The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Science & Nature => Topic started by: side_show on November 26, 2005, 04:21:30 pm
-
I've long had a facinataion with Gunther von Hagens' Body Worlds Exhibit (http://www.bodyworlds.com), and from the initial information about the exhibit, I really wanted to see it, and now that his secondary exhibit is in Toronto, I could go see it. Recently though, Articles have been printed in local papers claiming that the human remains presented are of people who did not give their own consent, but are often those of prisoners, patients with no living relataives, or patients of mental health facilities. I have to admit that I'm deeply disturbed by the idea that these may be the bodies of those who did not give their personal consent, and am starting to think I'm not in favor of the exhibition. So I checked if there were any statements released by von Hagen, and his sight has this news release:
With regard to the accusation that Gunther von Hagens obtained corpses from dubious sources, there is no evidence of the unauthorized removal of bodies or of the body parts of deceased persons from the custody of those entitled as defined by §168 para.1, alternative 1 of the StGB. A criminal offence of this nature only arises if the actions are taken against the will of persons entitled to and exercising custody of the corpse. The law defines persons entitled in this respect prior to the funeral as normally being the next of kin. However, in such cases the next of kin are not always identical with those persons entitled to custody; relatives of the deceased are only in fact custodians of the corpse if they actively assert their custodial rights. If someone dies in a hospital or other institution, for example, of if relatives are not present, custody is – at least initially – governed by the principle of the “coincidental custody” of the relevant institution. In the present case, Gunther von Hagens was said to have obtained corpses from state institutions in Kyrgyzstan such as the Medical Academy in Bishkek, from a prison camp, from hospitals, prisons and psychiatric institutions as well as from police authorities and, with their consent, similar institutions exercising “coincidental custodian” rights in China. Even if these persons may have disposed of corpses in an illegal manner, this would not fulfil the definition of unauthorized removal specified by §168 para. 1, alternative 1 of the StGB, and there are therefore no grounds for pursuing criminal charges in Germany.
What do you think - doesn't it seem that they're arguing a technicality? Yeah, it's not against the law since the organizations who held claim to the bodies gave consent, but there's no indication that the actual people who have been disected and put on display had any say in what happened to their remains, and this really upsets me. Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's ethical, does it?
On top of all this, from von Hagen's own sight, there is a release noting that it has been suggested that his father, who works with him to process the bodies, and who is a former member of (German) SS, Gerhard Liebchen, was responsible for war crimes committed during the Second World War. The site notes that it has been decided that there will be no investigation by the Institute of National Memory in regard to these accusations, but again, what are the ethics behind being a former member of the SS, who now participates in the procurement and dissection of bodies for display purposes?
Further to that, in von Hagen's article on the anonymity of his subjects, he states that
it eliminates any legal problems that might result from the survivors' permanent rights of disposition.
So, he's intentionally concealing the indentity of the subjects because he wishes to prevent the surviving relatives for their rights? This is even more disturbing to me. If my mother, who is mentally ill, was to go missing, get insitutionalized and die in the institution, I would want to put her to rest. Even if I only found out a year later, I don't see why this wouldn't give me the right to make my own decision in this regard, and von Hagen's assertion seems very dubious to me. Certainly if I or one of my family memebers was to dontate their body to this process, I would desire to have some word in regard to the dignity of how the body was processed, handled and presented, and I consider von Hagen's failure to recognise this quite upsetting.
While I look at the images on the site and think that many are presented beautifully, and was fully prepaired to shell out some serious chedder to see the display, I now can't see them without thinking that that person I am looking at may have been a mental patient who had no peace in their life, and is now being used, on display, in a way that he or she may not have wanted. I don't know, I just don't think it's appropriate that these people are marginalized for their whole life, then without their own consent, can end up with thier corpses put on display.
-
It's really hard to say without any hard evidence.
You're right that the rebuttal sounds very shady (as it basically seems to sum to "we didn't do anything technically illegal"), but I'm not sure that means that anything shady actually went on. I'm not sure I'm willing to state ethicality or not unless I knew the circumstances more clearly. If he got consent, or if he took all reasonable effort to get consent (attempted contact with next of kin and so on), then I can't argue with it.
If you're not comfortable, don't go. That seems like the best thing to do, since I doubt you'll ever get a straight answer about whether or not the remains were acquired ethically.
-
Actually I saw the show last when I was in Chicago and it was rather excellent. As far as I had read up most of the bodies were donations or john doe situations.
