Can Catholic Hospitals Really Interfere With Colorado's 'Medical Aid In Dying' Law ? So Far, Yes.

 Above left above: Dr. Barbara Morris dismissed from her job by Centura Health for planning to assist cancer patient Neil Mahoney (center) to end his life under Colorado's Medical aid in Dying Act.  Brittany Maynard  (right)  had to travel to Oregon in November 2014 to use the state's medical aid in dying law to gain relief from terminal brain cancer. 

The issue of medical assistance for terminally ill patients has again come to the fore, this time here in Colorado. In a Denver Post story yesterday (p. 6A) we learned Dr. Barbara Morris had been terminated for offering assistance (under Colorado's Medical Aid in Dying Law) to a stage IV cancer patient,  Cornelius Mahoney.   The firing was done compliments of Centura Health Corp., which Roman Catholic owners now fully or partially control 5 of 10 major hospitals in the state.  

The recent incident brought to mind earlier interference into personal moral choice with brain cancer patient Brittany Maynard 5 years ago.

Few of us can forget Brittany Maynard's decision  to pull up stakes and travel to Oregon  to avail herself of that state's medical assistance in dying law. She chose this rather than endure the terminal stages of brain cancer. Brittany specifically moved to Oregon to become a resident to be able to make the  decision to end her suffering and carry it out without legal sanctions.    As I wrote in a blog post at the time, after the Vatican's castigation of her decision as "absurd and reprehensible":

"Do the judgmentalists really understand what happens to people in the terminal phases of brain cancer? Do they appreciate that the victims become essentially vegetables incapable of consciousness or the most rudimentary thought - with no knowledge of their surroundings and all the time in unbearable pain as the tumor generates enormous pressures inside their craniums. Are they aware of how all control of bodily functions is lost, and the person becomes a writhing mass of flesh that must be cleaned up almost on the hour else is left lying in their own bodily waste? Are they aware the person's mouth must be wiped constantly to prevent the drool from pooling on the mattress?"

Among the codswallop trotted out at the time was recycled RC doctrinal  bunkum from Melissa Harris- Perry  that "there is redemptive value in undeserved suffering".  Hence,  Brittany ought to have been willing to go through the possibly months (or years) long suffering of terminal brain cancer including loss of all control of her bladder, brain and bowels. to expiate her "sins." 

Evidently, Perry and the Vatican's fossils (in the Curia)  who condemned her decision as "absurd and reprehensible" would have preferred she'd been reduced to a drooling vegetable, with nonstop incontinence issues, and not even cognizant of those around her.  They'd not even grant her the dignity in death we allot to a sick pet dog suffering from terminal bone cancer.  But this is how screwed up their morality is.   It is why it has been encapsulated as "premoral" by ethicist Cheryl Mendelson in her book, 'The Good Life'.  Therein she notes that irrationality is a prime attribute of premoral thinking and the premoral mind - which typically denies any role for individual conscience. 

So what is the alternative, rational approach to morality?  It is “moral provisionalism” or provisional ethics, as described by Michael Shermer ('The Science of Good and Evil'). According to Shermer:

"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"

 Contrary to the Vatican's daft claim of "absurdity" in Brittany's choice,  the moral provisionalist only recognizes such in allowing a sentient being to descend into a totally vegetative state lacking any life quality - with excruciating pain to go with it. Hence, Brittany's choice to end her life is a greater good over merely existing in a debased vegetative condition based on the specious presumption of "sanctity of life" demanded indiscriminately for any and all conditions.  

Nor is there any need for any "redemptive" BS because "sin" itself is a macguffin to keep humans in an inferior state as opposed to attaining mastery over their lives. In the case of Catholics, for example, confession ensures a constant "sin treadmill"  where the person is never really free of the absolution of the assorted priests he sees over a lifetime. He keeps on "sinning" and then keeps coming back to confess them for relief - or "salvation".  Thus, sin is also a ridiculous concept. As my atheist friend Rick put it: "How can a finite glob of ambulatory flesh "offend" a supposedly infinite Being? It's totally ludicrous."
 
I mention this because the "redemptive"  baloney  has also been invoked  by Centura Health in its decision  to fire a doctor (Barbara Morris),  who had  planned to attend to a stage IV cancer patient, Neil Mahoney.    According to the earlier cited Denver Post piece:

 "In a letter hand -delivered to Morris, who has worked in the health care system since 2013, Centura president Vance Maclaren said she had violated the firm's governing rules" i.e. "embodied in The Ethical and Religious Directives For Catholic Health Care Services."

The letter went on to say:

"Rather than encouraging patient Cornelius Mahoney to receive care consistent with that doctrine or transferring care to other providers, you have encouraged a morally unacceptable option"

And what, pray tell, was the option she ought to have selected?  We learn the answer from the document cited by the Post:

"Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering."

In other words, be accepting of a nice, tortuous and prolonged demise where you will be barfing and shitting your bedclothes and everything else most of the time - even as you're barely conscious of much more than the odor and filth. A dog in this country deserves better and gets it, but not terminal human cancer patients.  Those the church beckons to roil in their "redemptive" suffering for whatever...imaginary sins they committed in the past. 

But let's cut to the chase and drop the bafflegab and formalist bullshit and "doctrine" cited by Centura.  As the Denver Post piece observes (ibid.)  the prime culprit is the Trump administration's recent imposition of "religious freedom"  edicts embodied in its 'Denial Of Care Rule' for medical providers. Below an excerpt from the piece:

What is this so-called "conscience rule" about?   Archdiocese of Denver spokesperson Mark Haas put it thusly (ibid.):

"Asking a Christian hospital to play any role in violating the dignity of human life is asking the Christian hospital to compromise its values and core mission. This is not the hospital forcing its beliefs on others but rather having outside views forced upon it."

