601. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74460 by Corylus on September 29, 2007 at 1:37 am

Russell

I also think there's room for refined, gentle COFFEE HOUSE PHILOSOPHER ATHEISTS , like me and anyone else who posts here and meets the description maybe we should form a club).

I would go for that Russell. Must say though, that I like to do some of my philosophising in pubs as well. (If everyone could be kind enough to pretend not to notice the lush in the corner spiking her mocha with brandy - that would be great).

Yorker
Fair enough. ( I have to say though that one defence for rudeness I won't accept is relative youth : I happen to be the same age as Sapient).

Otherwise, can see where you are coming from :-)

602. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74417 by Corylus on September 28, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Personally, I can see both sides of this one.... Yes I know fence sitting can be uncomfortable at times! (Shifts uncomfortably and winces.)

For RRS.

1) Energy and optimism.

2) I like that respond in the title. To react to irrationality is a good thing - to seek it out for the pure sake of it is a different thing entirely.

3) They are dealing with people who not only have irrational beliefs but the desire to act apon them. (In order to ensure that everyone else is forced into either sharing or respecting said beliefs).

4) I think they should be cut some slack due to the fact that they are dealing with the American religious lobby. This lobby scares the living crap out of me in terms of its' funding, connections and ambitions. If they have to be blunt and 'in-your-face' when dealing with this then so be it.

5) When assessing whether any lobby is being effective it is always informative to look at where they meet the most resistence. RRS have been the victim of organised, underhand, dishonourable creationist attacks (e.g. that copyright business). This indicates to me that what they are saying is getting through and worrying people. Good.

Against RRS.

1) When reading Sapient's or (to a lesser extent Kelly's) posts on here I have been frankly shocked at how rude and overly emotional they seem. (Maybe this is just due to my British social conditioning, but I have to say neither attribute impresses me much)

2) I don't like the way they pounce on criticism and attempt to pound it into submission. The person they hung out to dry on their YouTube video (Sablechicken) was unbelievably irritating, but I happen to think that she might well have mental health issues. There are ways to deal with people.

3) I agree that their dress and language has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of their arguments. However, the people who they are trying to reach do not think in these abstract terms. Common sense, please.

----

Accordingly, may I make a suggestion that might appeal to both sides on this debate?

I notice on their website that they have a Amazon Wishlist. They have listed some remarkable books on there. If you feel that their arguments are lacking in subtlety why not pick them out something that lays out philosophical arguments? If you think they don't explain science properly, buy them a book that does!

Who hasn't got the odd Amazon Voucher for Crimbo and not bothered to cash it in?

Go on :-)

(Waits to get flamed by both sides on this thread...)

P.S. I am also sitting on the fence about that word 'fucktard' I can't work out whether I find it crude and offensive or marvellously evocative. Hmm, maybe both :P

603. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74192 by Corylus on September 27, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Revcort

I have been a little terse with you in this thread. However, I have to say I am now admiring your persistence and honesty :-) So well done.

BTW - don't get all wound up assuming that everyone on here is supersmart. Case in point, my studies are mainly in the arts and humanities/soft sciences. I got all peeved a couple of months ago at all the hard science talk going over my head. "I'll show em!! I said. So I went out and got myself some books.

That Fabric of Reality book they are raving about on here was one of them. (Well, just between you and me ;- ) I gave up about of a third of the way in. Didn't understand a word. Not one.. well, that's not strictly true.. there were some 'the' and 'therefores' in there :P

In relation to books to read, I understand the limited budget and not wanting to read fiction. Can I make one teeny suggestion? There is a book that came out about a year ago called The Book of Lost Things, by an author called John Connolly. It is a modern day fairytale about a young boy who ends up in a different world. Some reviewers have likened it to CS Lewis and given it a mystical explanation. So you can read it with a clear conscience. (I didn't read it that way, of course because I am a miserable heathen)

However, it has some of the most beautiful prose in it that I have ever read and it full of moral and human insights. I do think that you will like it.

604. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74186 by Corylus on September 27, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Brother John, we haven't chatted before so Hi.

Thank you for your interesting post. I appreciate your addressing both sides of an argument in one go. I think this shows admirable fairness. I am also impressed at your statement that you are "a christian and a priest of 70 years". I find myself wondering whether :

a) You have been a christian for 70 years
b) You have been a priest for 70 years
c) You are simply 70 years old and both a christian and a priest.
Or maybe
d) You actually have been both a christian and a priest for 70 years (indicating that you started your training for the priesthood before you became a christian) which I have to say shows remarkable forward planning :P

In any event, (forgive my playfulness above) all of the answers indicate that you have considerably more life experience than me, which I have the good sense to respect. However, you could hear that 'however' coming couldn't you? Re: your summary:

* God wants us to follow our consciences: those feelings about right and wrong that we have in us. It is our moral duty to do this.

* It is on that that He will judge us: on how well we have followed that inner light - even if it leads us to say: I can't believe in God.

You state that God wants us to follow our consciences concerning what is right and wrong. The implication is that he wants us to do the right thing.

I have to ask:

i) Is this the right thing because God says it is the right thing or
ii) Is this the right thing because God recognises this is the right thing.

I am sure that you recognise this argument, but hey, the old ones are the best.
My apologies for jumping on the morality argument here, but I have been debating with a believer on another thread about morality for some considerable time now and I simply can't let this pass. This is because I have noticed when believers talk about morality they fall (broadly) into one of two camps.

1) There are some believers that make the assumption that atheists by denying the existence of God (in their view the source of morality) automatically become immoral and subject to all manner of temptations and depravities. (I am not for a moment saying that you are one of them!)

and

2) There are other believers who; after looking about the world and seeing that atheists seem to manage to behave morally thank you very much; assume that God is really talking to the atheists and they simply don't have the sense to realise it.

