What harm could it do?

[Frank]

This sort of story always ceases to amaze me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm
That is: Ridiculous views (such as 'God will heal those who need it' or 'Homeopathy can cure your blood disease' and other such silly stances shared by idiots) impairing judgement such that your forego all sense of reason and let awful things happen.

I find it very easy to be judgemental, but find myself slightly worried that I too will likely be guilty of holding a silly view. It's been suggested that everyone has their 'sacred cow'; something which in spite of their better judgement they still cling to unfalteringly. Some folks have a softspot for UFOs and Ghosts, some a penchant for 'a belief in something greater than ourself'. I imagine I'd probably class all of religious/superstitious belief as this, but that's a controversial view to hold so I'd rather not stress it more than simply stating it.

I'm well aware of things like the placebo effect and its importance in simply 'tricking' folks into healing themselves (the route of most faith healing, alternative medicine etc). The more intriguing points, in my mind, are navigating the ethics of their application. Whilst faith healing as a broad programme is, in my view, reprehensible (well done CLAN, recently in St Andrews, for promoting things, amongst other groups), I tentatively understand the basic merit for which medical chappies will view it with. (Certainly it's been the subject of a few debates between myself and my medic chums.)

Anyhow, a wee question to y'all: How much danger, if any, do you see in madcap beliefs? (Or rather, if it's your fancy: how much opportunity, if any, do you see in the power of faith?)

[jollytiddlywink]

To be very brief, if people want to be madcap in their own time, they can do. They may still be illogical idiots, but if it hurts nobody but them, it's their business. If they manage to kill their daughter because of it, then they've hurt somebody else, and they deserve to be hit by the largest book they can have thrown at them (which, ironically enough, might be a bible).
I don't put my faith in anything supernatural or superhuman, but rather in logic, in 'progress' (that rather Victorian idea, which, for all its near-mortal wounds, still persists), and in heavy artillery.
Religious nuts can go to hell.

[Medievalist]

If he truly, and I do mean truly believed, than I think this is fine and I think it wrong of the court to convict him.
I mean yes, it is very sad that his daughter died, but to convict him for practicing his faith (which I assume was also his daughters faith) is ridiculous. Todo such a thing is to blatantly say "No, your religion is wrong! stop it!" Now instead, believe what I tell you is right! Which I'm pretty sure is quite intolerant. Most people read this story and would say "well clearly his beliefs were wrong, the girl died!" But that does not mean anything, to make such a statement would be to arbitrarily place standards of proof on the supernatural, which, is somewhat impossible. How would people know that it was not the divinities want to take the girl's life? We do not know for sure she would have survived if she went to the doctor, and even if she did, it does not mean it was for the better, because if it was the divinities want that the family prove their faith by going through this, they would then be damned, right? Now truly I do not know, I'm just saying we often put rules and guidelines to judging things that we should not.

Now of course the problem with this is someone could say "well, if my religion promotes murdering innocent people, id still get arrested, are you saying I shouldnt be?" Well no, but thats a different story that I do not feel like getting into.

Am I a believer? No, I wish i had faith, but in all honesty im pretty much just agnostic. But it does irritate me when people criticise religion, to me it is just intolerance, and i see it as the critics pushing their own secular religion on others.

[the Empress]

Deliberately witholding medical treatment is murder. The girl was 11, not legally an adult, so she could not consent. It's straight-forward. It's not a complicated case, like she had a terminal illness or had options. We *do* know her disease was treatable -> the article states she had undiagnosed diabetes. So, yes. Her parents were totally wrong. There's nothing wrong with a few irrational beliefs, providing you aren't, y'know, *killing yourself off*.

On a side note, why would you worship a god that demands you let your daughter die? Better then to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

[Frank]

Medievalist, in an instance like this it is not secular moralising claiming "Your religion is absolutely, categorically wrong" but "Your belief that prayer is a sensible treatment for this disease, for a person whose wellbeing you are legally responsible for, is demonstrably wrong".

Appealing to the seemingly unknowable will of a deity seems...nonsensical, belief or otherwise. If one were unable to intrude upon someone's beliefs the truly insane would be free to do as they please. As would the stereotypical sociopaths. And their psychopath peers.

On a very basic level one might take issue with any intervention, even on the behalf of others (that being the line which jollytiddlywink sensibly draws).