Which is pure balderdash. First, the top sentence means the "Christian" hospital actually invests more "dignity" in a contorted, tortured, puking and nonstop- shitting person than for that person to die with dignity.  How is that for twisted logic?  Sophistry anyone?   As Florida Lawyer Robert Rivas pointed out, skewering this claptrap (ibid.):

"When you look closely at what they're saying, it turns out they really want to be empowered to force their religion on others."

  As for the last line of Haas' statement, that also is a terrific excuse for running roughshod over a state law which entitles any Coloradan suffering from the final stages of a disease to get final respite at any hospital.    In reality, the only "outside force" at work here, providing leverage (empowerment) for this sanctimonious refusal, is the nation's pussy grabber- in -chief, Dotard Trump.  This asswipe excuse for a president is their moral dictator-   like he is now for the evangelicals, e.g.



As Americans United CEO Rachel Laser put it, after this farce of a conscience rule was ordained by the nation's number one sexual predator,  liar, grifter and con man:


"This is the Trump administration's most dangerous attempt yet to weaponize religious freedom, and we won't stand for it."

And it's now rearing its ugly, deformed head in challenging the state's medical aid -in- dying act passed by a large majority of Colorado voters. So we are clear on this politically implemented rule, no matter how its gussied up in doctrine or dogma: 

"It invites any health care worker - including doctors, nurses, paramedics, administrators and even clerical staff- to deny medical treatment and services to patients because of personal religious or moral belies."

This is exactly what's happened here in Colorado, never mind the "redemptive suffering" malarkey.   Thousands of  terminal or near terminal cancer patients are hoping this religious rebellion based on bogus first amendment sophistry can be nipped in the bud.  Else, patients will find other ways - not medically or legally sanctioned - to end their misery.   As Dr. Morris explained to the Post:

"These are complex, ill patients. We have a pretty big thing n medicine about not abandoning patients, so that's a pretty big issue."

In her lawsuit filed with Mr. Mahoney, she argues that "Centura's policy prohibting doctors from prescribing aid in dying drugs is broader than state law allows."

With which I concur.  And that's why I do hope the state AG joins the suit, especially as an ancillary state law mandates that "health care facilities may not limit or otherwise exercise control  over a physcian's medical judgement" . 

 We cannot allow religions which now - via mergers and other operations -control so many hospitals, to have the final say on a citizen's well being. And that well being includes his or her choice to shuffle this mortal coil without undergoing "redemptive" torture. 

See also:

If Trump Gets Another 4 Years: Look For Religious ...

"Green Book" Won Best Picture - Now The Whiners, Woke-ites & Wannabes Need To Get A Life

In the wake of the 'Best Picture' win by Green Book,  which film we'd seen several months ago, we celebrated heartily Sunday night.  However, we could scarcely believe all the snark, moaning and whining by the losers (and a bevy of critics, and would be critics) in the aftermath.  It almost seemed like every loser or  misfit with a grudge had crawled out of the woodwork to direct twitter fire or mount attack articles at the award.  Even Spike Lee who'd already received his first Oscar (for best adapted screenplay) "lost it" and compared the award to an NBA ref making a "bad call."  Whereupon Janice wondered what he'd been inhaling with that little vaping pipe at the Oscars.

In particular, it seems to be the film's racial tropes "have been around too long", and were more apropos to a period 50-60 years ago in the Jim Crow era? WTF!?  Hello! That is when the events on which the film is based took place! DOH!  So no, it doesn't need to be "woke" to that degree in today's hip parlance.  But still, wifey and I could not believe all the caterwauling that emerged after the big win, as if every little dingbat who believed he or she had skin in the Oscar's game had to toss in their two cents.  That included overpaid, art-obsessed critics like the LA Times'  Justin Chang who wrote the movie was an "insult to viewers' intelligence".

Janice could only shake her head in dismay and say: "Well, maybe to his rarefied intellect which resides somewhere between cloud nine and the elevated heights of art film genre!"  In other words, films that virtually no real, red-blooded human actually goes to see - say like the black and white silent flick, 'The Artist' - when the Academy really screwed the pooch on the Best Picture.

But 'Green Book'? No way! Delightfully entertaining and engrossing all the way, never mind it's a "buddy movie" and "road trip film" rolled into one. It is the dynamic that plays out between the two lead characters  (Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali as Don Shirley) and which we see transforms each one during their tour of the Deep South, when blacks had to go by the "Green Book" to determine where they could lay their heads at night, if traveling.

Some complainers, like the Shirley family  (Don's nephew Edwin Shirley III and brother Maurice)  insisted the film was "a symphony of lies"  because Don Shirley didn't actually go to musical venues to perform as the film portrays. So what? Ever heard of artistic license?  And while we're at it,  Spike Lee needs to take a chill pill after pitching a hissy fit (waving his arms in anger and trying to leave the Dolby theater)  when the last award was announced. Don't look now,  but Spike took his own liberties with the book 'BlacKkKlansman' by inserting a Jew (Adam Driver's character) into the script when no actual Jewish person was ever involved in the book's account.