Number 1. Demonstrates a rather depressing view of human nature and actually insulting. Worse than that though, it is based on an unsubstantiated assertion. Namely, that God is the source of morality. (See my questions to you above).

Number 2 on the face of it seems better, however, it still paints a pretty low picture of the the human race. Also, it appears at varience with the notion of free will which is always trotted out by a believer when the question of theodicy rises it's ugly head.

Furthermore, it is ... searches for the right word.... unsporting.

It seems to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it. The possession of a conscience is neither a proof of God nor an argument for the teaching of his existence.

Of course, I can agree with your statement below that:

Those moral principles that we accept as our personal code must reflect, as best we know how, love, fairness, compassion, mutual respect, the inalienable right to freedom, commitment to truth and peaceful coexistence etc.

However, I fail to see why you need to bring God into the question at all. Anyway, thanks again for the interesting post :-)

_J_ That pink eye is the most disturbing thing I have seen all day, and I had to babysit today and watch kids TV.

605. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73913 by Corylus on September 26, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Comment by Revcort

Also I found that this falling away must be open, even in the view of the world, so as to put Christ "to an open shame" (Hebrews 6:6).

Ok, but by that analysis didn't the apostle Peter commit the ultimate, unpardonable sin? I seem to recall that there was some serious falling away and denial going on at some point, i.e. just before the crucifiction. N.B. Any biblical scholars feel free to correct - tis a while since I read that particular tome.

Come to think of it though, that might explain something! You always hear about St Peter at the gates of heaven, no mention of him going in though . Must be tough.

....In the distance he can hear all the partying going down, the joy and the shaking of funky stuff etc, and there he is... Condemned to eternity as little more than a celestial bouncer.

Bummer.

Vinelectric - glad to please ;-)

606. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #73905 by Corylus on September 26, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Paul

God designed the world and intended reasoning beings to inhabit it. Things were made in such a way that, through reason, we could discover ethical principles that would enable us to live fulfilled, moral lives.

Don't take this amiss, but your notion of God is somewhat Victorian. Morality and design - the orderly nature of universe. Yours is an enlightenment, lawgiver God. This is not a criticism BTW - I infinitely prefer this to the Calvinistic, judgemental God being argued for on another thread. (The leprecology thread: man don't go there!)

1) Let's take morality first:

Moral philosophy is a swine isn't it? I am sorry we have not given you responses that satisfy you. As I have suggested to you before, part of the problem is because the only thing we (atheists) have in common is the belief in no gods... or is it no belief in gods ;-).

Accordingly there are differing views on moral theory.

The position you are defending (moral realism) seems on the face of it to be the common sense position "Of course some actions are objectively wrong! There are such things as moral 'facts'" Unfortunately, when you get into philosophy 'common sense' means precisely bugger all. Please read the fair and balanced outline of moral realism below. Don't worry, there are plus and minus points in there.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

There is a list of books at the end some of which you might like to read. I am sorry if this seems like homework, but hey, you dish it out, you should be able to take it :-)

2) OK design,

Lots of words written on this site about this one. I don't know whether you know, but Dianelos is now arguing on another thread. As you know, no crass creationist he. Can I point you to a post refuting his theistic view of evolution. It is,I think, is one of the clearest and smartest posts I have read on this site. It was written by a poster called Janus, (Yes the two-headed God. Who is way cleverer than me - curse his/her four eyes!) I recommend reading, it is comment number 192 or #73571. You will have to read the whole thread to get a handle on it, but hey, if you waded through this thread then you can deal.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1667,Why-Christians-should-take-Richard-Dawkins-seriously,Richard-Skinner-Ekklesia

3) Generally,

It seems to be that what you are really, really want are answers that fit your worldview.

Unfortunately, all that you are receiving on this site are answers. I don't wish to project or be patronising, but I find myself wondering whether you are having a bit of a crisis with this whole 'faith' business.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe your discussions with us heathens on here have only served to strengthen your faith. Your views are your own: I won't pry.

Take your time, Paul. Eventually, you will just simply have to resolve any conflicts you may or may not have in your own way.
----

N.B. Unless you ask me a specific question, I don't think I will post to you again: I get the impression that you don't want to listen to me. That's fine, I won't take it personally. I am amazingly stubborn, but eventually I have to go with W.C. Fields. who said:

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.

Take care :-)

C.

607. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73742 by Corylus on September 26, 2007 at 3:53 am

No worries RichardM - have a break if you think best. I suspect you will find that it is hard to resist posting though.

Feel free to comment on any of my posts in the future - I welcome all feedback... Even if it is only some bugger correcting my spelling :-))

608. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73739 by Corylus on September 26, 2007 at 3:34 am

Robert Maynard

>Revcort
Of course I realize this- but you must realize that IF God can stop the earth from rotating, He can stop the cataclysmic events that might normally happen from happening too. The Scripture teaches that by Him all things consist. (are held together) In other words, it is by the very grace of God that this planet is still in one piece. If He removed His protective control, it would literally begin to fall apart. (oh, by the way, that's the very thing He is doing- He is gradually letting go and the world is gradually falling apart)

....On that note, "gradually falling apart"? In what sense?

I have a nasty feeling that Revcort is 'Rapture Ready' Robert.

WB Yeats - The Second Coming
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Revcort, if I have misinterpreted you in this regard, please say.

Also your comment earlier (Is it Isaiah?? I admit no biblical scholar :)

All glory and honor and dominion belong to God and one day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

I have to say that this smells of eschatology to me.

609. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #73719 by Corylus on September 26, 2007 at 12:58 am

"Everyone should now know that no one is above the law, religion is not an excuse for abuse and every victim has a right to be heard," said Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who had endorsed the prosecution in Washington County.

Absolutely. Let justice be done, though the heavens fall...

610. Root and Branch

Comment #73709 by Corylus on September 25, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Fair enough Russell.

I'll put the Kitcher book on my 'to read' list.

