Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Ethics and religion



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Calum MacKellar (Letters, 8 May) is quite right to say that Christians should "be able to speak on behalf of non-religious organisations". However, the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, of which he is research director, rarely seems to deviate from using the same arguments as those who are opposed to scientific and medical advances on religious grounds, so calling it a non-religious organisation is open to question, particularly when he is an elder of the Church of Scotland
Many of the council's arguments have no objective logic to them. To take one example from their website, they argue that "the creation of animals with certain kinds of quantities of human cells, such as neural or germline cells, would be offensive. Accordingly, such research requires careful consideration and review". This does not follow. Research deserves consideration and review because of the potential harm it could cause, not because someone might find it offensive (unless, of course, it is God who would be offended).

Perhaps it is effective to propagate largely religiously inspired arguments under the auspices of a non-religious organisation, but some might regard this as itself somewhat unethical.

On the other hand, perhaps it's just a happy coincidence that the council has never adopted a non-Christian view on anything, from euthanasia to stem-cell research.

(DR) DAVID SHAW

Lecturer in ethics

University of Glasgow





The full article contains 231 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 May 2008 8:43 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Beth Boyle,

NY 09/05/2008 02:37:26
Dr. David Shaw this is a vague and very poorly written rant. I give you a F for failing grade for a man of letters to write such rubbish. Am I to follow you that all Christians should be persecuted and banned from organizations based on your assumptions they cannot think scientifically? Tisk, tisk, you are narrow and very pathetic. My father was a scientist and a an Elder in the Presbyterian Church USA. He was always and forever a man of science until his death in 2005. Your persecution of people of Faith is most unkind and undemocratic. I hope the ghost of Dr.David Livingstone haunts you day and night. Not all people of faith are unglued religious zealots, Dr. Shaw!
2

Beth Boyle,

NY 09/05/2008 03:53:59
There is allot of bad science out there and one need not be a religious person to inject faulty and misguided ideas and morality into scientific research. Pseudo-science is what that is and it is rampant today world wide. John Clerk Maxwell is a prime example of great man of faith who used exacting standards of hard science and rational thought. You can look to him as an example and see it need not be a bad marriage, faith and science. Science and religion need not cancel one another out I assure you. The desire on every turn of contemporary Scottish intellectuals to demonize Christianity is deeply troubling to me. With such a rich history of great scientists and noble Christian traditions why does this hatred flourish in Scotland today? It reminds me of Carl Marx quite frankly. Is that its origin? I understand not the persecution and rewriting of history that constantly goes on in Scotland's academia. Does this have its roots in 20th century socialism? Why do literate Scots hate their own rich history and culture? The many scientific and humanitarian efforts of the the great scientific minds of Scotland from the past that were inspired by their faith is broad and noteworthy. As a Scottish-American I look with great pride of the achievements of these Scientists from Scotland who were also great Christians. It's as though contemporary Scots hate something within themselves and want to banish it from the record books and it is most disconcerting. Much of who you we are was determined by the strong faith of those who went before. The Church of Scotland is hardly some fascist organization of backward Christian zealots. I have worshiped in her churches and found the most opened minded sensible people there that are extremely earnest and forward thinking. They are not fundamentalists but you would paint them as fire brands of insane religious fervor! To see Scotland divorce it's faith is truly one of the saddest things I have ever seen. What a shame. No wonder
3

Unimpressed one,

09/05/2008 08:15:25
"There is allot of bad science out there"

Very true, but not as much as bad religion. Organised religions are the cancer of this planet. They all need to cut away for the good of the patient.
4

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 09/05/2008 09:21:26
'On the other hand, perhaps it's just a happy coincidence that the council has never adopted a non-Christian view on anything, from euthanasia to stem-cell research.'

This is nonsense. There is no Christian view on such matters. Particular people who might happen to be Christians might have particular views on these matters but that does not make the views essentially Christian. People can draw all sorts of spurious inferences from their understanding of Christianity but that does not mean that their conclusions warrant the title of a Christian view of stem-cell research or of Euthanasia. Different Christians have different opinions about such matters.

What did Christ say about abortion, euthanasia and stem-cell research? He said 'Love God and love your neighbour as yourself'. You can do these things and approve of legal abortions, legal euthanasia and legal stem-cell research. By the same token, you can do these things and disapprove of them.

I cannot recall that Christ is reported to have said that we should make particular actions crimes.
5

Boy Wonder,

09/05/2008 09:55:56
God save us from religion and bad science!
6

G,

dundy 09/05/2008 12:58:59
Hugh - there are probably some OT tracts (perhaps about seed or the lion mingling with the gazebo) that some Xians could use to oppose just about anything!
7

wayne bijlyeerheid,

09/05/2008 14:02:39
The point of Dr Shaw's letter is that, what appears to be an ostensibly independent scientific organisation is claiming the right for Christians to speak for non-religious organisations.
Well it turns out that the "independent scientific" organisation is a front for religious interests, so that explains why such a ridiculous demand was made in the first place.
We are all aware that bible thumpers "know" the "truth",they get it from their "holy books" that's why they are not wanted when rational discussion is required.
If some Christians insist on being seen as representative of people who do not agree with them and see any attempt (as per the Dr's letter)to argue against that point of view as somehow against some supernatural order then they will be continued to be seen as little more than dictatorial nut cases.
If they continue using front organisations to hide their religious affiliations while propagating their religious beliefs then they will be seen as unethical, dishonest and afraid to face the real argument over their influence and power in society without the cloak of deceit.

Quote>Calum MacKellar ..is quite right to say that Christians should "be able to speak on behalf of non-religious organisations". However, the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, .... rarely seems to deviate from using the same arguments as those who are opposed to scientific and medical advances on religious grounds, so calling it a non-religious organisation is open to question, particularly when he is an elder of the Church of Scotland<
8

Maximus,

Roberton 09/05/2008 15:20:38
No4, ‘There is no Christian view on such matters’ I would disagree. If you are a Christian, then surely you will know that the Church is the Body of Christ, and as such He continues to teach us through the church? As such there is plenty Christ says about ‘abortion, euthanasia and stem-cell research’ which is inferred from his teachings and commandments to love one another, and to do unto others.
9

Beth Boyle,

NY 09/05/2008 16:20:09
I am full certain Jesus is delighted with stem cell research and with all things done in the hope to improve people's lives. There is bad religion and there is bad science. May God reveal the truth to us all. The great scientist Galileo Galilei was persecuted by the Church but he was a devout Christian. He understood that God was not against him just men who used religion to keep the truth from people. Anything and everything can be twisted and used to subvert and religion can misused. Should we ban all science because a scientist invented nerve gas and the Atom bomb? No! Religion should not be dismissed because some people miss use it. Lets hold all men to a higher standard be they men of science or men of the cloth.
10

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 09/05/2008 18:22:26
#4 Maximus,Roberton

'If you are a Christian, then surely you will know that the Church is the Body of Christ, and as such He continues to teach us through the church?'

I do not accept this in what I take to be the sense that you mean it. The Church that is the Body of Christ is not, in my view, to be identified with any official religious faction or denomination. It is the category of all believers.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.