As for the curmudgeon critics and other whiners and detractors  now hurling rotten tomatoes in the aftermath of the win, they need to get a grip, climb down from their sour grapes roosts,  rarefied arts perches and pay attention.  As Variety noted:

"When “Green Book” premiered at this year’s Toronto International Film Festival, the response to it was ecstatic. Audiences gave it rapturous ovations and voted it their favorite movie of the festival, and critics swooned. Many of us felt that “Green Book,” directed with grace and crack timing by Peter Farrelly (from a script he co-wrote with Nick Vallelonga and Brian Hayes Currie), was a crowd-pleaser in the best way — a feel-good movie, yes, but one built around a series of honest observations about what it showed you. The dialogue went ping without calling attention to itself (William Goldman, I think, would have approved), and you could use the movie in a master class for acting."

(Highlighted section from yours truly.)

Variety did go on to give some agreement with critics' top pet peeves in terms of the specific telling, i.e"

"That said, there’s no denying that the tropes that thread through “Green Book” have been around a long time. It’s a buddy movie. And a road movie. And a Hollywood liberal message movie, set in the days of Civil Rights and Jim Crow, in which a white guy and a black guy start off by taking the stuffing out of each other until they gradually get to be friends. “Green Book” has been compared to “Driving Miss Daisy” due to its racial theme (and hired-driver plot), but when I first saw it the movie it reminded me of, in a funny way, was “Rain Man,” another on-the-road two-hander that elevated formula to artistry."

To which I say, 'So what?'  Those of us who went to see it did so as ordinary, (hoi polloi) theater goers not artistes, or grads of Julliard  or Yale Drama School.   We weren't sitting  there with note pads in hands,   ticking off every imagined minor plot transgression or whether it fit our expectations of what a best picture caliber film ought to be - say like the farrago of pretentious rubbish from that  twerp Justin Chang, e.g.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-oscars-green-book-worst-best-picture-winner-20190224-story.html

So why the bitch fest now?  The same Variety piece offers, I think, one of the best insights, apart from all the side show hullaballoo that erupted which reminds me of the ancillary noise that accompanied Ron Howard's film 'A Beautiful Mind'.  (Trying to attack mathematician John Nash for not being "woke" enough. )  As if every little jealous meat head  who believes he has skin in the game - is compelled to comment or critique.  My biggest beef is with the imposition of so-called "wokeness" on a film portraying an era in which "woke" meant one had just awakened as his alarm went off. It had nada to do with some higher level of consciousness, or transcendent moral sensibility.

Variety again:

"Those who are woke claim, through their very wokeness, to have allegiance to one thing: the transcendent morality of their cause. "

Let's pause right there to call 'bullshit!'  In fact, there is no "transcendent" morality in any cause, or any code, including that of the RC Church.  Buddhist philosopher Alan Watts perhaps provided some of the best insights when in his book, 'The Wisdom Of Insecurity' - he quoted (p. 111) Emerson: "Your goodness must have an edge to it,  else there is none." 

In other words, there is never perfect, seamless or absolute goodness. Goodness has bounds and limits on account of humans' possessing a defective brain, which retains more ancient regions that compromise reflective thought. This means the person who strives to be absolutely good  or moral will be exposed sooner or later as a pretender and plaster saint, with feet of clay.   Anyone recall the holy roller televangelist, Jimmy Swaggart? 

Watts goes further than merely accepting the edge of goodness by noting (ibid.):

"For all the qualities which we admire or loathe in the world around us are reflections from within... "

In essence, we are beings already enfolded in a biological and neurological matrix replete with its own negative moral potentials. It is as impossible to escape from these limiting potentials as to escape one's own shadow. Hence, "goodness" exists not as some separate pinnacle or absolute standard of decency and moral perfection but a relative aspiration which we can only seek within the limits of our own understanding and conscience. 

 The achievable morality then - which is attainable within this limiting matrix -  can never be "transcendent" because no one can escape the material matrix. But given we are grounded in an imperfect world and universe this is as good as it gets, no pun intended. What was it philospher N. M. Wildiers wrote?  "An evolving world and a perfect world are two mutually exclusive propositions."

To which he might have added the corollary: "In an evolving world all aspirations to perfect or transcendent moral behavior are futile."

Thus, we can seek a functional moral individualism, imbued with relativism and provisionalism.  This moral individualism entails each person acting according to the dictates of his or her conscience - while grasping that conscience itself  may not be perfect- in terms of moral sensibility or moral knowledge.


Overlaid on this, however, we can invoke or appeal to provisional ethics such as described by Michael Shermer in his book, 'The Science of Good and Evil. Thus:

“In provisional ethics moral choices correspond to scientific facts in being provisionally right or wrong, where moral or immoral means confirmed to an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent. It remains provisional because, as in science, the evidence might change. “   

This is crucial to note, because once ethics -morality is tied to science, say evolutionary ethics, then the aspiration to moral absolutism (and transcendence) becomes redundant. So those who tie "wokeness" to the latter are operating on a false premise as well as wasting their time and energy.  

Let's go on to further insights on cultural wokeness in the context of the movie, Green Book:

"Yet woke culture, as practiced in America in 2018, also carries an undercurrent of competition. As in: How woke are you? Not as woke as me! I’ll see you one courageous, self-lacerating woke insight and raise you two! In this atmosphere of a never-ending contest of righteous one-upmanship fought out on Twitter, the middlebrow Hollywood liberal attitudes on display in “Green Book” can look like something from a vanished world of movies that pretend to liberate but really just pander. “Green Book” has been condemned, in certain circles, as if it were a racially stodgy and unenlightened embarrassment — the “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” of 2018 awards ."