The sanctity of faith and belief is a peculiar, to me; like opinions and someone's sensibilities (with regards to offensive statements) I often wonder why they are venerated and pedestalled as much as they are. That is: Why respect someone's faith because it is their faith? Similarly, how might one distinguish between faith and true faith? (I'd note that I don't at all advocate wading into peoples' minds and rewiring them until they all conform...Iunless the 'wading into peoples' minds' comes from discussion and talking...damn, I'm a brainwasher...)

In that regard, I don't think the 'my religion promotes murdering innocents' is at all a different story. It's madcap beliefs versus sensible beliefs again, isn't it? (Perhaps I am being dense and missing something, of course.)

[Haunted]

If he truly, and I do mean truly believed, than I think this is fine and I think it wrong of the court to convict him.
I mean yes, it is very sad that his daughter died, but to convict him for practicing his faith (which I assume was also his daughters faith) is ridiculous. Todo such a thing is to blatantly say "No, your religion is wrong! stop it!" Now instead, believe what I tell you is right! Which I'm pretty sure is quite intolerant.

It is my heartfelt conviction that other peoples children are food for my pet dogs. Killing other peoples children is a long practised tradition of my people. In my holy book there are several verses which make reference to this practice. You have absolutely NO authority to convict me for murder for practising my beliefs since because it is a deeply held belief of mine it is automatically exempt from critical examination or criminal prosecution.

Wake the fuck up.

[English Language Speaker]

This sort of story always ceases to amaze me.

You mean "never ceases."

Speaka dee English?

[Medievalist]

It is my heartfelt conviction that other peoples children are food for my pet dogs. Killing other peoples children is a long practised tradition of my people. In my holy book there are several verses which make reference to this practice. You have absolutely NO authority to convict me for murder for practising my beliefs since because it is a deeply held belief of mine it is automatically exempt from critical examination or criminal prosecution.

Wake the fuck up.

I'm pretty sure I had already made a brief reference to this idea in my post? So... clearly I was aware of such an argument? So... why did ya post that? But anyways, we are not discussing some obscure religion, we are discussing Christianity, a religion that has, for several millenia governed the western world. For a thousand years it was seen as a bad thing to go to the doctor before going to a holy shrine or a priest, because it was seen as not putting faith in God, and to be a bad Christian... sometimes the faith worked (atleast according to records kept at holy shrines, the accuracy of course can be questioned) and other times it did not... but it was the idea of holding to the faith that mattered. Now yes, we do live in a different era, they have been able to do great things with medicine, and in our secular world it does seem stupid, but for this man he may very well believe it to be the difference between eternal damnation, and salvation... while following a long held belief within the religion that created our society... he did not batter her, he fought for her soul in his mind, he was being a good parent in his mind. Just because to us the idea that he did not manage to keep her alive through prayer is no reason to demonize him.

We *do* know her disease was treatable -> the article states she had undiagnosed diabetes. So, yes. Her parents were totally wrong.

I know it was treatable, I said we just do not know she still would have lived.

Deliberately witholding medical treatment is murder.

But he was treating her soul. Which is more important, the Earthly shell or the eternal soul? And dont just shout out "her life!" try and put yourself into his position with his beliefs, did he intentionally kill his daughter? I think not, I'm sure he grieves for his loss, but is comforted with the idea that he followed God's will.

"Your belief that prayer is a sensible treatment for this disease, for a person whose wellbeing you are legally responsible for, is demonstrably wrong".

The term "legally" keeps being thrown around here. I would not be surprised if this case was overturned in the appelate courts. It is not the first case of its kind. There was another a few years back where the person who caused their child's death was found guilty as well... but -only- because the parent had themselves gone to receive medication from a doctor not long before the occurance. If it can not be proven that this gentleman did the same, I believe the courts will overturn the verdict because then legally he did nothing wrong, his treatment just did not work.

Now again, this is not my belief. I just think it important not to instantly demonize someone.

[exnihilo]

So if instead of prayer he earnestly believed that treating her by purging her and bleeding her was the absolutely right thing to do would that be okay too?

[Frank]

This sort of story always ceases to amaze me.

You mean "never ceases."

Speaka dee English?

Pillock. It doesn't amaze me. Dismay, perhaps. I'm not terribly astounded by the human capacity for idiocy, ergo I'm not amazed. It's a deliberate choice of words.

Medievalist, will respond lateron.

[Delts]

This is simply murder. The sensible thing of someone of faith would be to go to the doctor and pray that the doctor can help heal their child. Well, it's not the sensible thing since you're still praying, but in a religious context it is the ideal course of action and the route the vast majority of western religious people take.