I don't think a past affiliation with the SS should bar anyone from being able to work on a show like this. I mean I suppose if it was proven that he had a predilection to only pick a certain race or something.. or was robbing graves or actually killing people for it... sure.
Then again maybe it's just me since I ascribe to the theory that a body is a body as long as it didn't get that way through someone else's violent acts.
However I agree with V.. if you're uncomfy, then don't go. No reason to get yourself worked up over it I'd think.
-
I went to Chicago at the beginning of the year and on our way back home my friends and I intended to spend the morning at this exhibit. The wait just to get tickets was two fuck*ng hours. And it cost a shit ton of money. So we didn't get to go in, and I was pretty dissapointed about it.
-
I think V has the right end of it here: it is hard to call ethical or not without actually knowing either way. I think for me at least the line would be if he were actually deliberately hiding the identities of the bodies so that family members could not identify them. That said I could see him wanting the bodies to be donated anonymously for other reasons, the argument could be made for instance that a person may not want it to be known they donated their body in this way precisely becuase it would upset their surviving relatives. This of course doesn't justify anonymity in every case, just a possible reason.
As for myself I don't think this would really bother me (as in if it happened to me), but then I'm not a religious person and could understand why others would object.
The only way to be 100% safe would be to only use people who had consented and ideally I suppose this is what should happen though. It is always a bit dangerous when people start seeing art (or anything really) as being more important that ethics.
That said I'm pretty sure the whole corpses as art thing isn't new, I'm sure I've heard of this done before quite a long time ago I beleive. Of course I have no reference at this time.
-
Personally
I think it's unethical from the standpoint of what it is - not where the bodies came from but what's done with them. Also the profit that is made.
To me, Ethos can be personal and global. Ethos come from a sense of community standards and accountability for behavior on a more personal level than the law.
In my view, abusing a corpse, displaying it publicly, and charging large amounts of money for the privilege is offensive on multiple levels and troubling, certainly, on every point of Mel's very thoughtful post.
If I ethically/legally obtained a corpse and filmed a pornographic movie featuring people defiling it would that somehow be different than this display?
I don't think it would be much different 'ethically' and the 'ethics'/;legality' of obtaining the rights to a dead human being would be completely served.
I think the ethical question is grounded primarily in the motivation and intent of the people behind this exhibit (and those who want to see it).
There seems to me to be nothing normal or natural about this exhibit, particularly if it is true that there is a wanna-be Dr Joseph Mengele behind it.
-
I'm curious, Dawg: what do you see as the major element of this that makes it unethical? Is it the ticket sales? (You imply that the profit motive is their only motive here, which mildly confuses me, since this whole process seems like a rather overelaborate way to make some cash.) Is it the public exhibition? (I was under the impression that fairly frank anatomical exhibits were common these days; I know the Mutter Museum (http://www.collphyphil.org/muttcoll.htm) has been in operation a while and seems much more focused on "freaks" and other "exploitative" exhibits than this is.) Do you consider this to be more "abusive" to the bodies than, say, medical experimentation and the Body Farm?
I guess my thought on the matter is that, provided proper consent was obtained, there's nothing particularly unethical about displaying human remains, even with an admission cost attached. Without further evidence, the SS thing strikes me as a straw man; it's easy to talk about "would-be Mengeles" in the absence of any evidence for or against, but until there's actual firm evidence of wrongdoing, even the most dubious ancestry doesn't demonstrate unethicality per se.
-
Have to say, assuming the methods they obtain the bodies and such are consensual then I don't have an issue with the morality/ethics of it.
Not sure I'd want to go see it, but I have no problem with it.
-
I'm curious, Dawg: what do you see as the major element of this that makes it unethical? Is it the ticket sales? (You imply that the profit motive is their only motive here, which mildly confuses me, since this whole process seems like a rather overelaborate way to make some cash.) Is it the public exhibition? (I was under the impression that fairly frank anatomical exhibits were common these days; I know the Mutter Museum (http://www.collphyphil.org/muttcoll.htm) has been in operation a while and seems much more focused on "freaks" and other "exploitative" exhibits than this is.) Do you consider this to be more "abusive" to the bodies than, say, medical experimentation and the Body Farm?
I guess my thought on the matter is that, provided proper consent was obtained, there's nothing particularly unethical about displaying human remains, even with an admission cost attached. Without further evidence, the SS thing strikes me as a straw man; it's easy to talk about "would-be Mengeles" in the absence of any evidence for or against, but until there's actual firm evidence of wrongdoing, even the most dubious ancestry doesn't demonstrate unethicality per se.