This is absolutely true when one reads some of the vacuous, even ridiculous complaints and tweets based on this "wokeness" meme.  In effect, the Woke-ites have lost their marbles and are judging a film retelling 1950s-60s events with 1950s-60s characters using subjective current standards that are as irrelevant as they are unreal.  (Again, refer above to why moral transcendence is impossible and indeed, incoherent, because it implies humans can become literal angels).  In this nonsensical context , of course "woke" competition is possible given it embraces the delusions Alan Watts excoriates in another monograph, Does It Matter? Know what?  Both Janice and I revel in the "unenlightened embarrassment"  of  older flicks like 'Guess Who's Coming To Dinner', as well as 'Heat of the Night' and yes, 'Green Book'.  And if that means we grovel in "middlebrow Hollywood liberal attitude" so be it. At least we aren't duped into the delusionary twaddle  of moral "transcendence" or trying to be more "woke" than others!

Most spot on - and here's a redress for those snippy critics like Justin Chang:

"But really, what is the movie’s crime? It’s based on a true story, which it tells with considerable depth. It’s not trying to make a grand statement about race except for the idea that white people and black people, to the extent that their backgrounds and experiences separate them, should try to understand each other better. Sorry, but I must have missed the place where that became a reactionary message."

Again, in the mythological land of the latter day Woke-ites, this perception  of the reactionary message is totally possible. To the Woke-ites and their illusory standards it is natural to make the perfect the enemy of the good, or almost good. Never mind the latter more conforms to the Emerson ideal of goodness having an edge, the Woke-ites want no part of it. Oh no. Their goodness is transcendent and has no "edge". Hence, by extension, any characters in a movie about race relations (or the actors) must have no edge.  How dare that Viggo Mortensen utter the N-word in an impromptu interview despite having no malicious intent. He transgressed the Wokies'  first commandment! Thou shalt not ever, ever display human foibles....faux pas... or general fallibility!

How dare the producers, writers have this prejudiced white guy "saving" the black gay musician! Of course this is tommyrot and reveals how clueless these critics are. There is no "white savior" theme or message. Even the most rudimentary,  non-Mensan intellect ought to easily grasp (once aroused from the wokiness dopiness) that the  personal dynamic evident in their shared experiences is mutually transformative.  Both Don Shirley and  his white driver, Nick Vallelonga  are in the end changed - for the better- by virtue of their going through the Jim Crow south. Many critics who cried the loudest appeared to forget the scenes where Shirley is patiently teaching Nick how to write a proper love letter to his wife while on their road trip.  Or maybe they chose to ignore that because it didn't fit their prejudgment of the film. Who knows?

When all is said and done, and leaving out all the irrelevant controversies and side kerfuffles, Green Book is a great film - even if so many dunderheads don't appreciate it or like it. Possibly because they lost big in Vegas,  making reckless Oscar bets on Roma or Bohemian Rhapsody.  Well, cry me a river, do.  But now it's time to put on your big boy pants, suck it up and grow up already!

Look, if a Civil Rights icon like Rep. John Lewis - one of the Best Picture presenters - could advocate for 'Green Book' as he did, then it's past time for the whiners and Wokies to get a life and move on.

The Hard, Unadulterated Truth: Science Does Not Need Religion To Advance Or Improve

 

David DeSteno, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University has argued in a NY Times op-ed that Science "can learn from religion".   The question is: 'What?' For example he writes;

"I am no apologist for religion. As a psychologist, I believe that the scientific method provides the best tools with which to unlock the secrets of human nature. But after decades spent trying to understand how our minds work, I’ve begun to worry that the divide between religious and scientific communities might not only be stoking needless hostility; it might also be slowing the process of scientific discovery itself."

This, of course, is provably untrue given that religious precepts, principles, dogmas and claims offer no way to make valid scientific predictions.   None of them, for example, can help a solar physicist predict the next CME or X-9 class solar flare. As for the "endless hostility"  this has transpired because assorted religions - mainly Christian - insist on trying to condemn or ostracize scientific findings - whether Darwinian evolution, or the Big Bang.    More to the point, the consistent invocation of supernatural entities is an absolute non-starter for genuine science so these claims are not likely to be greeted with any amity by natural science.

DeSteno goes on:

"Religious traditions offer a rich store of ideas about what human beings are like and how they can satisfy their deepest moral and social needs. For thousands of years, people have turned to spiritual leaders and religious communities for guidance about how to conduct themselves, how to coexist with other people, how to live meaningful and fulfilled lives — and how to accomplish this in the face of the many obstacles to doing so."

Again, not really relevant or useful for most natural science.   The assertion - if true - that religions offer "a rich store of ideas about what humans are like" - may be of some use to psychology, but not to physics, astrophysics, organic chemistry or evolutionary biology. Again, none of those areas will benefit from any "guidance" that such religious traditions may offer.   As for guidance on "how to conduct themselves" there is already a vast store of such knowledge which is embedded in evolutionary ethics, most recently elaborated in Michael Shermer's  excellent book: 'The Science of Good and Evil" . As Shermer writes (p. 244):

“In provisional ethics moral choices correspond to scientific facts in being provisionally right or wrong, where moral or immoral means confirmed to an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent. It remains provisional because, as in science, the evidence might change. “

Shermer also emphasizes that provisional ethics rests firmly on the foundation of Darwinian evolution. Darwin, after all, “founded the study of evolutionary ethics  which belongs to a long tradition of ethical naturalism that dates back twenty five centuries to Aristotle. Because Darwin’s biological explanation of morality was grounded in natural inclinations, it has been called ‘Darwinian natural right’.”