To shun modern medicine in the way this couple did is neglect. I would hold them to the same responsibility as parents who kill their children via other abusive means, shaking is the one that immediately jumps to mind. I personally hope the parents don't get out of prison for a very long time.

Now medievalist (you spelt your name wrong ) slightly disgusts me with their view. Religion is all fine and well as long as it is kept entirely to yourself. I won't impose my views on anyone as long as their views don't affect anyone other than themselves. To say that they did right via their religion is absurd. It doesn't matter that they were trying to save her immortal soul or thinking it was a test of faith. Their negligent ways and religious views led to her death. The medical experts in the trial said that even up to the point just before her heart stopped, they would have been more than likely able to save her. When she first fell ill, with treatment she would have been fine. Diabetes is a routine condition now, that as long as it's treated well is no longer life threatening. It was murder.

[jollytiddlywink]

I have to take exception with virtually everything medievalist has said.
It doesn't matter if he 'really' believed this or not. His action, or lack thereof, killed his daughter. Nobody has suggested that he be convicted for practicing his faith. We are saying that he ought to be convicted because his daughter died in his care. He could clearly have done more (like take her to a doctor!). It is, as far as I can tell, utterly irrelevant that he might claim his religious beliefs indicated that prayer was the solution. Unless we are to place religious belief on a higher level of justification than any other reason for action (or inaction) he should be convicted of murder. Suppose he had just been too lazy to bother taking her to a doctor? Nobody would defend him, and EVERYONE would condemn him, and rightly so. But now that his justification is religious, there are some who will defend him purely on that basis.

Medievalist, you say that we don't know if she would have survived with a doctor's care. She had diabetes. It is as near a given as anything in life that she would have survived. At the very least, you can concede that it is fair to proceed on that assumption. I don't know *for certain* that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but I am more than happy to proceed on the basis that it will, because my certainty that it will is as close as we can ever get to indisputable truth. The same goes for the result of her receiving medical care. We can easily proceed on the basis that it would have saved her life... because it would have done, as indeed the doctors later testified.

And if you are going to suggest that a deity or deities wanted to kill her, and intended for her to die regardless, surely they could have done better than something medical science can easily turn into a life-long treatable condition? It is like the utterly absurd (and deeply disturbing) argument put forth by some of the foaming-at-the-mouth religious crowd in the US that 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina were God's punishment for "the ACLU, and gays, lesbians, feminists, abortionists, paganists and people for the American Way" and because a lesbian singer lived the New Orleans.
If God was worth anything much, surely making all the gays, feminists, and pagans drop dead would have better punished them? And if one lesbian in a city brings a hurricane, why hasn't California descended into the ocean in a cataclysm of quakes and fires?

I amn't going to say that I revere science and logic to the point of death, but what the hell is the point of science and rational, logical, demonstrably true discoveries if people can opt out of facts? If he wants to deny himself medical care, and likely die because he wanted only to pray himself better, so be it. The moment he imposes that on another, namely his under-age daughter, he has committed a crime. End of story.

[munchingfoo]

But anyways, we are not discussing some obscure religion, we are discussing Christianity, a religion that has, for several millenia governed the western world.

All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others…

morality fail.

[Al]

Of course, it's much easier to rely on your faith when it's not your health or life on the line.

[the Empress]

Deliberately witholding medical treatment is murder.

But he was treating her soul. Which is more important, the Earthly shell or the eternal soul? And dont just shout out "her life!" try and put yourself into his position with his beliefs, did he intentionally kill his daughter? I think not, I'm sure he grieves for his loss, but is comforted with the idea that he followed God's will.

Well if *he's* comforted, that's *fine*. Yes, he intentionally killed his daughter you moron. Unless he's just terminally stupid, in which case he needs institutionalised. Maybe we should perform exorcisms to treat mental illness too?

[edited to remove unintentionally rhyming sarcasm]

[jollytiddlywink]

I'm surprised that macgamer hasn't come wading into this debate with bibles blazing...

Mixed metaphors (and sacrilegious sarcasm), how do I love thee... let me count the ways...