It's personal. And, I'm afraid, inarguable since it's a matter of faith. It's rooted fairly deeply in my belief in a conscious and loving Creator and the accompanying belief that our existence, our bodies and our lives are a gift from that Creator. Jokes I can handle but when the actual physical form is held up for what is an elaborate effort at attention-gettng, shock value, and profit, I think it runs very strongly counter to my admittedly personal views as a Christian. I believe we are meant to love and respect each other, even after death. Universally.
There are so many other ways to express the artistic talent, which is also a gift, that this actually, today at least, strikes me as mocking the gift-giver Himself.
This is the kind of thing I don't give a second thought to - it's roughly parallel to that sort of performance 'art' you might get from someone like Annie Sprinkle.
In my opinion It's wasteful of talent and intellect (not to mention, possibly, taxpayer dollars) and it doesn't really raise the social discourse in my humble and doubtlessly minority view.
Medical Experimenatation is subject to major ethical, political and professional controls. It also has objectives that are fairly universally agreed upon to be positive for society as a whole - yet, there are a few people objecting to it on different, often religious or at least deeply held personal ethical grounds.
Just on this board so far (as of 11/28), its 1/2 and 1/2 for this exhibit's ethics although I doubt many would post a religious objection to it even if that was the reason. I do because I trust many of you and don't care about the opinion of the rest of you. As Mel points out, though, there are enough other reasons to feel at least discomfort if not revulsion over this exhibit.
Art is by definition and tradition not subject to ethical controls. Were I conscious of the Mutter exhibit and had I clicked the link I might not be too happy with that one either - I didn't and I'll take your word for its description at face value - I have no opinion since I have no knowledge of it.
-
when the actual physical form is held up for what is an elaborate effort at attention-gettng, shock value, and profit,
I agree that that would be reprehenisble, but is that the case with this exhibit? I don't know, but that isn't the vibe I got from the website. I guess I thought this was about learning to better appreciate the human form through artisitic anatomy lessons. Kind of like nude figure studies taken to the next level.
What if viewing real anatomy in this form lead one to appreciate the intricate elegance of our bodies? Couldn't that be beneficial? Couldn't that lead to intellectual and spiritual growth? And if that's the case, if I could obtain those benefits from such an exhibit, do I need to concern myself with the producers' motives?
-
Art is by definition and tradition not subject to ethical controls. Were I conscious of the Mutter exhibit and had I clicked the link I might not be too happy with that one either - I didn't and I'll take your word for its description at face value - I have no opinion since I have no knowledge of it.
For the record, the Mutter link is text-only and totally worksafe; I probably should have marked it as such. Sorry about that.
I'm not going to argue with your personal religious beliefs, of course, but I agree with August that I believe you're too quick to jump to a conclusion that this exhibit is about exploitation. I haven't seen it, so I may be wrong, but judging by the website the intent appears to be educational -- to display the human body in a way that allows the layperson to better appreciate the structure and systems of the body.
I agree, of course, that both before and after death the human body must be respected. However, if all due consent is acquired from the deceased or their next of kin, I don't consider tasteful public display (as this appears to be) any more disrespectful than any other of the numerous indignities to which we subject the dead. While it may not be quite as worthy a purpose as organ donation, public education I also believe to be a worthy purpose for human remains.
-
Well, AD, we sort of oppose the exhibit for different reasons, but I also apreciate your own. Even though we come from different spiritual places - I'm an Athiest, your, a Christian, still though, I still strongly agree with your take:
our existence, our bodies and our lives are a gift
You know, as someone who works with living human bodies every day, and also as one who works to protect children from the bad stuff, I do tend to think of the body a sacred thing, a thing not to be taken lightly, not be messed with without owner's consent. I talk to friends of mine who still have relatives whose bones are on display in museums because of the sheer fact that they were American Indians, and the thing that I can't get my head around is that the body can not become totally depersonalized. No matter what, those bodies are all the remains of someone's son or daughter. For me, what I can't get around is the issue of consent or lack there of. And, also as AD points out, the profit involved. Like Doc mentioned, unless these were bodies on display where 100% of the subjects who had knowingly signed off before their passing, I don't think I could ever be comfortable with this. Von Hagen never states that he got personal consent, and never denies that he took bodies from prisons and hospitals. You can find this information from his own statements on his own site.