Clearly then, there is no similarity between scientific ethics and supernaturally mandated bunkum, or the need to invoke religious traditions to figure out how humans can improve their behavior.. 

DeSteno carries on, oblivious to how his core arguments have already been rendered moot:

"Just as ancient doesn’t always mean wise, it doesn’t always mean foolish. The only way to determine which is the case is to put an idea — a hypothesis — to an empirical test. In my own work, I have repeatedly done so. I have found that religious ideas about human behavior and how to influence it, though never worthy of blind embrace, are sometimes vindicated by scientific examination."

The problem, however, is that religious ideas - which ultimately depend for their coherence on supernatural memes and agents- cannot offer empirical tests of their claims anyway. In any case, any and all potential hypotheses, say as might apply to human behavior, are already covered and explained under evolutionary ethics. The other problem is that the religious temperament and mind is too often grounded in premoralism.  This was best highlighted by Cheryl Mendelson in her book, 'The Good Life', which provides a key core perspective, (p. 157):

"The premoral mind confuses the disgusting with the wrong and retains an infantile fear of things sexual. Its rationality is overcome by emotion, fantasy, wish and projection.."

The implication here is enormous: it means that  religions are most likely to condemn or outlaw actions they perceive to be "disgusting" and conflate  with "evil" or "immoral".  We already are aware of the RC Church's pathological fear of all things sexual - leading it to condemn dozens of sexual acts such as premarital sex, masturbation and use of artificial contraception.   To fix ideas, one can cite St. Augustine, who wrote ('The Adulterous Relations', II, 12): 

"It is impermissible and shameful to practice intercourse with one's wife while preventing the conception of children. This is what Onan did, the son of Judah, and that is why God killed him".

In fact, this is a gross misinterpetation of the Onan passage but is also what is probably responsible for engendering the masturbation bogey. Since from then, "spilling seed" was equated to "onanism" and onanism to masturbation.  Also, no surprise that from Augustine's passage the Church still regards use of artificial contraception as "mutual masturbation" and a mortal sin - one incidence of which can send the sorry soul to Hell if it dies before confessing.   This was confirmed in the Loyola University Ethics course I took over 1966-67, given by Fr. Alvin Holloway, e.g.

What was Fr. Holloway's science? Well, Church "natural law" which is no real science at all, simply postulating that any act which doesn't conform with the Vatican's conception of "natural" is mortally sinful. Or to cite Pope Pius XI's  encyclical Casti Connubii  the "sin" of artificial contraception entails making primary a sexual aspect that in reality is only "secondary". According to that pontiff:

"Since therefore the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature."

Which, of course, is BS.  Indeed, as biologist Elizabeth A. Daugherty  points out ('The Lessons of Zoology'. in Contraception and Holiness, p. 110):

"Why do we call secondary the ends of the sexual act which have been accorded in fullness to us, and why do we call primary the end which we share with the lower animals?"


Good question! But that seems to be the sort of input that DeSteno advises us to adopt to have less divisive relations with religion. Oh, I almost forgot, it was Julian Pleasants in the same monograph who pointed out that the Church once believed it "natural" that some men be enslaved because they were “unable to manage their own affairs” (ibid.)  So why be surprised when the same Church seeks to ordain all her members abide by a sexuality more fitting of lower primates?  

This leads us to DeSteno's next bit of codswallop:

"Consider the challenge of getting people to act in virtuous ways. Every religion has its tools for doing this. Meditation, for example, is a Buddhist technique created to reduce suffering and enhance ethical behavior. Research from my own and others’ labs confirms that it does just that, even when meditation is taught and performed in a completely secular context, leading research participants to exhibit greater compassion in the face of suffering and to forgo vengeance in the face of insult.

Another religious tool is ritual, often characterized by the rigid following of repetitive actions or by engagement with others in synchronous movement or song. Here, too, an emerging body of research shows that ritualistic actions, even when stripped from a religious context, produce effects on the mind ranging from increased self-control to greater feelings of affiliation and empathy"

Interesting here is how he omits the number one bogey tool for trying to force people to behave in "virtuous rays": Hell! 


And, of course, the invocation of "Hell" necessarily has meant the supplemental invocation of supernatural agents like "Satan" and "demons" to wield the tortures - inflict them on those who have not embraced virtue in whatever guise.

E.g.



                                                                                                                   



So, in other words, De Steno has dodged the main tool - not anything empirical - that's been used and still is to drive respective flocks to obey silly commands or dogmas.

To DeSteno's credit he does admit, citing Steven Pinker for insight, i.e.:

"When I broached this body of research with the cognitive scientist and religious skeptic Steven Pinker, he emphasized that it was by no means a vindication of religion as a whole. He made a point to differentiate between what he called religious practices and cultural practices, with religious ones being those more likely to have doubtful supernatural rationales (like using prayer to contact a deity for favors) and cultural ones having more practical justifications (like using ritual to foster connection and self-control)."

Adding:

"While I can see Professor Pinker’s point — and I agree with him that religion as a whole must be judged by its full set of positive and negative effects — the dividing line between cultural and religious can be blurry. The Jewish practice of Shabbat, for instance, stems from a divine command for a day of rest and includes ritualistic actions and prayers. But it’s also a cultural practice in which people take time out from the daily grind to focus on family, friends and other things that matter more than work."

