• Archives

  • Categories

  • Named one of the top Atheist / Agnostic Blogs by Unreasonable Faith

  • Recent Comments

    nancyabramsblogger's avatarnancyabramsblogger on World Blasphemy Day
    peterohara's avatarpeterohara on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Shane's avatarShane on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Laura's avatarLaura on Constitutional Convention Dead…
    peterohara's avatarpeterohara on HAI’s EGM on 26 June 201…
  • Locations of visitors to this page

  • Meta

  • Wikipedia Affiliate Button

What makes a person a person?

Posted on December 22nd, 2008 by Jason

This might seem like a strange question but I think it may be at the heart of some of the most contentious issues society faces currently and the near future.

It seems to me that many religious people would answer that the possession of a soul makes a person a person. For Christians the soul enters the body at the moment of conception and leaves the body at physical death, therefore all humans (including embryos) are people. This also means only humans can be people. There are (at least) two problems with this definition. Firstly, what is a soul? Secondly where do they enter from and where do they go after death.

The answer many Humanists/Atheists/Naturalists and the nominally religious would give is that personhood is linked to consciousness. This answer is implicit for many people. They don’t articulate it but from their attitudes to certain ethical issues it can be inferred. There are problems with this definition too. How to we define consciousness? How do we assess it’s presence? Perhaps most contentiously, how do we deal with pre-conscious entities?

So we have two definitions of personhood* but why does any of this matter? Lets look at two current and one possible future issue.

  • Abortion – If we accept the first definition of personhood abortion is murder. There really isn’t any wiggle room. If we accept the second definition then abortion is the destruction of a non-person and therefore not comparable to murder. It isn’t that simple though, barring a medical problem an embryo will develop into a person so it seems wrong to not accord it some special status.
  • Right to die – If we accept the first definition then even if someone is in a persistent vegetative state a doctor who helped them to die (at the request of family) would be guilty of murder.^ If we accept the second definition then once consciousness is absent the person is also absent.
  • Non-human persons – This last issue is (to say the least) not a pressing concern, I may be contemned for even including it. If at some future date we were to come into contact with non-human entities (I’m thinking mainly of AI but it could also apply to life on other worlds) with the mental traits we normally think of as human the second definition would allow (require?) us to treat them as persons. The first definition would cause the usual problems for the religious.

I think both definitions have problems but the problems with the first are far greater. Without any evidence to show the existence of a soul it is based on pure conjecture. The main problem with second is that it fails to account for how we deal with what might be called proto-persons.

My thoughts on this subject are unfinished so I’d be interested to here your opinions.

*There are other definitions we might propose. A person could be defined in biological terms, in terms of their genetic make up. A person could be defined as simply whomever society/the State/the law says a person is. Both of these offer interesting discussion topics but I have deliberately ignored them here.

^The position of someone in great pain and facing inevitable death is different, the Christian position here would be that suicide is not permitted as only their god has the right to take life. This position is inconsistent to the point of being laughable, but that’s another topic.

Filed under: debate, ethics, humanism | Tagged: , , , , | 7 Comments »

Comparisons

Posted on December 20th, 2008 by Jason

In today’s Comment is Free AC Grayling makes the point I was trying to make in this post. As you might expect he does a much better job than I did.

Let us look at some comparisons. In Afghanistan the Taliban stop girls going to school, beat up women who show a millimeter of skin, ban music, kill gays, and in general force their choice of life and belief on everyone, thus illustrating the less charming aspects of enforced observance of religious orthodoxy under which most of humanity has suffered for most of history. By comparison, secular liberals of Europe and North America say that they think religion is a load of nonsense and that religious folk should keep their fantasies to themselves. Some comparison, eh? Some jihad! Its effectiveness, though, is a sign of insecurity among the faithful. Mark Twain defined faith as “believing what you know ain’t so”, and the level of insecurity among the faithful when criticised suggests that almost all of them really agree.

Please go and read the rest of the article here.

Filed under: atheism, debate | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

What if the Drugs do Work?

Posted on December 11th, 2008 by Jason

A bit off topic for this blog but what the heck.