It's a long list - maybe I'll finish it before I die :-)

611. Root and Branch

Comment #73599 by Corylus on September 25, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Well. Very interesting, some new facts learned.

However:

1) Not particularly well structured. In a piece this long there is nothing wrong with sub-headings, especially if different parts of the piece relate to different books. (Not all of us have superextended attention spans)

2) This "anti-darwinism" term. I can see why it is being used...

This is because Behe says, in effect, "Sure, I believe in evolution by natural selection--it just doesn't do all it is supposed to." In his capacity as a biologist he does not officially argue for special acts of creation. So you cannot call him antievolution or creationist But he is undeniably anti-Darwin. ... The label "anti-Darwin" seems the right umbrella term for creationism, antievolutionism--and Behe.

but,... BUT (I admit I do want to think about this more) at first glance I don't like it.

Couple of reasons:

a) By using an individual's name the implication is that the "anti-darwinists" are fighting merely against the views of one person (who is long dead) rather than a huge body of evidence. This is not the impression that needs to be given.

b) By lumping Behe in with the creationists aren't you just giving them credability by default? Ok, I know it is not alot of credability, but nonetheless...

3) There is room for misunderstanding in relation to what is science and what is not.

There is no one philosophy of science that fully accounts for the evolving body of practices we call the sciences.

Well ok, but...

Unfortunately, anti-Darwinism keeps playing minor variations on the same negative themes and adds nothing to our understanding of life. Many scientists who are upset by the ongoing lobbying insist that it is bad science or pseudo-science. Living With Darwin, Philip Kitcher's brief and cogent manifesto, very rightly disagrees. Anti-Darwinism is, he says, dead science, recapitulating old stuff long abandoned. I prefer to call it degenerating.

By calling it degenerating Hacking seems to be giving it the status of a research program.* The first question needs to be not "Is it 'bad science' or 'pseudo-science'? The question needs to be 'Is it science at all'?

Why concede this point without a fight, or at the very least a huge amount of thought?
This seems to be to be akin to spending so long fortifying your battlements that you forget that you drawbridge is down...

4) One bit really made me growl.

That part of the American population that believes God made man in His own image has a heartfelt contempt for know-it-alls. I am inclined to say, God bless the people, even when they get it wrong.

I'm sorry but this is utter bollocks. Why glorify anti-intellectionism? I am inclined to say 'Where are their teachers?' not 'Bless their ignorant little cotton socks'.

Overall interesting, but I have to say irritating in parts.

---

*EDIT: Or at least having had that status at one point.

612. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73531 by Corylus on September 25, 2007 at 7:50 am

Hmm. Maybe a forum thread on psuedonyms might be a good plan??

Personally I like them because they give out little clues about people's personalities. There might be little jokes in them like references to literary characters i.e. Dr Benway. (Maybe there is a reference to T.S. Eliot somewhere on this thread?) Puzzles please me. Same with avatars - what a giveaway some of them are ;-)

I also like being able to chat to people when I have no idea of their age or gender - leads to an unprejudiced discussion.

My main reason for using one is practical. When I signed up I was looking for a job - employers nowdays have a habit of googling names (and my surname is very unusual). I am not one for saying vile things or defaming people (I admit I do swear a bit sometimes though), so I doubt that anything I say, or have said here would have had an effect. Nevertheless, I very much like to keep the work side of my life separate from everything else.

However, I do understand why people like Richard like to use their own name. So in the spirit of compromise, and if anyone gives a rat's arse, here is half of mine :)

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

613. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73388 by Corylus on September 24, 2007 at 11:38 pm

WeeFlea

And yes - I have read The God Delusion (several times) and yes it does claim that religious moderates are the ones to blame because they are the ones who allow religious fundamentalists. That is almost as ridiculous as saying we are to blame for the atheist fundamentalists!

Interesting statement David, it strongly implies that you consider yourself a religious moderate. Cool :-)

However, can I ask you to read rather than posting insults all over he place. There is a fascinating thread on here. There is a new poster on here who I have to say is pretty bat@&*^ insane called Revcort. There is another poster on here called Cheard who is a biblical scholar and amazing smart and well read. They have a chat.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent

Can I ask you to read thier discussion and list where you agree with Revcort and where you agree with CHeard? (I know these subjects get raised every time you are on here,) but Revcort has some interesting views on both homosexuality and the Catholic Church.

Thanks.

614. Out of Thin Air

Comment #73066 by Corylus on September 24, 2007 at 3:18 am

Comment #5 by _J_

(BTW, for British users: not such a flashy design, if they're stealing their backgrounds from Blockbusters.)

Whoa - flashback!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-880uWIk_hI

615. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72791 by Corylus on September 23, 2007 at 1:47 am

Capt. Underpants

I completely share your anger at biblical literalists and agree with your analysis of most of them - they are indeed spineless wankers!

However, I find Devolved very interesting in that he appears to have picked creationism for himself (rather than being brought up in an environment where people don't point and laugh). Such people fascinate me.

Yorker

Even Devolved isn't going to get these wrong is he?

It's very easy to overestimate the ability of others to engage in evidence based reasoning, but for the sake of completeness... :-)

Devolved

What do you think about the McGann's? Are they:-

a) Innocent
b) Guilty
c) Not enough evidence to say either way.

616. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72785 by Corylus on September 23, 2007 at 1:16 am

I don't have kids and I don't live in Tyneside, but if I did...

The schools, says Kelley, 'directly or indirectly influence children into a belief that a particular faith is preferable either to other faiths or to a lack of faith'. He adds: 'That is not, in my view, fair to a child and it is not offering them the opportunity to choose freely.

Absolutely - let them make up their own minds. 'Daily act of worship' what a waste of valuable school time. Time better spent teaching the kids something useful, like maybe learning how to read.

617. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72743 by Corylus on September 22, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Captain Underpants

I've always tended to assume that my thought processes don't differ radically from those of anybody else, but I find the Bible basher mentality utterly incomprehensible.