But why the need to go outside Christendom to the Jewish Shabbat? What? He can't find any compelling cultural practices among the Christian religions? Say as opposed to blocking abortion or Planned Parenthood clinics, calling artificial contraceptives "abortifacents" and filling teens with dread if they go to sleep without making a "full act of contrition" - say if they masturbated once.  So given all of this backstory it's kind of choice to next read:

"My purpose here isn’t to argue that religion is inherently good or bad. As with most social institutions, its value depends on the intentions of those using it. But even in cases where religion has been used to foment intergroup conflict, to justify invidious social hierarchies or to encourage the maintenance of false beliefs, studying how it manages to leverage the mechanisms of the mind to accomplish those nefarious goals can offer insights about ourselves — insights that could be used to understand and then combat such abuses in the future, whether perpetrated by religious or secular powers."

Well, he's correct there! Certainly in respect to how religions "leverage the mechanisms of the mind to accomplish nefarious ends".   But one doesn't need to be involved in any religion or to read religious fare to grasp that leverage. I can recommend Howard Bloom's book, 'The Lucifer Principle', which explores in depth the gestation of memes in all religions, and how these memes can induce all manner of  vile behavior from burning heretics and "witches" to beheading "infidels". 

Then there is the best explication ever of mind viruses as memes, i.e. in Jacques Monod's book, Chance and Necessity'  (Chapter 5, 'The Kingdom and the Darkness',  Collins Books, UK, 1970 )  Basically, Monod ties the spread of inherently primitive, anti-human and perverse ideas to a kind of mind-to -mind infection. He does this also by appeal to actual empirical (biological-chemical processes). Hence the  basis for the "mind virus",  though that specific term is introduced later in Richard Dawkins' book, 'The Selfish Gene' .  See e.g. a summary here:

[PDF]

the selfish gene - Home page

old.unipr.it/arpa/defi/econlaw/SELFISH%20GENE.pdf

DeStenos babbles on:

"Science and religion do not need each other to function, but that doesn’t imply that they can’t benefit from each other."

This may possibly be so, but not until religion jettisons all of its supernaturalism, all the assorted memes, agents and McGuffins.  Else, there is nothing really that genuine science can learn from religion.

DeStenos does end his essay with a faint note of promise by reference to what Millennials are into:

"A yearning for a science-religion synergy is growing in some circles. Ms. Tippett cites as an example the Formation Project, an initiative designed by a group of millennials who are looking to cultivate their inner lives and form a community by combining ideas from psychology and neuroscience with practices from ancient spiritual traditions. In doing this, she points out, these young people are not blindly accepting any doctrine. They are asking questions and choosing what works based on evidence. In short, they are doing exactly what I think the communities of scientists and clergy need to do in a more rigorous way and on a much larger scale."

To which I say, 'Bravo!' if the millennials aren't seduced by supernatural hokum and bunkum, or have their critical thinking undermined in any way.  The point is that irrespective of how they combine these "ideas from neuroscience" with "ancient spiritual traditions" they ensure the former are not subtly corrupted or diluted by the latter. And before they plow ahead, I strongly suggest they read Jacques Monod's monograph.  I would also heartily recommend these young folks get their hands on: Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief' wherein the authors (Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili) show clearly why the brain's belief claims can't be trusted.

 Most critical is how the brain’s OAA (orientation and activation region) translates an image into a religious reality which is described in detail.This is in connection with a person given an image of Christ and asked to focus on it. Within minutes, neurological measurements, i.e. from PET and SPECT scans, shows how domination of the image- attuned brain proceeds. This is via electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system and hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and ancillary investigations are important as they are based on genuine empirical science- not a bogus substitute

DeSteno ends:

"Will it work? That’s an empirical question. But if we choose not to investigate it, we’ll never know. And I suspect we’ll be the poorer for it."

Fair enough. But if we do choose to investigate this supposedly "empirical" question, we agree to do so by rigorously empirical means - not baloney or specious supernatural mumbo- jumbo!  In other words, not "empirical" merely because a pro-religious writer opts to throw that word around.

RC's McCarrick Scandal Will Provide Another Opening For Materialist Ethics To Trump Religious Absolutism

In the image above, we see the ardent religious absolutists at work - carrying out Holy Mother Church's "sacred" Inquisitional tortures -  on a putative "witch" (suspended  at far right, after being disembowelled), a heretic with a red hot iron applied to his pudenda, and a generic unbeliever about to have his tongue ripped out,  then his eyes.  The picture, from 'A History Of Torture Through The Ages',  shows what happens when people - believers-   are convinced they have absolute moral truth on their side.

This introduces the recent WSJ op-ed ('When The Cardinal Sins')  by William McGurn from yesterday (p. A15)  in which we are treated to 4 columns (truncated fortunately) of religious caterwauling on account of the pederasty of one Archbishop Theodore McCarrick being exposed.  As we know the pope demoted the filthy maggot, but now all the likes of McGurn can do is wring his mitts at how it will be another blight on the Church's moral credibility.  He writes, for example:

"Think of it as akin to the (Protestant) Reformation, except here it will not be Protestant Christianity but some materialist orthodoxy that will likely move in after the Church takes this latest hit."

I have news for McGurn: that materialist orthodoxy has already "moved in". It was well on its way long before McCarrick's crimes, flaring after the first priest sex abuse crimes made headlines. Once repeated transgressions were made known, as well as how John Paul II and Benedict XVI played roles in concealing the deeds of many priestly pedophiles - and enabling their easy movement from parish to parish- while diverting calls for accountability- it was all over but the dirges.  Anyone with more than air between the airs knew the RC Church had lost whatever remaining vestige of moral authority it possessed.