[Humphrey]

I see the Middle Ages being maligned here so I think I should make clear that most Medieval Christians shared the view (common since the Hippocratics) that sickness could be simultaniously natural and divine at the same time. Hence they would believe that God customarily employs natural powers to accomplish divine retribution for sin, but also that the plague was a result of the corruption of the planets or corruption of the air. All would believe something like the cure of soul being more important than the cure of the body (some like Bernard of Clairvaux spoke out against secular medicine), however the vast majority looked upon the Greco-Roman medical tradition as a divine gift which was legitimate and even obligatory. There is no question both that early Medieval Christians believed in healing miracles and they also availed themselves of religious and secular medicine (hedging their bets). Actually faith healing and visiting the local wise woman was probably more effective that secular medicine due to sheer luck and the placebo effect. This is because ancient medicine, both in general and in almost every specific was conceptually wrong and useless in practice, hence physicians would probably bleed you and make you throw up in order to 'balance the humours'. One medical instruction manual from the time actually reads:

'When you have left the patient, say a few words to the members of the household. Tell them he is very sick. For if he recovers you will be praised for your skill. Should he die, his friends will testify that you have given him up'.

With regard to the topic, having 'faith' in something is utterly ridiculous if the thing you happen to be having faith in (in this case that diabetes will miraculously cure itself) is totally and utterly unreasonable. Even in the so called 'Age of Faith' the common people recognised that they would have no right to expect a miraculous cure and no way to compel God to provide one, and if Medieval peasants could figure that out you would expect someone in modern day Wisconsin to do so as well.

[Haunted]

I'm pretty sure I had already made a brief reference to this idea in my post? So... clearly I was aware of such an argument? So... why did ya post that?

Whoops, that was me posting after pub closing time with unfortunate mistakes.

he may very well believe it to be the difference between eternal damnation, and salvation... while following a long held belief within the religion that created our society... he did not batter her, he fought for her soul in his mind, he was being a good parent in his mind.

I do not doubt that he sincerely believed he was doing good. Just as I do not doubt the sincerity of the loon down the mental ward who thinks himself to be Napoleon.

[macgamer]

I'm surprised that macgamer hasn't come wading into this debate with bibles blazing...

Is this a summons? Bibles blazing really, when was the last time I quoted scripture at you? I suppose you don't remember Paul, now that was a bible basher if there ever was one, possibly even of the Wisconsin variety.

I have chosen not to comment because, especially with Humphrey's comment:

With regard to the topic, having 'faith' in something is utterly ridiculous if the thing you happen to be having faith in (in this case that diabetes will miraculously cure itself) is totally and utterly unreasonable. Even in the so called 'Age of Faith' the common people recognised that they would have no right to expect a miraculous cure and no way to compel God to provide one, and if Medieval peasants could figure that out you would expect someone in modern day Wisconsin to do so as well.

I did not feel there was much to add.

However whilst I'm here:

[...] how might one distinguish between faith and true faith?

Well I'm glad you asked. In way of answer, I'll offer you a quotation from Fr Ronald Rolheiser's The Last Word in this week's Catholic Herald:

Paul Tillich once distinguished between what he termed Pseudo-religion, Quasi-religion and True Religion. He defined them in the following way: Pseudo-religion uses explicit religious language and sometimes even intends it in its real sense, but ultimately it doesn't open someone up to anything beyond what is highest with the individual self. [...] Quasi-religion doesn't use explicit religious language, but takes its adherence beyond what is highest inside humanity itself. [...] True-religion might or might not use explicit religious language but either way opens up its adherents to a vision and a reality beyond what is highest inside the individual person and highest within the collective ideal of humanity itself. It opens us up to the transcendent, to a God who is real, beyond us, relates to us and who asks things of us.

[...] How do we know if our own religious practice is real, quasi or pseudo? Jesus answered this by saying: "By their fruits you will know them." The authenticity of our religious practice should not be judged, as is commonly the case, by any of the following criteria: simple sincerity, religious practice, or even self-sacrifice. Any of these qualities can be present in a person and his or her religious practice might still not be true. Imbalance, fanaticism and flat-out hatried can sometimes produce these qualities or be unhealthily mixed with them.

I express disapproval on the following comments:

Better then to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

Religion is all fine and well as long as it is kept entirely to yourself.

The last of these raises an issue I was going to address in the Transhumanism thread, which I will return to when I have time.

[Frank]

Is this a summons? Bibles blazing really, when was the last time I quoted scripture at you? I suppose you don't remember Paul, now that was a bible basher if there ever was one, possibly even of the Wisconsin variety.

DON'T SAY HIS NAME!

As it is, I too remember Paul. I'll now go on to read the rest of your post...