And what about the SS connection? It is a fact that his father was a member of the SS, this is not up for question. Even von Hagen admits this. It wasn't so long ago that Nazi's were using Jew's skin for lamp shades, so even if his father didn't stoop to this level, is it at all wise to then tread this fine line? It would be like being accused of being a child molester but untried, then going and working at a daycare. Why would you do this?
It just seems that both father and son are lining their wallets by intentionally being confrontational.
And why not display the bodies in a medical manner instead of in a supposedly artful, and sometimes provocative manner? Look at Pregnant Woman Reclining (http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/snk_gestaltungsbeispiele.asp) - This choice was intentionally incendiary - there was thought and time put into this. Why try to make it art? It's as inapropriate as me, with my art degree, asuming I have the right to practice medical procedures just because I know first aid. It just smacks of on lack of understanding of art and it's function to try in turn medicine into art.
I don't know, I have to admit that I saw a wonderful documentary on the original Body Works that really made me want to see it, but at the same time, brought up a lot of questions for me. My SO wants to donate his body to science when he dies, and since I had a good friend in med-school and heard lots of stories about what they do to cadavers ( I'm talking the joking around, not the disecting), I'm pretty sure I don't want to do the same with my body. Yeah, once your dead, it's just a corpse, but I don't know - there's something natural and peaceful about returning to the earth - it's my body, you know - it was touched and kissed and made love to, and even in the end, if it's just food for worms, that just seems more peaceful than being on display, especially under such bizarre circumstances.
-
I may be underinformed here, as my information is what is found in this thread, but I wanted to weigh in on the SS thing.
The actions of the Nazis are not forgiveable. Someone who was a member of the SS almost certainly participated of his own will in unforgiveable actions.
However, this has nothing to do with the exhibit in question. As I gather from this thread, it seems that the exhibit is the project of this man's son. The sins of the father are not the sins of the son. You mentioned that the father is "involved in processing the bodies", but it sounds like the creation and vision of the exhibit are not his. A man does not choose his father, nor his father's sins. I don't feel I am in a position of sufficient knowledge to judge this exhibit's moral status, but the father's SS connection would seem to have nothing to do with it.
-
I may be underinformed here, as my information is what is found in this thread, but I wanted to weigh in on the SS thing.
The actions of the Nazis are not forgiveable. Someone who was a member of the SS almost certainly participated of his own will in unforgiveable actions.
However, this has nothing to do with the exhibit in question. As I gather from this thread, it seems that the exhibit is the project of this man's son. The sins of the father are not the sins of the son. You mentioned that the father is "involved in processing the bodies", but it sounds like the creation and vision of the exhibit are not his. A man does not choose his father, nor his father's sins. I don't feel I am in a position of sufficient knowledge to judge this exhibit's moral status, but the father's SS connection would seem to have nothing to do with it.
On it's face, maybe - but if the old man is using skills he honed torturing or maiming people for the Fatherland to help his kid make money now, sorry, but I think the son does become in a way complicit to the Holocaust. I don't feel it's ever appropriate to benefit or profit from a crime - let alone benefiting or profiting from genocide.
Still, though, I'm not sure the SS Question is answered in this example - but in general, I do think it's wrong.
-
when the actual physical form is held up for what is an elaborate effort at attention-gettng, shock value, and profit,
I agree that that would be reprehenisble, but is that the case with this exhibit? I don't know, but that isn't the vibe I got from the website. I guess I thought this was about learning to better appreciate the human form through artisitic anatomy lessons. Kind of like nude figure studies taken to the next level.
What if viewing real anatomy in this form lead one to appreciate the intricate elegance of our bodies? Couldn't that be beneficial? Couldn't that lead to intellectual and spiritual growth? And if that's the case, if I could obtain those benefits from such an exhibit, do I need to concern myself with the producers' motives?
This goal could be accomplished in many media besides human flesh.
The fact that it's real dead human bodies, altered gruesomely and posed gives it the morbid grotesquerie that brings in the dollars. It's NOT the 'learning experience' people are paying for - I think we can agree that for the population in general, that doesn't sell. It's the horror factor people are paying for. I think that it appeals to the most base part of the psyche, I don't doubt that it hardly approaches the intellectial heights you describe.
-
I may be underinformed here, as my information is what is found in this thread, but I wanted to weigh in on the SS thing.
The actions of the Nazis are not forgiveable. Someone who was a member of the SS almost certainly participated of his own will in unforgiveable actions.
