tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post7023607463531092546..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Religion As Child AbuseAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-69624660805077233662007-08-14T05:03:00.000-06:002007-08-14T05:03:00.000-06:00ORPHAN BOYAbout 3 years ago I dropped into a black...ORPHAN BOY<BR/>About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole – four months of absolute terror. I wanted to end my life, but somehow [Holy Spirit], I reached out to a friend who took me to hospital. I had three visits [hospital] in four months – I actually thought I was in hell. I imagine I was going through some sort of metamorphosis [mental, physical & spiritual]. I had been seeing a therapist [1994] on a regular basis, up until this point in time. I actually thought I would be locked away – but the hospital staff was very supportive [I had no control over my process]. I was released from hospital 16th September 2004, but my fear, pain & shame had only subsided a little. I remember this particular morning waking up [home] & my process would start up again [fear, pain, & shame]. No one could help me, not even my therapist [I was terrified]. I asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on me & forgive me my sins. Slowly, all my fear has dissipated & I believe Jesus delivered me from my “psychological prison.” I am a practicing Catholic & the Holy Spirit is my friend & strength; every day since then has been a joy & blessing. I deserve to go to hell for the life I have led, but Jesus through His sacrifice on the cross, delivered me from my inequities. John 3: 8, John 15: 26, are verses I can relate to, organically. He’s a real person who is with me all the time. I have so much joy & peace in my life, today, after a childhood spent in orphanages . God LOVES me so much. Fear, pain, & shame, are no longer my constant companions. I just wanted to share my experience with you [Luke 8: 16 – 17].<BR/>PEACE BE WITH YOU<BR/>MICKYAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07940745178193985942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-88761619564396350192007-07-02T09:09:00.000-06:002007-07-02T09:09:00.000-06:00I agree with your main point but disagree with thi...I agree with your main point but disagree with this one:<BR/><BR/>"Religious demagogues use the term ‘militant atheist’ because they want to give the (false but useful) impression that atheists are disposed to act violently and, if they are not controlled, will come after ‘good Christians’ with guns and other forms of violence to force them to give up their religion."<BR/><BR/>I use the term "fundamatheist," but do so in a specific way:<BR/><BR/>http://someonesaygrace.blogspot.com/2007/06/ignominiously-defining-fundamentalism.html<BR/><BR/>My reasoning is designed simply to expose a particularly dangerous way of thinking.Sinbadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116688014786297876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-23863896606620762302007-06-25T18:48:00.000-06:002007-06-25T18:48:00.000-06:00I suspect that I will take at least two more posts...<I>I suspect that I will take at least two more posts to address these questions.</I><BR/><BR/>Will you address the objections raised to your position <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/02/theism-as-mental-illness-or-child-abuse.html" REL="nofollow">one of the last times you brought it up</A>? For example, you continue to use the same definition of "abuse" which I and others objected to then and I still don't think you adequately support your usage here. I also challenged your use of thalidomide as an analogy and I don't think you sufficiently addressed that, either.Austin Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15277940533571121800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-30410276986075033462007-06-25T15:51:00.000-06:002007-06-25T15:51:00.000-06:00Negligence, for example, is not a problem of 'inte...<I>Negligence, for example, is not a problem of 'intention' The negligent person does not 'intend' (or seek to) do harm. She simply does not care about the harm that might result from her actions. In other words, it is the lack of intent to avoid harm that defines negligence - including epistemic negligence.</I><BR/><BR/>I still fail to see why this is distinct compared to desires. This is easiest to see redoing this paragraph and substituting desire for intention.<BR/><BR/>'Negligence, for example, is not a problem of 'desire' The negligent person does not 'desire' (or seek to) do harm. She simply does not care about the harm that might result from her actions. In other words, it is the lack of desire to avoid harm that defines negligence - including epistemic negligence.'<BR/><BR/>So here the negligent person lacks a desire to avoid harm, in your version they lack an intention to avoid harm. What is the difference?Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-2522875193583574982007-06-24T11:46:00.000-06:002007-06-24T11:46:00.000-06:00JonStay tuned.I am devoting a series of posts to t...<B>Jon</B><BR/><BR/>Stay tuned.<BR/><BR/>I am devoting a series of posts to this, and yours is certainly an area that we need to look at.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1480201600481332452007-06-24T11:15:00.000-06:002007-06-24T11:15:00.000-06:00At what point does the "well you should have known...At what point does the "well you should have known better for yourself" factor kick in? It seems to me that people who teach their children that there is a loving God and that they should go to church--while mistaken--have genuinely good intent, and (perhaps more importantly) aren't doing any real harm. But what about the parents who teach their children that, say, they should never go to the doctor, as Jesus will heal them if they are pure of heart? Or what about the parents who teach their children that sex is something dirty and that they should be ashamed of their bodies? It seems to me that even if the parents legitimately believe these propositions to be true (and these are just examples; you get my point) there is <B>so much</B> evidence to the contrary that we can say <I>you should have known better</I>.<BR/><BR/>It seems that there is a line there somewhere, and that a blanket good intention combined with honest belief is not enough to avoid crossing it all the time.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09594949524027204661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28159798077722109682007-06-24T08:59:00.000-06:002007-06-24T08:59:00.000-06:00vjackActually, my concern is with neither law nor ...<B>vjack</B><BR/><BR/>Actually, my concern is with neither law nor psychology, but with morality.<BR/><BR/>The moral sense of 'abuse' is something quite close to 'wrongful use' of another person. In desire utilitarian terms, this will turn out to be a use to which a person with good desires would not put a person.<BR/><BR/>'Abuse' in the moral sense includes neglect where one has has an obligation to care for another. In this way, a hospital or nursing home that chronically neglects its patients, or a school that chronically neglects the children in its case, can be morally charged with abuse.<BR/><BR/>Now, I am not trying to make 'intent' a part of the definition of abuse. In fact, I never used the term. This was intentional. There were a couple of times when my brain wanted to slip the word 'intention' into the argument, but I had to keep reminding myself that it would not fit.<BR/><BR/>Negligence, for example, is not a problem of 'intention' The negligent person does not 'intend' (or seek to) do harm. She simply does not care about the harm that might result from her actions. In other words, it is the <I>lack of intent</I> to avoid harm that defines negligence - including epistemic negligence.<BR/><BR/>However, I do argue that all moral claims do look primarily at what intentional actions tell us about a person's desires. Taking thalidomide in the 1950s does not justify moral condemnation because we cannot infer from this intentional act that the agent has a defect in desire. Neither does teaching religion to a child tell us this, at least in the current setting.<BR/><BR/>However, morality does require an intentional action.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43336372024789819762007-06-24T07:50:00.000-06:002007-06-24T07:50:00.000-06:00Careful about how you are defining abuse. If you a...Careful about how you are defining abuse. If you are using a blanket definition, you might want to make this explicit. It sounds like you are trying to make intent part of your definition of abuse. The inclusion of intent here is controversial among experts. However, your phrase "a lack of concern for the well-being of those abused" sounds like you might be confusing abuse and neglect. Part of the problem is that legal definitions do not necessarily match up with psychological definitions.vjackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05868095335395368227noreply@blogger.com