Apparently the use of drugs like Ritalin and Adderall to boost academic and work performance is on the rise with up to 7% of University students in the USA using these drugs. A recent paper in Nature suggests that rather than trying to stop this rise we should legalise the use of performance enhancing drugs, or as they put it “Mentally competent adults should be able to engage in cognitive enhancement using drugs.”. While Ritalin and Adderall are the most common drugs now newer drugs like modafinil (brand name Provigil) also offer new benefits like reducing the need for sleep.

My own initial reaction is to agree. If there are no major side effects, or if those side effects are known and someone chooses to accept them, then people should have the right to use anything means to improve themselves. One day soon this may apply not just to drugs but to cybernetic enhancements.

In general I’m in favour of the maximum amount of freedom people can take and this seems a clear case to me but as always I’m open to being corrected. What do you think?

via Wired

Filed under: debate | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

Islamic Censorship and the Growing Threat to Western Values

Posted on December 10th, 2008 by Jason

The below is taken from a Wall Street Journal article on the upcoming Durban II conference.

The draft declaration… goes after the West’s freedom of speech and antiterror laws under the guise of protecting religion (read: Islam) from “defamation.” The entire West will be in the dock for allegedly persecuting Muslims. “The most serious manifestations of defamation of religions are the increase in Islamophobia and the worsening of the situation of Muslim minorities around the world,” the draft reads. “Islamophobia” is a term used to brand any criticism of Islam as a hate crime.

The Islamic terrorists who have killed hundreds of thousands of their co-religionists get a free pass. Instead, the draft calls for a media code of conduct and “internationally binding normative standards . . . that can provide adequate guarantees against defamation of religions.” If this sounds like censorship, that’s because it is.
…

If the Durban II drafters have their way, any challenge of Islamic teachings, including teachings used to justify violence, would be taboo. Reprinting the Danish Muhammad cartoons, exploited by Muslim agitators in 2006 to incite riots around the world, would be a criminal offense. Even gross human-rights violations in Islamic countries — such as stoning adulterers in Iran — could be immune from criticism.

It seems pretty clear that this is just another attempt at special pleading by the religious, in this case Islam. The Canadian government has already said it will not participate in this farce and it seems likely that the US will follow suit. It’s probably too much to hope that the EU will take a similar stand.

Free speech is a core western value and we cannot accept any erosion. My advice to Muslims (or anyone else) is simple, if you can’t deal with open debate, if your faith is so weak that it cannot stand up to any criticism, then you need to seriously examine the validity of that faith. The future has no place for ancient magical superstitions.

Edit: I take the point made by commenters below. What I should have said is I hope the future has no place for ancient magical superstitions, but people will have to embrace reality on their own and in their own time. It certainly isn’t something I could or would force on them.

via Butterflies and Wheels

Filed under: debate, religion | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

Reason’s Greetings to All!

Posted on December 8th, 2008 by dj357

Hello all,

I would just like to take this opportunity to share this greeting with you all:

Reason's Greetings

Have an worry-free Winterval, a yuley Yuletide, a salacious Solstice and most of all, enjoy the bloody snow when you can get it!!!

Filed under: atheism, debate, humanism, religion | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

Nothing Says Christmas Like an Internet Poll

Posted on December 4th, 2008 by Jason

It seems to be traditional in the USA that this time of year leads to lots of “War on Christmas” headlines in the media. The UK also suffers from this though it’s usually limited to readers of the Daily Torygraph. Here in Ireland I think we’ve largely managed to avoid this sort of silliness, and it seems to me most people enjoy Christmas free of any connection to Middle Eastern myths.

This months poll question is about how you feel about Christmas. Personally it seems to me Europeans have been marking the Winter Solstice (or warding off inner and outer darkness) long before Christianity and we shouldn’t accept the Christian attempt to claim this as their holiday. If there was an historical Jesus there is nothing to suggest he was born on the 25th of December.

Filed under: debate | Tagged: , , , | 11 Comments »

A New Atheist Group?

Posted on October 31st, 2008 by Jason

I know some of you have already been active in this discussion over at atheist.ie.