But you wouldn't know that from reading McGurn's twaddle, e.g.:

"In our day the battle is no longer between competing versions of Christianity.  It's not even  about God, though it's often characterized that way. The real fight has to do with who's right about the reality of the human person- those who posit him as a physical combination of matter and energy or those who believe him - as the Eighth Psalm put it, "a little lower than the angels"'

Himmm...how about a LOT lower than the angels, as in risen apes? E,.g.


See, any species that is capable of the violence unleashed in "ethnic cleansings", mass rape,  atomic bombings,  developing gas chambers for annihilating a whole race,  ripping infants from parents and caging them - is no angel, not even close to it. Hell, in the case of the latter behavior (as demonstrated by the Trumpite vermin) one could argue humans aren't even as decent as apes.   But this is the la-la land McGurn appears trapped in, so he can't fathom that fantasy train has already left the station, except for the odd cases of  "sin" preached about by "frustrated old men in robes".  (I suspect "robed fossils"  is more apropos.)

He also whines that the Church's teachings, like about sex and such - e.g.. masturbation, use of artificial contraception ("mutual masturbation" according to one ethics prof I once had)  are "incomprehensible to increasing numbers of people".

Well, why should they be comprehensible when sensible, intelligent people were told over and over again by the Church's prelates and popes that they had the moral answers and authority - but in the next breath were busy either raping children or hiding the rapists? Doesn't McGurn give the skeptics any credit for having brains at all? Evidently not!

At least scientific Materialism recognizes humans for what they are:  evolved apes with many ape characteristics, and behaviors. It doesn't glorify Man as some demigod or an angel in the works. At the same time this perspective enables us to dispense with the virus of moral absolutism.    Indeed, the archaic notion of "sin" can be seen in a new perspective.

Consider the Church's historic obsession with sins of the flesh that McGurn references, e.g. "Throughout history Christian teachings about the history and purposes of sex have often proved a hard sell.".    But if one steps back and examines Church history one can grasp why.  Thus, many of the Church sexual prohibitions date from Augustine's time.  Less known is that Augustine was originally a Manichean. The ancient Manicheans (founder Mani, b. 219 BCE) absolutely believed that the human was essentially a spark of deistic light locked within a body of flesh fashioned by 'Satan'. Of course, semen was the satanic fluid that kept the cycles of evil going.

Birth was the manifestation or culmination of the evil when the devilish flesh finally sprouted. Hence, enabling birth, was in effect tantamount to multiplying the total of diabolically imprisoned 'sparks' in the world. Since there was never any assurance these sparks could be liberated, it was paramount that the diabolical flesh be prevented from reproducing itself.

Interestingly, when Augustine converted to Christianity in 387 CE, the only Manichean tenet he ditched was the contraception. He retained all the other flesh/pleasure =demonic connotations and interjected them into his various teachings including his 'letters'. (For more on this, see the excellent monograph 'Eunuchs For the Kingdom of Heaven' by Ute Ranke-Heinemann, Doubleday, 1990). 

Augustine's Manichean teachings (after his conversion) held that any sexual pleasure whatsoever was "diabolical" in origin. However, it could be countenanced IF a baby was the end product. Otherwise, the offending parties were trafficking with demons. (He cites at one point, for "proof", the demon Asmodeus, who "slew seven men in 7 beds with seven women, but not when they were sitting at a table".)

 Augustine's harsh and sterile dogmas also probably spurred the Church Father Origen (of Adamantius) to cut off his own sexual organs - because he was unable to control them. Since each 'stimulus' enabled a particular demon to gain a foothold, it was better to get rid of them entirely.

Ramping up the ante much further are the essays in the book, 'In Defense of Sin', edited by John Portmann.  Thus, we find stirring contributions under the chapter headers: 'In Defense of Idolatry'( One), 'In Defense of Lying'(Six), 'In Defense of Adultery'(Five), and 'In Defense of Lust' (Twelve).

In regard to Augustine's up tight views on sexual sins, Portmann writes (p. 223):

"Missing from Augustine is the idea that lust completes us (however temporarily), fills us with a vivid sense of being alive, propels us along the way to self-fulfillment...Lust like the playfulness of children or the treasures of the Louvre, lights up a rainy day."

The author also makes a good case for enhancing creativity before listing (including with reasons) all those things we think qualify as "sex" but which really aren't, including: Phone sex(lack of touching so can't be sex), ogling porno photos or videos (voyeurism, but not sex, doesn't make the touching or intimacy cut), oh and flirting is not sex.

He also (rightly) rips into masturbation as sinful (p. 229) since it is based on a phantasm engineered by the early Church Fathers: to wit,  that each sperm was a "homunculus" or "little man" - hence each and every sperm had to be protected. Extended the same rights as the big man in whom it lived, else akin to mass murder on a miniature scale. Thus, spilling it was a no-no (often confused with Onanism ....which was actually a different category of "sin" since it was an offense against the Hebrew law of succession. In this, the nearest male relative of the deceased husband is obligated to fertilize the wife. If he refused, and spilled his seed, he was guilty of onanism. This is different from the early Catholic view that each seedling is a little man with life of his own. (This position didn't change until after better optical resolution in microscopes was achieved and individual sperm could be as similar to single celled flagellate creatures.)

Once the actual sperm could be observed in high powered microscopes, as well as photographed, the Church's antiquated position was dispelled, and there was no more reason to oppose masturbation other than on an irrational basis. (Thus, the Church had to come up with its absurd "natural law" doctrine, which holds no weight - given it was also invoked to defend slavery.)