However, this has nothing to do with the exhibit in question. As I gather from this thread, it seems that the exhibit is the project of this man's son. The sins of the father are not the sins of the son. You mentioned that the father is "involved in processing the bodies", but it sounds like the creation and vision of the exhibit are not his. A man does not choose his father, nor his father's sins. I don't feel I am in a position of sufficient knowledge to judge this exhibit's moral status, but the father's SS connection would seem to have nothing to do with it.
On it's face, maybe - but if the old man is using skills he honed torturing or maiming people for the Fatherland to help his kid make money now, sorry, but I think the son does become in a way complicit to the Holocaust. I don't feel it's ever appropriate to benefit or profit from a crime - let alone benefiting or profiting from genocide.
Still, though, I'm not sure the SS Question is answered in this example - but in general, I do think it's wrong.
I think it requires us to assume a lot of facts not in evidence to come to any kind of conclusion on the SS question. For instance, what did the father actually do in the SS? Exactly how is he involved in "processing" the bodies? Further even if he did participate in atrocities during the 30s and 40s, isn't it possible that he's changed since then? Sinners can be redeemed, right? There's that whole Saul/Paul/Road to Damascus thing.
And I think the SS question is at best tangential to the main issue re: the morality of an exhibit of this nature.
Question for AD and Side Show: Is there a way an exhibition like this could be done that you would be satisfied with? Say, if all the following conditions were met:
-- Only the bodies of people who had given their express written permission were used;
-- The bodies were displayed in an neutral, utterly non-provacative manner;
-- All proceed were donated to a suitable charity;
-- Educational/informative/instructional material accompanied each display.
Would that make a difference or are you inherently opposed to this practice?
One other factual question that you maybe able to answer AD. Where do medical schools get their cadavers? Have all of them been obtained from someone who has given written permission or do they get some from institutions?
-
Wait, I thought of one more question.
Would it be ok to provocatively display (for obscene profit) the body of someone who had tortured people for the SS during WWII, against their wishes and the wishes of their family? What if he had a barbed c*ck?
Or ate babies?
-
It's the horror factor people are paying for. I think that it appeals to the most base part of the psyche,
Maybe some. So? Some people buy National Geographic to look at the native girls titties, but that doesn't invalidate the magazine.
I'd like to see this exhibit, but I don't think it would inspire horror in me. I don't think it's even gross. It's a scientific exhibition. I think it would be fascinating to see the inside of a body and I don't see anything crass about that.
I go to botanical gardens to see and study plants. I go to natural history museums and zoos to study other animals. If this is done in a dignified manner (which granted is up for debate...) I don't see a lot of difference.
-
I may be underinformed here, as my information is what is found in this thread, but I wanted to weigh in on the SS thing.
The actions of the Nazis are not forgiveable. Someone who was a member of the SS almost certainly participated of his own will in unforgiveable actions.
However, this has nothing to do with the exhibit in question. As I gather from this thread, it seems that the exhibit is the project of this man's son. The sins of the father are not the sins of the son. You mentioned that the father is "involved in processing the bodies", but it sounds like the creation and vision of the exhibit are not his. A man does not choose his father, nor his father's sins. I don't feel I am in a position of sufficient knowledge to judge this exhibit's moral status, but the father's SS connection would seem to have nothing to do with it.
On it's face, maybe - but if the old man is using skills he honed torturing or maiming people for the Fatherland to help his kid make money now, sorry, but I think the son does become in a way complicit to the Holocaust. I don't feel it's ever appropriate to benefit or profit from a crime - let alone benefiting or profiting from genocide.
Still, though, I'm not sure the SS Question is answered in this example - but in general, I do think it's wrong.
I think it requires us to assume a lot of facts not in evidence to come to any kind of conclusion on the SS question. For instance, what did the father actually do in the SS? Exactly how is he involved in "processing" the bodies? Further even if he did participate in atrocities during the 30s and 40s, isn't it possible that he's changed since then? Sinners can be redeemed, right? There's that whole Saul/Paul/Road to Damascus thing.
And I think the SS question is at best tangential to the main issue re: the morality of an exhibit of this nature.
Question for AD and Side Show: Is there a way an exhibition like this could be done that you would be satisfied with? Say, if all the following conditions were met:
-- Only the bodies of people who had given their express written permission were used;
-- The bodies were displayed in an neutral, utterly non-provacative manner;
-- All proceed were donated to a suitable charity;
-- Educational/informative/instructional material accompanied each display.
