One for the unbelievers and not so sures

[theskull1]

Thought there might be a few interested in attending this

The Strand Arts Centre Belfast will be screening "The Unbelievers" documentary on the 21st October.
Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss will be in attendance for a Q+A after the screening.

To book
http://www.strandartscentre.com/unbelievers-qa

[AZOffaly]

Ask Dawkins what inspired him to say parents were morally wrong not to abort Down Syndrome pregnancies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html

[muppet]

Ask Dawkins what inspired him to say parents were morally wrong not to abort Down Syndrome pregnancies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html

Jebus.

If you are a non-believer fair enough, but why then follow another non-believer?

[theskull1]

Ask Dawkins what inspired him to say parents were morally wrong not to abort Down Syndrome pregnancies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html

In his own words ...........

Here is what I would have said in my reply to this woman, given more than 140 characters:

"Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it's worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do.  I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else."


What specifically in what he's said here would you take issue with?

[deiseach]

If a churchman said that choosing to abort was an immoral choice, he would be lambasted (and rightly so) for imposing extra pressure on someone in an already difficult situation. The reverse is also true, and that's why I would have a problem with Dawkins' viewpoint. NB saying "I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else" after everything that came before is weasel-minded bollocks.

[AZOffaly]

Specifically the word moral. What is immoral about a DS baby? I think it's an incredible position for him to take. It makes me wonder about the rest of his values, regardless of his opinion on a Deity. I could invoke Godwin's law here but I won't.

And having time to think about it write a long reply is fine. The nub of what he said, he repeats. And then, as deiseach says, to come out with some "ah but sure don't mind me anyway" is pathetic.

[muppet]

Ask Dawkins what inspired him to say parents were morally wrong not to abort Down Syndrome pregnancies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html

In his own words ...........

Here is what I would have said in my reply to this woman, given more than 140 characters:

"Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it's worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do.  I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else."


What specifically in what he's said here would you take issue with?

This principle of genetically engineering our children.

He choose to discuss DS children, which was imho a mistake. He could have discussed a child who would have no interaction with the world and who would die shortly after birth. It would be harder to argue against that.

But to choose a DS child, who most certainly does interact with the world, can experience happiness and can give it back in spades, as his example, is at best mischievous and at worst a very dangerous discourse. If you go back not too long ago a left-handed child was seen as defective.

[seafoid]

A lot of DS foetuses are aborted in Switzerland . I know a woman who had 3 abortions before she had her first child.
There is something sickening about the whole "rational " attitude and the priceless contribution DS people make to society and family life is lost.
It's also "rational" to put energetic kids on Ritalin and f**k them up because it's easier than talking to them. 

[seafoid]

http://www.monbiot.com/2014/06/10/the-values-ratchet/

"We are not born with our core values: they are strongly shaped by our social environment. These values can be placed on a spectrum between extrinsic and intrinsic. People towards the intrinsic end have high levels of self-acceptance, strong bonds of intimacy and a powerful desire to help others. People at the other end are drawn to external signifiers, such as fame, financial success and attractiveness. They seek praise and rewards from others.
Research across 70 countries suggests that intrinsic values are strongly associated with an understanding of others, tolerance, appreciation, cooperation and empathy. Those with strong extrinsic values tend to have lower empathy, a stronger attraction towards power, hierarchy and inequality, greater prejudice towards outsiders, and less concern for global justice and the natural world. These clusters exist in opposition to each other: as one set of values strengthens, the other weakens.
They tend to report higher levels of stress, anxiety, anger, envy, dissatisfaction and depression than those at the intrinsic end. Societies in which extrinsic goals are widely adopted are more unequal and uncooperative than those with deep intrinsic values. In one experiment, people with strong extrinsic values who were given a resource to share soon exhausted it (unlike a group with strong intrinsic values), as they all sought to take more than their due."

Dawkins is claonta chun extrinsic

[T Fearon]

Another field day for DUP/Free Presbyterian Church protests, what a year it has been for them, Reduced Shakespeare Company, Pride, George Galloway now Dawkins.

[Hardy]

I think Dawkins is making a big mistake in trying to straddle the reason and morality arenas. He does a service to reason, rationality and science in his relentless exposure of mumbo-jumbo, wacky woo and quackery. But he weakens his position of influence as an intellectual on the side of reason and against supernaturalism when he spouts his personal moral position in public.

Those moral views have nothing to do with scientific reasoning, with the debate over whether God exists or with the exposure of homeopathy as a conspiracy against the gullible. But, of course, his opponents and the moronic press will happily use his views to allege a link that doesn't exist between rationality and amorality/immorality.

It's the supernaturalists and mumbo-jumbo purveyors who claim both to know how the world works AND the right to dictate moral choices for all of us. Rationalists and scientists in general confine themselves to working on the "how the world works" bit and don't suggest they have a more informed input to the morality debate than anybody else.

[AZOffaly]

Hardy, that's a poor post in fairness.

It's the supernaturalists and mumbo jumbo purveyors (sic) who proclaim both to know how the world works AND to dictate moral choices for all of us.

That implies ALL of the people you've tagged in such a way do that.

But then you neatly say

Rationalists and scientists "in general" confine themselves to working on the "how the world works" bit and don't suggest they have a more informed input to the morality debate than anybody else. So even though this guy, a flagship for 'rationalists' did exactly that, in general they don't.

So all the 'God botherers' are trying to force themselves and their morals on you, but rationalists (presumably including all those who write books on the subjects) are not. Apart from the odd one or two of course.

[deiseach]

I think Dawkins is making a big mistake in trying to straddle the reason and morality arenas. He does a service to reason, rationality and science in his relentless exposure of mumbo-jumbo, wacky woo and quackery. But he weakens his position of influence as an intellectual on the side of reason and against supernaturalism when he spouts his personal moral position in public.

Those moral views have nothing to do with scientific reasoning, with the debate over whether God exists or with the exposure of homeopathy as a conspiracy against the gullible. But, of course, his opponents and the moronic press will happily use his views to allege a link that doesn't exist between rationality and amorality/immorality.

It's the supernaturalists and mumbo-jumbo purveyors who proclaim both to know how the world works AND to dictate moral choices for all of us. Rationalists and scientists in general confine themselves to working on the "how the world works" bit and don't suggest they have a more informed input to the morality debate than anybody else.

Excellent post. My understanding of evolution has improved no end thanks to Richard Dawkins, and he does a great job in showing what a wondrous thing it is. It's a pity that the great work he does there is obscured by his determination to have a grand theory of everything that is informed by science rather than philosophy or ethics.

[AZOffaly]

I say poor post, deiseach says excellent post Just goes to show you can't agree on everything!

[deiseach]

I say poor post, deiseach says excellent post Just goes to show you can't agree on everything!

We also had that spat over the Dublin Bus driver and the cyclist!