It is important to realise that there are many different types of religious believer. There are some moderate intelligent believers on here that I will happily chat to. I don't think that they are daft or reason in a manner much different from my own. They are perfectly rational in many areas. However, I don't think they are rational in one specific area. They cling to religion for all manner of reasons. E.g. comfort, habit, a love of ritual etc..

N.B. I am willing to be convinced by any of them. Each time I talk to a believer I put myself on the line - if they can give me a consistent, evidence based argument for believing I will change my view. People like WeeFlea are not prepared to countenance the notion that atheists might think like this, which is why he often comes on here to call us all fundamentalists :-(

Devolved however, is in a class of his own. (Which is why I am talking past him here - I think this is generally rude and I don't often do it)

I find myself wondering whether is he argues in such an blinkered fashion not because he is believer, or because he has been indoctrinated into creationism, like poor Bizarro. (He appears more British than American) I wonder instead whether he is a loon who has latched onto an extreme creationist version of belief because it bolsters his own idea of who he is. Evolution puts the average human in their place (insecurity shown - ouch) creation elevates the individual (arrogance reinforced). E.g. "I'm no monkey - dammit".

I suspect he has lots of theories on all manner of subjects (the truth about which he has priviledged access). Lets test that.

Devolved

Do you believe:-

1) That the moon landings were real?
2) That islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11?
3) That Diana's death was ordered by the Royal family?

Simple questions - no nasty biology involved :-)

618. Poll: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism?

Comment #72728 by Corylus on September 22, 2007 at 1:29 pm

What is disrespectful is to treat any individual differently from the next

Well said Robert.

619. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72717 by Corylus on September 22, 2007 at 12:30 pm

The problem with putting "mind your own business" or some such thing is that people of no faith will be under-represented and we'll continue to be perceived as a puny, whiny, insufferable minority.

I can really see where you are coming from here Oxytocin.

This why I think it is important to put "none" on census forms, because polticians get data from them (I really don't know how I feel about the campaign to put 'Jedi Knight' on those).

Everyday data mining I object to though. Not just about religion either - all superfluous questions get the same treatment.

620. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72709 by Corylus on September 22, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Captain Underpants (loved your anagrams!)

One can't help wondering what Devolved and his Merry Men hope to achieve by posting here. Surely they don't seriously entertain the notion they can convince anyone here with their non-arguments.

Personally, I don't think that it is that rational. I have a theory that it is about self-justification and the protection of cherished notions.

E.g. They see evidence of other people doing fine with a perfectly consistent and widely held worldview (in this case evolution). Trouble is, this view is at variance with many of their assumptions. This makes them feel bad and (I hesitate to use the word inferior) outcast. How to reconcile this and still retain self-esteem? The answer, of course, is to presume that the vast majority are wrong and they themselves have access to a 'truth' that others don't.

This is, obviously, a truth that they themselves have gleaned via their own intellect and data-gathering skills. No tedious formal studying for them. No turning up at college after being the smartest in your small town only to discover that you are actually relatively thick. Such dents to the ego are not to be born. It is impossible to be wrong, one is merely misunderstood. In fact after a time they start to glorify in having a minority view. "How much smarter am I to understand the truth". (Conspiracy nut thinking). "In fact maybe I dropped out because I'm so smart no-one understood me. Cool!"

However, when they see a glaring and in-your-face threat to their cherished view: like maybe a respected academic's website with some smart people posting on it (maybe with the odd thicko dormouse thrown in ;-) That's when the problems start. Hear the inner dialogue..."These people are so wrong... I should ignore it and instead enjoy feeling superior... But, they're wrong... (then a tiny small voice in the back of the head starts with the dreaded words "What if I'm wrong) No, No, NO! I must show them, I MUST".

They just can't help themselves. Bit like picking a scab really. Part of you knows that it is going to end badly and you really shouldn't, but dammit it itches. So you scratch it and for a while it feels good. However, at a certain point comes the blood and the pus. You leave it alone and let it heal: try not to think about it. Trouble is when it is heals you find yourself with an even bigger scab and dammit that itches too...

EDIT: Wow Capt - looks like you have two answers for the price of one! Northern Bright you type fast :-)

621. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72701 by Corylus on September 22, 2007 at 11:10 am

I personally am a fan of the 'Mind Your Own Business' response :-)

622. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72495 by Corylus on September 21, 2007 at 9:46 am

Newatheist 2399.

Sorry! I tried. You really ARE invisible…! =O

Appreciate the effort :-)

623. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72414 by Corylus on September 21, 2007 at 2:42 am

CHeard

Interesting post, nice to hear a moderate Christian's take on this. I would advise you to read Dennett - I wouldn't be surprised if you like his book the most :-)

Goldy

Just wish Paul E would listen to me too!

Tell me about it!!

624. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72404 by Corylus on September 21, 2007 at 2:05 am

Give this Skinner guy his due - this was a polite, thoughtful article.

I actually prefer this to a snide, patronising put-down written by a non-believer who is full of his own self-importance (amoungst other things!), due to his belief that the plebians need religion.

Bruno has a point in that this is fascinating psychologically.

Personally, I think it is particularly interesting in what it does not mention. It talks at length about different beliefs (naive/subtle), but never once talks about how people act due to these beliefs.

The world has been moving closer to the abyss due to the actions of religious believers - it is high time the moderates of the world did some "soul searching" over this. I sense this is a subtext in here.

I find it hard to pin down, but I find myself wondering whether this article is more about disillusionment than faith.

Then maybe I'm just talking out of my backside - happens sometimes.

625. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71926 by Corylus on September 20, 2007 at 12:32 am

Sentence 1

people are not going to accept scientific fact if they think it is morally pernicious.

Ok. From there she could have gone on to talk about the psychological basis of resistence to science. E.G. She have talked about the naive sloppy thinking that makes people think that 'facts' can be 'morally pernicious'.

