Harvard’s Michael Sandel argues in his book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering that life is a gift and that we should accept the unbidden nature of this gift, working toward acceptance and solidarity with others rather than seeking unbridled mastery over human biology. But is life properly viewed as a gift?
To toot my own horn, one of my favorite talks in recent memory was one I gave to the Templeton folks on the compatibility of religion and transhumanism. Andres put it up on Thoughtware.tv, and he wrote to let me know that it has been their top-rated talk there. Listen to it here. The slides associated with that talk are here, and the paper is here.
IEET Fellow and JET Editor Russell Blackford writes: Udo Schuklenk and I will be co-editing a book, provisionally entitled Voices of Disbelief, which will contain 50 to 60 relatively short essays by prominent people explaining why they are not religious believers - why they don’t accept the existence of the Abrahamic God, or subscribe to other religious doctrines.
The goal of a liberal society puts obligations on its citizens, that we practice reasonableness and openness to ideas, that we do not just tolerate one another but support one another to our fullest flourishing. A liberal society is not neutral about values like disease and health, sloth and effort, deceit and integrity, cowardice and courage. There are excellences that citizens of a liberal society must promote to survive. [Discuss this article in IEET Fora]
A controversial (apparently) Dutch parliamentarian, Geert Wilders, has recently released a short film, Fitna, which has been interpreted as a warning against the Islamisation of Europe - and is, on any interpretation, an attack on the content of the Koran.
I’ve delayed commenting until I found some time to watch Fitna. I’ve now seen it.
For all I know, Ben Stein may be Apollo’s gift to the professions of acting and gameshow hosting, and to some of the other odd activities that have come his way from time to time in a long career that’s more varied than the Galapagos finches.
I’ve never really paid much attention to Christopher Hitchens, renowned and reviled critic of all things religious. But when my brother recently brought his anti-Buddhist sentiments to my attention I had to take a closer look.
Even if it would be possible in principle for intelligent design to be genuine science - notwithstanding its supernatural element - there is no basis to believe that it is genuine science in its current form.
I’ve just finished reading Philip Kitcher’s new book, Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith. I unreservedly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the issues mentioned in its sub-title.
Given all the atheist militancy raising a ruckus lately, I suppose it isn’t too surprising that I am stumbling upon more regular and more baldly dismissive declarations these days about the ineradicable incompatibility of science and religion among Science’s self-appointed Elite Champions online.
I recently picked up the DVD of Jesus Camp and I let it sit on the shelf for a couple of weeks. I was reluctant to watch it because I knew how upset it would make me.
Despite grandiose and cocksure proclamations to the contrary, consciousness is still a hard problem in science. Aside from (currently) untestable theories and philosophical musings, how matter organizes itself such that it is capable of experiencing subjectivity and qualia is an utter mystery.
I don’t normally post overly religious or hyper-conservative arguments that are in opposition to human enhancement (mainly on the grounds that they are far too outside the conversation), but I just caught an article in Christianity Today that I just had to share.
I once believed it important to determine the “Buddhist view” on many social and political questions. Today I’m much more circumspect. Buddhist texts offer few coherent views outside of the core doctrinal elements. Consequently, Buddhists, to an even greater degree than most religionists, are required to address contemporary problems in the spirit of their teachings, rather than according to the letter of their law.
In the case of abortion, classical Buddhist texts, from the Pali canon through the Mahayana sutras, offer no specific guidance. Even if there was a specific, classical Buddhist text addressing the moral status of the fetus and the act of abortion, it would not be consistent with “Buddhism” to accept this teaching uncritically. Buddhism encodes with its teachings a reflexive, dynamic, self-critical element, beginning with the Kalama Sutra, which encourages Buddhists not to simply follow scriptures, but to continually adapt the Dharma to new audiences.
Consequently, a Buddhist approach to abortion has more to do with approaching the issue with a characteristic set of concerns, and in dialogue with a vast body of texts and teachers. It therefore comes as little surprise that most Western and Japanese Buddhists come away believing in the permissibility of abortion, while many other Buddhists believe abortion to be murder. In this essay I would like to sketch some of the reasons why most Western Buddhists accept abortion as an unfortunate but necessary part of women’s reproductive health care.
Drawing upon both the insights of Buddhism and the Western liberal tradition, this essay criticizes established Buddhism’s restrictions on the involvement of women and develops a Buddhist feminist agenda appropriate to our own age and culture.
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.
Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376
Free Will?
IEET Blog