a certain age (i found it deathly boring in my own school time, but nonetheless a useful frame of reference in a Christianity-biased, prayers-and-visiting-ministers school). but not for fear of destroying children's sappy credulity, as seems Mr Pitcher's reasoning.

Other Comments by alexmzk

34. Comment #181550 by Nails on May 17, 2008 at 12:21 pm

This old checnut always makes me laugh, because if anything then the opposite is true. As we all know, those who reject religion and declare themselves as atheists tend to reject all other belief systems, including astrology and other neolithic nonsense.

I have to admit that I was shocked when I discovered that year 9 pupils (age 13-14) in the UK are timetabled 5 hours a fortnight of this nonsense. Surley this time would be better spent on maths and english, seeing as around 25% of our kids can barely read or write when leaving school.

Other Comments by Nails

35. Comment #181554 by exquisitetruth on May 17, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I had to read that twice, because I thought I might have hallucinated the whole thing.

This guys says that we are forcing our viewpoint by not allowing him to force his? We are seriously supposed to consider the educational viewpoint of a guy that "was bored to tears" by physics, and sees as something completely useless?

I feel like Alice down the rabbit hole these days. Fundamentalists seem to have resorted to fighting secularism by defining it as the worst of what they, themselves, take part of. How in the world can he rationalize that we are imposing our viewpoint by saying that he should not be able to impose his own?

Other Comments by exquisitetruth

36. Comment #181559 by Abyst on May 17, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Wow, the article has so many loaded terms and insults ("dreary ogre"?), it's hard to take seriously. I know it's an opinion piece, but still....

Well, except for the "negative" part, I don't see a problem here... :P

Other Comments by Abyst

37. Comment #181564 by blakjack on May 17, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Keep things as they are. Compulsory collective worship (Yawn, Yawn) is probably the best way to produce the next generation of atheists. Isn't that what we want?

Jack Harrison

Other Comments by blakjack

38. Comment #181580 by Edamus on May 17, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Yes, I'm sure the NSS is sorry that they want to no longer force this stuff down our children's throats before they can make a justified decision about it.

Oh, wait. No, they're not...

Other Comments by Edamus

39. Comment #181581 by Simonw on May 17, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Those posting from abroad need to understand just how discriminatory the education system is in the UK is.

I've just written to the council complaining that a job advert to be a head teacher stated that it would be "preferable" is the appointee was a Christian. The people who select the appointee are legally allowed to discriminate if their school is "religious", which can mean anything from the building being owned by the church to a mention of "Anglican" in the founding documents. All these employees are state employees, but they are given preference in appointment if they are Christians.

35% of primary schools and 17% of secondary schools have a religious affiliation, almost all are Anglican or Catholic. These schools can discriminate against children (or parents of children) who don't subscribe to their particular faith in admissions by preferring those of the same faith. They can sack teachers whose conduct doesn't live up the the requirements of their faith. Almost all the teaching staff in these institutions are local government employees, not paid for by the church, all the equipment is supplied by the tax payer. In some cases the school building are owned by the church or charity involved and it may make a contribution (often as low as 10%) to the upkeep of the building. The CofE can't actually afford this, but in many cases has managed to retain influence and control through inertia over schools it no longer contributes to.

So whilst I agree some religious education is helpful in explaining cultural and philosophical facts, you might consider who is appointing these teachers (in many cases a board dominated (and required to be so) by local Anglician or Catholic clergy) before becoming too obsessed with the idea that comparative religion lessons will wean them off Christianity.

My local primary school has a "prayer box", but I don't think the purpose of it is to show pupils that praying to the big fairy in the sky doesn't work.

Other Comments by Simonw

40. Comment #181593 by Zaphod on May 17, 2008 at 3:33 pm

I remember finding religious education at school to be quite interesting. I treated it as mythology though, which I also found very interesting.

Never believed any of it was a true reflection of reality though, other than the fact that people actually believed in or believe it.

Other Comments by Zaphod

41. Comment #181597 by phil rimmer on May 17, 2008 at 3:50 pm

My sceptical son seems to be doing extremely well in RE at the moment. His main passion is writing fiction, at which he excels. To get him started on this path I taught him the Tom Lehrer Theory of research,

"Plagiarize, plagiarize,
No, don't shade your eyes..." etc.

Now every lesson is grist to his mill with RE being top. His stories do have more than their fair share of megalomaniacs, however.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

42. Comment #181600 by Partisan on May 17, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I think Religious Education should remain a compulsory part of the curriculum and BECOME SO in countries such as America.

In line with Dennett's reasoning, presenting the world's religions and their tenets in an objective fashion (as I strongly believe they are in the UK, or atleast were when I was in school) is crucial in allowing children to make up their minds for themselves; which, I'm sure we'd all agree, is our objective.

Religious Education isn't some kind of extended church service where a preacher comes along and tells pupils what to think, it's an important factor in the development of how to think.

So, the National Secularist Society have it all wrong here, I feel making RE optional is only going to encourage fundamentalism. If this bill ever starts to gain impetus, I'll oppose it.

Other Comments by Partisan

43. Comment #181618 by DoctorE on May 17, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Devil finds work for idle hands, hence we have the creationists, bullshiterists, crapotionists:

Devil = To_much_free_time_to_fall_in_love_with_yourself

Other Comments by DoctorE

44. Comment #181636 by rodentfuel on May 17, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Mr. Pitcher proclaims "the enemy of pluralism is not religious education, but secular fundamentalists." What the !?!

I know what secular is and I know what fundamentalism is, but what the heck is secular fundamentalism?

Okay whatever... sign me up... I'm a secular fundamentalist. But it sounds like some sort of absurd name calling exercise.

Mr. Pitcher again with the strange rhetoric, "I would have embraced Satan in order to give up physics at school;"

These folks are always grouping us with SATAN. That really irks me. First of all I don't believe in Satan. Secondly even if this estranged deity did exist... we would have little in common (except a love of heavy metal music and a thing for warmer climates).

I think the real "dim wit" here is the author of this article.

For more on secular fundamentalism try this link
http://atheism.about.com/od/secularismseparation/p/SecularFundies.htm

Other Comments by rodentfuel

45. Comment #181656 by Thor on May 17, 2008 at 8:14 pm

@Caudimordax,

J.S. Mill's original formulation of utilitarianism is often summed up as "the greatest good for the greatest number"

Negative utilitarianism is the converse concept of striving for the "the least suffering for the smallest number".
However, negative utiliatianism has one rather important logical pitfall, very well explained in the following:

"Positive utilitarianism recommends the promotion or maximising of intrinsic value, negative utilitarianism recommends the reduction or minimising of intrinsic disvalue. At first sight, the negative kind may seem reasonable and more modest in what it recommends. But one way of ending human misery is by putting all human beings out of their misery. This course of action is usually considered unacceptable.[Understatement of the century] This has led to a search for reformulations of negative utilitarianism, or to its rejection."

Personally, I prefer a balance of positive and negative utilitarianism, with some good old rational hedonism à la Epicure thrown in. :-)

Other Comments by Thor

46. Comment #181662 by AtheistAspy on May 17, 2008 at 9:32 pm

Henri Bergson, do you have Asperger's?

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

47. Comment #181666 by mordacious1 on May 17, 2008 at 9:44 pm

AtheistAspy
"Do you have Asperger's?"
...and this means what exactly?

Other Comments by mordacious1

48. Comment #181670 by AtheistAspy on May 17, 2008 at 10:06 pm

Yes, I have Asperger's.

It means nothing. He just seems to from his posts.

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

49. Comment #181671 by mordacious1 on May 17, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Oh, ok
My son has Asperger's and I'm kind of sensitive if it's used in a negative way.
Sorry, I took it wrong.
By the way, he's really bright, an independent thinker, and ta da...an atheist too.

Other Comments by mordacious1

50. Comment #181674 by AtheistAspy on May 17, 2008 at 10:29 pm