There could have been suggestions for improvement for the education of science, maybe a call for the teaching of critical thinking and logic in school (she is a philosopher after all). Let children learn things without being afraid. Hurray, I would have said.

But no. Wasted opportunity. Pity.

626. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71774 by Corylus on September 19, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Rational Thinking

Your responses may not be too helpful for anyone seeking one (a purpose, that is, rather than a cause).

Defining purpose is something that an individual needs to do for themselves. Without recourse to a non-existent being, or for that matter any other existing person's understanding of purpose.

My personal purpose is to continue to learn all my life, cherish the people that I am lucky enough to have in my world and to be silly when I jolly well feel like it.

Pretty much summed up in my post below...

627. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71757 by Corylus on September 19, 2007 at 3:23 pm

I will survive.

That's the spirit! Marshall1


First I was afraid
I was petrified
Kept thinking I could never live
without you by my side

La La.

Dances round computer singing...

I will survive
as long as i know how to love
I know I will stay alive
I've got all my life to live
I've got all my love to give
and I'll survive
I will survive

There's wisdom in disco :-)

628. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71621 by Corylus on September 19, 2007 at 11:18 am

Paul

... trying to convince myself that what I know is right and wrong is nothing more than an opinion - either that or trying to hide from that fact and pretend it wasn't true.

Oh mate I can see you having such awful problems with this. At the risk of sounding like Dianelos I reckon your problem boils down to epistemology.

Question: how is:-
a) "what I know is right and wrong" more than
b) "an opinion"??
Other than the fact that 'a' is your view and 'b' is someone else's of course ;-)

Clue: the answer lies in changing the word 'know' in 'a' to 'believe'.

BTW: have you been reading my posts recently? I only ask because my little arguments addressed to specific people seem to be getting ignored all over the shop recently. I am beginning to wonder whether I have a big 'ignore me' sign plastered across my avatar :(

P.S. I agree with you about Damien Hirst. If you want to know how I believe (not know) that my view on this is 'more than an just opinion' do let me know...

629. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71518 by Corylus on September 19, 2007 at 12:54 am

Hi Biz, welcome back.

I don't know whether you have had the chance to read the entire thread on here yet. I would suggest that you do so. (There are some very funny comments on here)

I believe that you have some views in common with the poster Revcort on here. You might feel inclined to assist him (he has a lot of people with questions) at the same time you might want to think about areas where you disagree with him. I am trying to remember your previous posts, but I think that there may be a few.

From there you might want to consider your reasons for disagreement and assess whether these reasons are biblically or emotionally derived.

Cheers

C.

630. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71348 by Corylus on September 18, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Who's going to pay for the increased healthcare costs of treating rather than preventing this illness?

I know the Church will pay via their taxes!

.... Oh wait...

631. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71314 by Corylus on September 18, 2007 at 12:03 pm

If anyone is interested, Stanford hasn't replied. However, there has been a religious response in the letters page of the Independent today.

Theology of science
Sir: Professor Richard Dawkins' stock line, "Would you need to read learned volumes on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?" (letter, 17 September) has splendid knockabout value, but I was more helped towards an understanding of science by the physics teacher who began his 1977 A-level class by telling pupils they would do best if they realised most of what had been taught at O-level wasn't strictly true, an idea which has sustained me through frequent startling changes of perspective in reading both science and theology since.
Canon Peter Mullins
Grimsby

I did snort a bit at the implication that RD never paid full attention in science class, but compare and contrast with Revcort. At least it allows for 'changes of perspective'. Also, the Canon neglects to mention whether he find the concept of god 'strictly true' :D The CofE is nothing if not predicable. I do wish people like the Canon Mullins would realise that people like Revcort exist. I'm hoping he googles his name and sees this thread...

Revcort said

Well, I would say that my interpretations (biblically speaking) in this instance are pretty much uniform with what all Christians have believed. I go to the church fathers for that. I go to Paul. I go to Peter. I go to Calvin. I go to Wesley. I go to Spurgeon. I go to Edwards. I go to confessions. I don't go to very many people who have lived in the last 100 years though, because the interpretations have become more and more corrupted.

There are some interesting names in there Revcort, (N.B. I am presuming you are referring to Jonathan Edwards - I read some quotes by him recently and nearly revisted my dinner).

Quite some guilt trip you've got going there. What did you do that was so dreadful? BTW what do you think of the Canon's letter? Someone else for the abyss?

632. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71036 by Corylus on September 17, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Kobi (if you are reading this...)

I know your reply was to Downunder, but I read it also. One of the pleasures of this sort of forum - you can read other people's letters without feeling guiltly...

You say

I in no way consider myself to be an intelligent person, or someone who even has opinions worth posting on a board such as this.

Bollocks sweatheart! You are obviously both. Do come and play if you ever want to have just a conversation. But, if you are too busy living that's good too :)

BTW: Don't assume just because someone is on here that they are supersmart - I know I'm not. Or for that matter alot older. Veronique thinks I am a mere stripling: love her.

633. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71015 by Corylus on September 17, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Revcort said

because I know Him and understand His love.

I see. So you know and understand god's actions and motivations. How gratified are we to have someone in our presence who's claims exceed the world theologian's.

Perhaps He's using me to reach to you. Hey, perhaps by sending me to this message board to speak to you,

All bow before the internet Metatron! Such humility. Such Grace.

Revcort I'm generally quite nice to Christians who post on here: I like to hear other people's views and stories. I flatter myself that I'm actually quite polite. However, since you have been spectatularly insulting, patronising, self-righteous and smug I am going to do something that I only do when cross....

I'm going to link to Phil Collins. Jesus speaks through him too.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RTrYE4a1BmE

However,unlike you, I'm too soft to believe in undeserved torment.

Therefore, I won't link to 'A Groovy Kind of Love' or 'Against All Odds'.

634. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70804 by Corylus on September 17, 2007 at 12:50 am

Well done to The Independent for publishing and giving a right to reply.

It would have been better if they have never published the badly written drivel that RD is responding to, of course.

However, credit where it is due.

635. A Table for One

Comment #70796 by Corylus on September 16, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Interesting. I believe that Colbert is genuinely a Catholic.

I would be interested to know that his real feelings were about this. I admit I'm puzzled.

Oh well. Can't figure out everything - I'm just going to go back to sniggering about that airport bathroom quip :)

636. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #70794 by Corylus on September 16, 2007 at 11:35 pm

Rar

You take issue with people describing a foetus as 'just cellular clumps' . You want to talk about personhood. OK.

Trouble is, you end your post with:

Scientifically speaking, it's not just a woman's body anymore.

Say that back to yourself: think about how that sounds. Not just a woman's body.

Excuse me if I find your argument inconsistent.

637. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70654 by Corylus on September 16, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Well done, RDF - sounds like a logistical nightmare to set up - great that you got there!

Clappers

Yes, I do think that this is a good idea. I am a bit of an education addict and each time I have toodled off to college I have been amazed at how these religious groups circle like buzzards over the new students. (Particularly the overseas students who are especially vulnerable). It is easy to get sucked in - loneliness can be a horrible thing. In fact it seems to get worse each time I go.

They are not just there at 'societies fairs' where eveyone can pick which social groups that want to join (completely their right), but there are leaflets under new student's doors as well. Posters everywhere about 'lectures' and 'talks'. N.B. I am sure that there are many members of these societies who are genuine people who want to provide comfort and community to students.

However, there is also a dark side to some of these societies. For example, I have heard tales of males in the muslim groups using these groups as a springboard from which to bully their female members into conforming in terms of dress and behaviour. A matter about which they, with breathtaking impertinence, feel they have the right to dictate.

There does need to be a 'bright' or 'humanist' alternative. Needs to be strictly supervised and regulated though, it is very important that this alternative never stoops to proselytizing. This should be about giving people time and space to question and argue.

638. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70609 by Corylus on September 16, 2007 at 9:44 am

Castigating isn't my style Spinoza :-)

However, I'm willing to play on this one. (Mmm, how to convince someone like you? I know)

I would say that it all boils down to how you feel about false beliefs. (Bear with me).

For example, when I was a child a was a snotty precocious brat and also quite sickly.

Consequently, I spent a great deal of time off school, reading books that most adults would have deemed too old for me. During this time I picked up a false belief. I was astonished at the range and amount of works that an individual called "Anon" had produced.

Being (in my own mind) quite erudite I noted that this name seemed foreign, hellenic even. I therefore came to the reasonable conclusion that "Anon" was some Greek chap who had written alot.

Did this false belief do me any harm? In the short term no, in fact it gave me a needed dose of humility in that I was impressed at the sheer scale and scope of his writtings. "I'll never be that smart!" I said.

Eventually, of course, I found out that "Anon" was merely a short form of the word "Anonymous". If I had continued with my false belief would this have done me any harm?

Actually yes. I would have been upset and confused at how contradictory some of his writings were, how strange it was that his very writing style could vary so much. Eventually the situation would have become worrying in that I would not have been able to compare and contrast different authors. Foreseeably it could have become very serious indeed that I might have acted wrongly, in all good faith, on the basis of faulty premises.

It is often noted that knowledge is cumulative, I happen to think that ignorance is also.

(I would make the point here that it is important to always be aware that knowledge you believe to be true is subject to revision.* and that it is very important not to be full of proslytizing zeal: people who are can be very tedious.)

However, if you don't attempt to persuade people that you know (or at least reasonably sure) are holding false beliefs due to them being "idiots", then I would say that you have to live with the possibility that your disengagement only makes matters worse...

Viewed in this light then the intelligence level of the person you are speaking to is irrelevant, it is the false beliefs that they hold (and that they may well act upon) that are the true irritant.
---
*In fact I rapidly coming to the conclusion that I was right all along about "Anon" being 'a Greek chap who has written alot' and that his real name is Dianelos, but that's a different tale ;)

639. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70596 by Corylus on September 16, 2007 at 8:27 am

Paul

You have stated that you are dissatisfied with the conclusion that it is impossible to call an action (pick an emotive heinous example of your choice) objectively wrong.

However, there is a flip side to this that you might not have considered... If this conclusion is correct it is also impossible to call an action (pick an emotive, heinous example of your choice) objectively right.

This may appear scant comfort and a peculiar point to make, but think about it for a bit.

Consider those situations where every subjective intuition and feeling is overruled because of an appeal to 'objectivity'. When we are told that objectivity trumps all, because there are principles to be upheld and rules that must never be broken.

You may have already read this, but what do you think of Jonathan Bennett's essay entitled "The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn". Link below.

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/jfb/huckfinn.pdf

IMHO - I think it's quite beautiful. Please read if you haven't already.

(Apologies if this has already been mentioned in this thread, but my poor brain can't keep hold of all of the arguments on here at once) In the words of the great philosopher Homer Simpson...

D'oh! Whenever I learn new stuff, it pushes old stuff outta my head.

640. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70332 by Corylus on September 15, 2007 at 1:25 am

Downunder

BTW, please tell me how do you get bold and italic in your posts?

Just above the little text box in which you write you comments you will see a clickable link called 'comment posting guidelines'.

It tells you how to make things show up in bold and italics and how to blockquote. (I would write the instructions on here - but they disappear)

Some smarts types (aka. showoffs!) seem to be able to make text appear in different colours and fonts and embed links. That I don't have a clue how to do :)

641. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70247 by Corylus on September 14, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Interesting Lana, thank you for responding.

I practice in the U.S., in Virginia, where the unspoken presumption often seems to be that the defendant must be guilty if the police said so.

In the UK there doesn't seem to be that presumption.

In fact, the opposite - if the defendant turns up in a nice suit and seems like a nice lad - he often gets away with it.

I suspect, but I am not sure, (if anyone experienced in both the US and UK systems wants to speak up I would be interested to hear them) part of this is due to the whole 'plea-bargining' business in the US. E.g. if they are in court then they must be really guilty.

Negotiation happens in the UK, of course, but not so openly.

You state:

I really had no problem separating the emotional from the facts and always hoped I'd get a jury that could do the same.

Fair enough, but I suspect that many people (especially those with the finances to pick and choose) assume that juries are incapable of doing just that.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the case with this trial.

642. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70231 by Corylus on September 14, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Lana

I do understand your take on this - as I said I completely agree on the ideal of a impartial trial.

Out of interest did you practice in the US the UK or somewhere else??

My take on this is that for a time I worked as an administrator for the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service in the UK) I believe the US equivilent is the DA's office.

My experience is understanding just how unbelievably difficult it is to get sexual offences to court. The ones that get to court represent just a tiny fraction of the victims who are told that there is not enough evidence to take the case further.

We come from different viewpoints, but that's fine. That is what an adversial system of justice is about.

My other take on this is purely practical, if I were sitting on a jury and listened to a female defence lawyer in one of those cases* then a purely emotional part of me (I believe I was honest about my view being purely emotional) simply wouldn't like it.

I am interested in your view, as someone who has dealt in these matters, as to whether or not choosing female defence lawyers in these cases comes across as merely a cynical ploy, and is ultimately counter-productive.

---

*Depending on how she conducted herself, of course, if she were completely professional I could probably deal.

643. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70219 by Corylus on September 14, 2007 at 11:46 am

A defense lawyer, Tara L. Isaacson, told jurors that the state had failed to prove that Jane Doe had been raped by her husband.

Nasty and manipulative use of language here. E.g. "her husband".

Marriage is basically a contract - minors and contracts don't go together - therefore the term 'husband' is unjustified.

I suspect the pointed use of the term is merely a cynical manipulation in the hope that the jury might consist of some dinosaurs who consider the notion of 'rape' by a 'husband' an impossibility.

N.B. I completely agree with the ideal that everyone is entitled to a fair trial with a competant defence.

But,... but...

Female lawyers for the defence in rape cases - my gut doesn't like it. Screams desperation and money on the part of the accused. Also, an absolute b*&^h of a lawyer.

Not particularly impartial and rational of me, but sod it, I can't be vulcan all the time.

EDIT: I regret having been so mealy-mouthed and unkind to dinosaurs... "bastards" was the term I should have used.

644. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70073 by Corylus on September 14, 2007 at 1:48 am

Philip

I too have been swotting up on science - so that I don't only get to play in the arty debates. Plus I hate it when I can't understand what people are saying :-(

You might enjoy John Gribben's Science: A History. Doesn't just lay out scientific arguments, you also get lot of fun anecdotes about famous scientist's escapades.

Barking mad most of them....

[Ducks and runs off]

645. Mind Over Manual

Comment #69999 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Ooooh I loved DSM as a psychology student. Hours of fun diagnosing myself and my neighbours/colleagues/friends with all manner of ailments!

I have lots - some I will admit to online (e.g. my simple phobia of bees/wasps) others I'm keeping very quiet about ;)

Here's hoping they have lots of fun new categories on this one.

646. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69991 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Dianelos

In response to my my championing of consequentialist morality you state:

I need some flexibility of thought here...The interesting question is: "How do we know the right answer in the first place?"

You're right. I need to give an answer to this question.

You have been responding to various criticisms for some time now - it is only fair that I allow you (and anyone else that cares to) to criticise my position.

I would charactize myself as broadly Humean (I reject the notion of objective morality). This is because people are not objective about morality, moral decisions are, at heart, emotional decisions.

So why do I champion consequentialist morality? Or as you put it:

Why discuss a particular ethical theory such that its results must always be checked by our own ethical intuitions to find out if they are any good?

Well. This is because if you throw yourself unthinkingly into either naive subjective morality or naive objective morality you end up with having to live with possibly vile outcomes that anyone with a talent for thinking up thought experiments can show up ;-)

So yes, while I am totally unabashed at how my ethics are based on subjective notions, I don't want to degenerate into naive emotivisim (i.e. that's wrong because I don't like it) or relativism either (no one person's view is better than any other).

So how do I bring objectivity in, without being accused of fudging the issue?

Well, I have been further influenced by other two things:

1) Ethics of care - one thing that our natural empathy tells us is that causing harm is a bad thing.

You can argue that this is a prescriptive matter. Maybe, but can I refer you to my answer to Dr. Benway below concerning the descriptive/prescriptive distinction.

2) The understanding that all types of knowledge are cumulative.

This needs expanding on even more.

To that end I am going to copy and paste a response I gave to PaulE on an earlier thread (apologies to any that have already read this, but I'm lazy)

You are right: my position is that there is no such thing as objective morality - I hope I get credit for not skirting this one!

This is for the simple reason that humans are not (about matters of morality) objective. Moral statements are subjective emotional statements; they are not objective or practical statements. This admission of mine leads you to state:

I found it very hard to agree with Corylus that morality could still be moral without being objective.

So, as I understand it, your challenge to me is thus: Taking on board the above, how do I prevent myself from falling into moral relativism, depravity and general naughtiness? Or even if I don't do that, how do I legitimately condemn those that do? How can any moral judgement I make have any claim to universability?

OK, firstly, we need to look at how morality develops. We are physical beings, who learn by interacting with our environment and knowing what it is to feel harm. We experience empathy (the feeling of another's pain as our own) because of our own understanding of harm. This harm can be mental or physical. (Although as a monist I take the view that these terms are just different ways of describing the same thing).

However, if we don't know that an action causes harm, it is impossible for us to condemn it. We don't make judgements in a vacuum. We learn facts about what hurt other people, i.e. we might learn that some traditional remedies have side effects that were previously unknown and ultimately kill more than they cure. When we learn facts like these our emotional reactions change in relation to these treatments. This is what at meant when I said that I said that facts (ultimately) only inform our emotional moral judgements.

This is where facts come in, it must be understood that when we make moral statements we do so in the context of the information and knowledge presently available to us. This is why the relationship and distinction between values and facts is actually quite complex.

Now, if I learn about someone in some place using this remedy on their child, I can say that it is understandable that they do so (in that they think it will help) however, I can also say that they are 'wrong' to do so: in light of the information that I have to hand. (However, I have to leave open the possibility that further facts might be uncovered that renders my judgement invalid). This then is how I I see universal moral statements. What you you mean as universal is based in rule based systems. E.g. This is wrong and will be wrong for ever.

I actually think that this is a really depressing conclusion to draw, in that leads no room for further learning. For example, we know more about mental illness now, should we call someone with Multiple Personality Disorder 'possessed'? "My name is Legion for I am many." Should such people be hounded from town?

I can consider the possibility that the actions that I view as moral might; in some future time; be considered the actions of a savage. I find this though both humbling (a feeling that can be good for people sometimes) and hugely optimistic. Moral knowledge, just like any other form of knowledge is cumulative. There is no place for this sort of understanding in rule-based, theistic morality. This is why I reject it. This is also why I think that obtaining moral guidance form simple unchanging statements is actually a deeply immoral position. (For example, that ridiculous "All you need are the 10 Commandments" drivel one often hears from hardline American Christians)

There you go Dianelos - Corylus' morality in a nutshell. Go ahead and tear it apart :-))

647. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #69974 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Northern Bright

What a lovely review! (I have gone to amazon and marked it 'helpful')

I do hope RD reads it - even if he can't comment on it.

648. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69968 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Dianelos Comment #69890 Thanks for your answer, I will respond soon (I like to start with shorter comments!)

Dr Benway said (69916)

I'm not sure I understand your distiction. "Good" means "that which one ought do." The word "good" hides an imperative meaning within it.

Descriptive: "Fred believes he ought to give to charity."
Prescriptive: "We ought to give to charity."

Yes, I hear you, to a certain extent you can argue that consequentialist theories like utilitarianism are prescriptive (or normative) in that they will talk about something being 'a good' i.e. happiness. From there the implication is,of course, that one 'should' act in such as fashion as to maximise happiness.

However, I would argue that there is an added level of subtlety in consequentialist 'should' statements (as opposed to religiously based 'should' statements) in that there is the realisation that for some people, and in some situations, what is termed as a 'good' can vary. This is where the 'descriptive' part comes in.

This for me is not about collapsing into relativism. This is about understanding that if you posit one single thing as an absolute good that all people must strive towards, you are, by definition, assuming that the vast majority of the human race are complete failures.*

Some people are just failures of course, but to term the vast majority as failures (when they often don't see themselves as such) seems unfair. It is also unsatisfactory as an explanation in that human beings are born into different circumstances with different requirements for what they themselves would term as 'the good life'.

The best explanations are those that account for the most variables - they might not be the most precise, but we live in a complicated world, and moral judgements are complicated things.
---

*N.B. This is generally a problem for morality based on religious edicts: not many saints about. However, to be completely fair, I have to say that it is also possible to do this from a non-religious viewpoint (look at Nietzsche and his "Superman").

649. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69865 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 3:13 am

Dianelos

(Apologies to Newatheist for butting in here! However, I can't resist this one.)

I have to say that I find your rejection of consequentialist morality somewhat sweeping.

1. Assuming it's feasible to reliably compute all consequences before deciding for a course of action (which is normally not the case), how does one compare the value of the consequences of different courses of action? It seems that consequentialism is an empty theory because it simply moves the problem from "what should I do?" to "what is good?" which is just as hard a problem.

Yes "what is good?" is a hard question. However, it is a superior question to "what should I do?" for the simple reason that it is a descriptive rather than a prescriptive statement.

I believe the question of whether or not one can make prescriptive moral statements has come up somewhere on this thread ;-)

2. When using broadly accepted values consequentialism often gives the wrong answers. For example we all agree that human life has a very high value. Now suppose you are a medical doctor with 6 patients. The first has terminal cancer and will die with 99% probability in the next 30 days. The other 5 urgently need an organ transplant and will all die with 99% probability within the next 3 days if they don't get one, but if they get one each has a 90% probability of living for the next 10 years.

There you go again with the impossible thought experiments. If a patient is highly likely to die within a month of cancer than this is because that cancer has metastasised. None of their organs would be suitable for transplant. (Well maybe the corneas, I admit that I'm not sure about that one, but that is not a life saving procedure anyway).

Consequentialism would require that you kill the first patient and harvest her healthy organs in order to save the life of the other 5 patients. But I trust you agree that to do so is clearly wrong, notwithstanding the fact that the consequences of such an action are very good.

No consequentialism would not require that you kill the patient! Consequentialism is about looking at long term consequencies as well as short-term ones. For example, if it became general knowledge that one might be bumped off in hospital in order to have one's organs harvested then this might stop people seeking medical treatment - which could very well lead to more deaths than just five.

N.B. I don't personally think that it is helpful to view all moral dilemmas in strictly consequentialist terms, but I don't think most consequentialists do that, of for that matter argue that this is possible.

650. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69855 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 2:19 am

Fides-et-ratio said

...but I wonder if the receiver in need cares about the motives of the giver. I think at that stage they probably don't.

Maybe, maybe not. It is hard enough to accept charity at the best of times. I would argue that the knowledge that the person giving is more worried about themselves than then person in need might make this even harder.

When this assistance is in the form of blood (and one's life is at stake) then concerns about motivation will probably not register. A second of reflection though will inform the recipient that; although the giver may well be devout; they will not be a devout Jehovah's Witness.