A  common misconception, repeated as a subtext in McGurn's piece, is that Materialists have no ethical standards to offer. That we are fans of "survival of the fittest" thinking and "do as you please".  Nothing could be further from fact. The reason is that precisely because the Materialist invests in no 'hereafter' or supernatural realm, he values the material world in all its attributes and dimensions.

Not surprisingly, the Materialist is much more likely than the supernaturalist to place a premium on revering the Earth and demanding the rational disposition of its resources. As a Materialist, after all, I can examine the evidence and determine that our planet is possibly the only inhabited one, at least in our galaxy. I can also ascertain that this life is most likely the only one and that I must strive to enhance it in any way possible. I should emphatically not squander what I have now, while awaiting a mythical afterlife.

As a Materialist I refrain from looking to any hypothesized deity for deliverance, or lay blame for human ills on some mythical demonic entity. On the contrary, Man alone is responsible for his actions and is the ultimate master of his fate. As a Materialist I maintain that Man need not suffer extinction as a species if he has the courage and vision to assume control of his destiny through the use of reason.

It isn’t necessary to wave a bible or the ten commandments at a Materialist, nor quote the "golden rule". The true Materialist, by definition, respects his fellow men and reveres all life, since he recognizes (through his philosophy) that they share a planet that may be unique in the cosmos. Thus, the true Materialist treasures and conserves the Earth's finite store of resources, since he comprehends that Earth also has one life to live - and there is no more after the existing resources are consumed.

With these things in mind, the true Materialist does not give his offspring any and every thing that grabs attention. He certainly does not wish to encourage the sort of wanton greed and over-consumption that has brought our world to its present sorry state. The Materialist knows well enough that the planet can ill-afford more such uncaring people.

Embodied within the above examples are a practical ethics, which have been forged out of the Materialist's reason and his priorities. This has one overriding aim: to cherish the Earth and all life upon it. Consequently, the true Materialist disdains all forms of violence, since ultimately these are inimical to the community and to species' survival. Since violent acts undermine a community's cohesion and threaten its very existence, the true Materialist must regard them as irrational. The Materialist is compelled to co-operate with his fellows and promote a common good, not out of fear for the wrath of a deity, but to held insure a thriving, harmonious community with high survival value.

As William Provine noted in his article Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics [1], young people should be encouraged to think rationally and critically concerning ethics, not out of fear of some divine force's wrath, but to protect their own long-term self-interest.

If a person asked me for a specific ethical code that Materialists can follow, I could do no better than to cite : "moral provisionalism" or what I would call: "ethical incrementalism".  This ethical standard is superbly covered by author Michael Shermer in his monograph, The Science of Good and Evil. We are informed, for example (p. 168):

"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"

As an example, let us recall how back in 2010, the Catholic Church  excommunicated  an American nun  in Arizona  for saving a 27 year old mother’s life at the expense of her fetus’. The physician nun's moral choice was either to let the birth occur and see both mother and infant die, or prevent the birth (because of the mother’s blood pressure complications) and save the mother.  Meanwhile, absolutist ethics would have argued that an effort to save both ought to have been made, despite the fact that medically both would have died.

In yet another example of the triumph of Materialist provisional ethics over RC Church absolutism, Brittany Maynard chose to end her suffering from brain cancer 4 years ago.  The Vatican's pseudo-moralistic fossils wasted no time in yelping from their high horse, condemning her decision as "reprehensible" .  Evidently, the Vatican's relics would rather she had been reduced to a drooling vegetable, with no bowel or bladder control, and not even cognizant of those around her. But this is typical of the Vatican's scornful approach to morality, and also McGurn's endorsement of it.

To the Materialist moral provisionalist what is reprehensible is allowing a sentient being to descend into a totally vegetative state lacking any life quality - with excruciating pain to go with it. Hence, Brittany's choice to end her life was a greater good over merely existing in a debased vegetative condition,  based on the specious presumption of "sanctity of life" demanded indiscriminately for any and all conditions.  Hence, the greater good here is ending the suffering and degradation of life quality rather than allowing it to progress to the stage one can make no authentic choice.

So what is McGurn's Catholic rejoinder to the advance of Materialist ethics? He scribbles near the end - in the wake of the McCarrick travesty:

"The Church certainly has the sacramental tools for healing and forgiveness."

Hmmm....then why haven't they yet been successful in halting the predations of many current padres on their young charges?   And this followup classic:

"The classic rejoinder is that we are all sinners and the Catholic Church will survive the McCarrick scandal as it has survived so many scandals over its 2000 years."

Brave words for a Church, a religion, on the ropes.

Will the Catholic Church go on? I have no doubt at all. Will it gain more converts? Sure, mainly of the poor, the ignorant and dispossessed in the more backward nations of the planet, as well as immigrants. However, its days as the moral arbiter and voice for the advanced nations in Europe, North America and Australia are forever gone. Those nations are becoming ever more secular, and even in the U.S. now the "Nones"  (no religion professed) are increasing at a rate faster than new Catholics.  Meanwhile, in the most advanced secular nations the Vatican’s voice has been reduced to barely above a raspy whisper.

The Roman Catholic Church will persist but also become a literal shell and shadow of its former self, paving the way for Materialist ethics (or secular humanist ethics) to make major inroads for millions to adopt a saner alternative.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/05/moral-absolutism-is-trumped-by-moral.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/nun-articulates-sexual-ethics-for.html

----------------------------------------

[1] MBL Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 25, 1988