To give some background Dick Spicer from the HAI wrote an article on atheist.ie suggesting a new more assertive atheist group should be set up.

While there has been much to and fro on the topic the general feeling seems to be supportive of such a move.

The suggestion I made for a next step is below, what do people here think? What would people think of the MWH offering to host such a convention?

Do people think we need a new national organisation? Should we concentrate on building the membership of the HAI instead?

If we do want a new group I’d suggest we call a convention. What I mean is that we form a temporary organising committee and then select a date and location and advertise as widely as possible with the aim of starting a mass movement with local branches throughout the country. The convention would have to run over a couple of days and work on a constitution, name, aims & objectives. This might need to be done by a series of committees and then voted on by those present. Existing groups like the HAI and ISS should be invited to participate.

As I see it the rationalist position will only be treated seriously when we have numbers, another 200 member group won’t change anything. People have criticised the HAI but please remember that it is a entirely voluntary organisation. If we can garner enough support we can have full time paid staff, that means people who are available to write press releases/blogs and appear on TV or radio. There is only so much free time people can give to any organisation.

Filed under: atheism, debate, humanism, skepticism | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Going National

Posted on October 22nd, 2008 by doctororgasm

Ok, so I shamelessly stole this idea from here, but its a good one. Might it be a good idea to take regular lineage ads in the Limerick Post and Leader (box ads cost a few bob but I wouldnt mind chipping in) reading along the lines of whats on the side of the bus there and the address of this website?

You see billboards and hoardings with biblical scripture all over the place, they have been there for years. I think it would be good to do something to try and balance it out a little.

Opinions?

Filed under: atheism, debate | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

The Self Thought Police

Posted on October 20th, 2008 by doctororgasm

I often think of a quote I heard in a movie I saw when I was a teenager. I cant remember the name of the movie, or what it was about, but I do remember one person warning another to be careful how close they stood to the edge while staring into the abyss, its very easy to fall in. On the surface it doesn’t sound like much, but for years I have been reading a little more into it that maybe I should ever have, and I have applied the concept to many aspects of my life as a sort of beacon from which to gauge my objectivity in approaching matters which have affected me and the people around me.

As flippant as it may sound, I have always seen opinions as somewhat like Arses. Everyone has one, a lot of them stink and you can just about manage your own. But on further consideration it becomes clear that, although you might do your best to avoid the hairy ones that don’t interest you, like it or not you will probably have to share a loo with someone some day and a little understanding in both directions goes a long way. You see, I have noticed that most people, ultimately, have the same opinion about everything. When you boil it down to its base everyone is of the opinion that they are right, and the semantics of it are simply a different means to the same end. That end of justifying their own position to themselves and to those around them, and swaying the opinions of others in order to create an environment where the needs of said justifications are best served. I am pretty sure about my opinions, I’ve thought about them carefully and taken what evidence I can find to help fit the pieces together in order to produce a lucid world view with which I hope to impart a little objectivity into my children in the hope that I can arm them with the power to deduce their own world view and not be influenced to heavily by others, including me, which is the crux of the point here.

In trying to make society accept the ways and opinions of non believers, how close to the abyss of repression are we willing to edge before we inevitably plunge down the dark path of actively suppressing opinions that don’t fall into the category of acceptable to Free Thought? What is acceptable? I think the most fundamental ability that needs to be considered in any free society is the ability to objectively analyse ones goals and means of attaining ends. Is it acceptable to judge those who choose to think differently, or grant exceptions or simply choose to ignore faith rather than challenge it? How can we call ourselves tolerant when we are openly and obviously no such thing?

Filed under: atheism, debate, humanism | Tagged: , , | 8 Comments »

The Names We Call Ourselves

Posted on October 16th, 2008 by Jason

When someone asks you what you are, in the context of religious views, how do you answer?

The options should appear in a random order to help eliminate any bias.

I know short answers rarely capture what people really believe so please feel free to expand on your answer in the comments.

Filed under: atheism, debate, humanism, skepticism | Tagged: , , , | 8 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »