OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Reality and Fantasy

Entry 267, on 2005-12-20 at 15:45:54 (Rating 5, Religion)

Today a couple were convicted and discharged as a result of an incident in 2003 where they failed to provide medical care for their sick baby boy. He died because of the lack of medical help because he had an undiagnosed kidney condition. Why did they not seek help? Because they are Christians and believed God would heal him instead.

I certainly don't think they should be found guilty of murder, or anything of that sort, and they certainly suffered as a result of their neglect. But I do think they need some help to cope with possible similar situations in future. And there needs to be a signal that religious belief is not an excuse for acting in a unreasonable way.

I think they need psychiatric help in coming to terms with the fact that their beliefs are not real. We currently let religious people away with away too much. If I had failed to help my children because I believed some invisible guy who lives in the clouds and talks to be when no one else can hear was going to help them instead, I would definitely require psychiatric help. So what is the difference? As I often say: religion is OK, as long as you don't take it too seriously. Clearly, these people took it away too seriously. They need help to come to terms with reality.

What I am saying is not very politically correct, and I'm sure a lot of people would disagree. After all, shouldn't we give people freedom to believe what they want? Yes we should, except when it affects others, even members of their own family. I don't think people do have the right to believe and act on any arbitrary belief system when others are involved, especially innocent children who have never had the option of deciding if they want to follow the belief system of their parents.

So in this case the defendants should have been discharged, but they should have been required to attend counselling sessions to help them make appropriate decision in future, just like any other delusional people involved in a very sad and regrettable incident like this.

Comment 9 (781) by WF99 on 2007-08-16 at 09:23:37: (view earlier comments)

It could be interpreted that way, I guess. I would just classify modern medicine (and the science from which it resulted) as supernatural intervention from God. God doesn't have to send down a mystical shower of glowing rain to supernaturally do something. At any rate, we're having a debate over something with agree on now. :-p

Comment 10 (782) by OJB on 2007-08-16 at 09:53:47:

Well that's a difficult opinion to debate against. No matter what I say you could respond by saying it was god working through whatever mechanism I mentioned. Of course, I could just as easily say it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn who was responsible with exactly the same amount of supporting evidence (none). This is a modern interpretation of religion which I find perhaps even more annoying than the traditional one!

Comment 11 (785) by WF99 on 2007-08-16 at 11:54:05:

What exactly are we debating on? Whether or not the couple did the right thing? We both have common ground there. I don't see why you're trying to argue with me on this.

Comment 12 (788) by OJB on 2007-08-16 at 12:14:55:

No, I think we both agree they did the wrong thing. Of course, there might be those who say that the parents kept their faith and the children have gone to a happier place. But I'm not really arguing with you on that.

Can you see how the argument that medicine and other benefits of science being hidden gifts from god is a weak argument? Science has advanced mainly through abandoning faith and following the evidence. It was mainly during the enlightenment where religion was rejected that science really advanced. Claiming that we can thank god for the outcomes of that is a bit hypocritical.

Also we can substitute the Christian God in that argument with anything: Hindu gods, Buddhist meditation, aliens from space, fairies at the bottom of my garden, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves). Its a non-argument really.

Comment 13 (790) by WF99 on 2007-08-17 at 08:53:59:

Everything is from God, according to Christianity. That includes science. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. When I claimed that science came from God, I wasn't arguing that to you (it wouldn't apply to you at all); I was arguing that to the couple.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.