Would that make a difference or are you inherently opposed to this practice?
One other factual question that you maybe able to answer AD. Where do medical schools get their cadavers? Have all of them been obtained from someone who has given written permission or do they get some from institutions?
Because I think that this treatment of human beings is inherently inappropriate, there is no way for me to define terms that make it appropriate. It's like describing the color red in enough ways to make me see blue.
Saul/Paul: Yes, Paul had a mighty conversion on the Damascus Road. That demonstrates to me the power of God to love the sinner while simultaneously hating the sin.
If the gentleman we are discussing was an SS officer; committeed these same kinds of acts as war crimes, and is now continuing that behavior with his son for fun and profit, then redemption isn't in play because he is still committing the sin.
-
It's personal. And, I'm afraid, inarguable since it's a matter of faith. It's rooted fairly deeply in my belief in a conscious and loving Creator and the accompanying belief that our existence, our bodies and our lives are a gift from that Creator. Jokes I can handle but when the actual physical form is held up for what is an elaborate effort at attention-gettng, shock value, and profit, I think it runs very strongly counter to my admittedly personal views as a Christian. I believe we are meant to love and respect each other, even after death. Universally.
But isn't the whole idea behind Christianity that you ARE a soul and you HAVE a body? So that body is just a temporary vessle for that soul and is irrelevent once one moves on to their final reward. I have heard that some protestant sects place more importance on the shell but I have no idea how that came about.
Although personally I think that the moral thing is to turn a body back into fertilizer as rapidly as possible after death. Kind of like in Dune.
-
It's the horror factor people are paying for. I think that it appeals to the most base part of the psyche.
Maybe some. So? Some people buy National Geographic to look at the native girls titties, but that doesn't invalidate the magazine.
That goes to the other side of the equation which I alluded to in an earlier post. The motive of the audience is suspect as well. Do we prosecute only people who create child pornography or the consumers as well? Sometimes desiring certain content is as big a problem as creating it.
I'd like to see this exhibit, but I don't think it would inspire horror in me. I don't think it's even gross. It's a scientific exhibition. I think it would be fascinating to see the inside of a body and I don't see anything crass about that.
That can be done in so many lifelike ways that it unnecessary to utilize real, formerly living humans for it. At least, for the general public who has no real need to see and feel real human flesh for the good of helping and healing the living.
I go to botanical gardens to see and study plants. I go to natural history museums and zoos to study other animals. If this is done in a dignified manner (which granted is up for debate...) I don't see a lot of difference.
You would dissassemble a child to see how she works? How about your child? Your mother? How about someone else does it against your wishes? Or without your knowledge?
All of these exhibits that we have convenielty objectified into works of art or three dimensional diagrams are children, maybe parents, brothers, sisters. We are all related to each and everyone of them in some distant way. And we should understand that they deserve better than to be skinneed, peeled, posed, and gawked at.
I realize that I'm a minority voice here - and that my somewhat conservative views may not reflect the majority in all places. But humanity is slipping badly in terms of stewardship to this thing called life - whether you take Side Show Mel's point of view or my point of view it comes down to whether or not you are willing to sacrifice your own humanity on the altar of humanism.
-
You would dissassemble a child to see how she works? How about your child? Your mother? How about someone else does it against your wishes? Or without your knowledge?
If performing an autopsy on my child could reasonably be expected to reduce suffering in someone else's, yes I might. I don't think I ever advocated for vivisection here. And I think we've all agreed that this should only happen if someone is willing.
Because I think that this treatment of human beings is inherently inappropriate, there is no way for me to define terms that make it appropriate. It's like describing the color red in enough ways to make me see blue.
That's fine, that's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint. I was legitimately asking, not being rhetorical.
All of these exhibits that we have convenielty objectified into works of art or three dimensional diagrams are children, maybe parents, brothers, sisters. We are all related to each and everyone of them in some distant way. And we should understand that they deserve better than to be skinneed, peeled, posed, and gawked at.
But if those individuals are OK with it, where's the problem? If it's truly voluntary, how is participating different from acting or modeling? Isn't that an person objectifing their body into a work of art? This could be a useful purpose that my carcass could serve after I'm done with it. How is burying it in the ground or burning it "better"?
But humanity is slipping badly in terms of stewardship to this thing called life
Come now. I'm but a amateur student of history, but I can think of dozens of examples of how human life and human rights were held in far less esteem in the past. For instance, slavery (while still vestigally around) is no longer the universal institution it once was. Life expectancy is considerably longer. Racism is on the decline -- when was the last time you heard of a lynching? I think we are more respectful and protective of human life and human rights today than at any time in history. Are things perfect or even good now? Of course not. But historically things were far worse.
-
AD and August are our spiritual leaders. This debate is awesome.
~Paul
-
See, here's the thing: if you truly consider this to be intrinsically abhorrent as an element of your personal morality, that's your business, and I'm not going to argue with you. You certainly don't have to attend it or even approve of it. But, to put it bluntly, a lot of these arguments are ignoring several crucial things.
First of all, in a nonconsensual situation, this is obviously unethical. (It's in bold because it's important.) The merits of this exhibit are entirely conditional on consent of the deceased or those able to consent for the deceased. Given consent, I can't see this as abuse of a body -- at least, no more so than burial or cremation or launching into space in a giant fist-rocket is. (To answer AD's question: no, of course I would not want a relative vivisected. But this isn't vivisection; the one unquestionable thing about this is that all the bodies are, in fact, dead before the process begins. If a relative of mine died and willed his/her body to a project like this, I would consider it less ethical to reject my loved one's final wishes by rejecting it.)
On the "provocativeness" of the poses: I can't speak for this, since I haven't seen the exhibit. It's entirely possible this is all presented tastelessly. However, I don't believe that tastelessness always equals unethicality.
As for the SS thing... look, I agree with Ben here. I'm not attempting to underestimate what the Nazis did or the possibility that something untoward may be happening here, but "the father of the artist, who may or may not have committed unspecified war crimes over 60 years ago, is assisting in the exhibit assembly in some sort of unspecified way (but is not, in fact, the artist)" is just not enough to convince me that this is by definition unethical. Would it be ethical if the father was not participating at all? If the father participated but was not suspected of war crimes? What?
(Some of this, I will confess, depends heavily on whether you believe in the Banality of Evil or Hitler's Willing Executioners interpretation of the events of WWII. I sort of have to go with the Arendt, myself; while there were certainly evil people in the Nazi ranks, I can't buy that most of the population of Germany was just psychopathically genocidal by nature.)
-
But humanity is slipping badly in terms of stewardship to this thing called life - whether you take Side Show Mel's point of view or my point of view it comes down to whether or not you are willing to sacrifice your own humanity on the altar of humanism.
I know AW already rebutted this a little but I had to take issue with this argument. First of all AD; much love and respect for your view and I see where you're coming from but the slippery slope argument is a strawman and even worse for dragging humanism into it.
Did the Aztecs respect life so much as you meant?
What about the US in WWII and their relationship to the Japanese?
What about the Mongols raiders who would gangrape a woman and cut her body for more holes when they ran out?
And the list goes on and on.. I don't even think our current "Western" society is in decline when you really look at it in a mediocre context; it only depends on what exactly your hot button issues are whether or not you subscribe to that idea.
Anyway I concede that the rest of your argument is well thought out and very personal, but I can't stand this type of "the world was better back in some mythical time" bs I see all the time.
With Much Respect nonetheless,
-Me
-
Because I think that this treatment of human beings is inherently inappropriate, there is no way for me to define terms that make it appropriate. It's like describing the color red in enough ways to make me see blue.
First, I'm having a hard time calling the bodies of the deceased human beings or individuals (as I thought I read in another post). Personally, I don't care how my body is disposed of. I'll leave it to the love ones impacted most by the decision (now, my parents, later a spouse or SO, maybe my sisters or close friends), and if I'm all alone, I'll donate it to science, I guess. I don't really think that my identity is distinct from my body. I guess it's just that I think that much of who I am is gone when I die, and the body decays anyway, so I don't really care now what will be done with it. But I do agree that the religious/moral sentiments of others should be respected in relation to this matter. Still, dead bodies aren't human beings, in my opinion.
However, where is the line drawn? If ancient bones are dug up, how far should we go to respect the sentiments of the deceased? If there is intrinsic worth, or (obviously) consent can't be obtained, or if it's (and side_show alluded to this) very difficult to settle the matter among presumed distant descendants, then can we ever really argue that such bones should be used for anything at all, even if it has tremendous educational value?
But isn't the whole idea behind Christianity that you ARE a soul and you HAVE a body? So that body is just a temporary vessle for that soul and is irrelevent once one moves on to their final reward. I have heard that some protestant sects place more importance on the shell but I have no idea how that came about.
I don't know what the Dawg's views are on this issue, but I think a lot of Christians believe this way, roughly. But don't most Christians believe in a physical resurrection (and so the body would certainly be more than merely a vessel)? Anyway, it certainly isn't the whole idea behind Christianity, and some believe that when you die, you rest until the resurrection. Your spirit or soul doesn't go somewhere and wait for it to happen. You just stay in the ground (or wherever you end up after death) until you are resurrected. I think it's actually kind of a contentious point in Christianity.
But anyway, it doesn't really matter for Dawg, because he just (initially, I think) argued that the body is a gift from God, and so should be respected, even after death, and even if it no longer holds the soul. Some people don't believe that the fetus holds the soul, but stil oppose abortion on similar grounds.
-
Did the Aztecs respect life so much as you meant?
[snip]
...I can't stand this type of "the world was better back in some mythical time" bs I see all the time.
My friend hates the song "Cortez the Killer" for this reason. These lyrics in particular bother him:
They offered life in sacrifice
So that others could go on.
Hate was just a legend
And war was never known
I guess I can see his point, but it's such a cool fuck*ng song. I don't really hold Neil to any kind of standards of historical accuracy, and I don't think he's really trying to give a history lesson anyway. I read once something like this: Neil was just metaphorically calling Cortez a killer, because he sought paradise on earth and didn't find it, thereby killing that dream. That's probably bullshit, but interesting anyway. And to be honest with you, I am so ignorant of this time in history that I feel I really shouldn't pass judgment anyway. Plus, the song is so. fuck*ng. cool.
-
When I die, I want to be stuffed and posed, in a tuxedo, making the whole angry bear on a rampage (http://rla.sd81.bc.ca/~ftnelson/images/beart.jpg) face while lunging forward. I then want to be placed in a dusty attic in a house which will then be sold to unsuspecting buyers. Barring that, I want a Viking funeral. I will only donate my body to science if they would promise that a portion of my body will be used in a practical joke. I was raised by my grandfather to respect the fact that a joke or a good anecdote is the best way to live beyond yourself (barring, you know, teaching or something productive like that), and something like that... I would live FOREVER. My great-great-great-grandkids would be talking about it, if, of course, we still have mouths then. I would be cool with being used in a sculpture, but only if the artist portrayed me doing something absurd or incredibly crude. If my body could be positioned in the "Showbiz Position", with the crotch-grabbing and the raised arm, I would smile down from Heaven.
I second V-Adore's comments, and would actually take it further- if real, thoughtful consent was given, it is ethical. Of course, defining "real, thoughtful consent" is difficult, but I would venture to say that it doesn't sound like this guy is getting it. If he sat down with someone and told them exactly what he wanted to do with their corpse in the untimely event of their death, and they signed off on it, maybe gave some artistic insight, I see nothing wrong with it, as long as their wishes were being respected. I would want it to be a joint venture between the artist and the medium. But, again, doesn't sound like that's how it's going down. And, as such, I...hmmm. Let's just say that I wouldn't see it, and if I were involved with a museum that was considering displaying the exhibit, I would try very hard to push them away from it. If he is displaying John Does and mental patients, without their skin and unbeknownst to any relatives they may have...that's just morally reprehensible on so many, many levels.
Like so many things, it's just a matter of consent, and a matter of defining consent.
Regarding the relative humanity/inhumanity of the human race over time, I would have to say that we're just as bad and just as good as we have ever been; the only thing that's changed is the means with which we act, and, thus, the results. The 20th century had a hell of a death toll, in regards to wars, etc., but only as a flip side to the technologies and philosophies which have improved the standard of living for everyone (at least, in theory).
-
But isn't the whole idea behind Christianity that you ARE a soul and you HAVE a body? So that body is just a temporary vessle for that soul and is irrelevent once one moves on to their final reward. I have heard that some protestant sects place more importance on the shell but I have no idea how that came about.
Although personally I think that the moral thing is to turn a body back into fertilizer as rapidly as possible after death. Kind of like in Dune.
We were created in the image of a benevolent and loving creator and given, however briefly, a paradise and a partner to care for. My personal belief is that a major reason for the creation of beings with free will and the capacity to love is that God desires very much to be loved by us and that one way that we demonstrate our love for God is to demonstrate our love for each other and our respect for the gifts we have been given. Our bodies, creation, and each other are great gifts and this treatment of each other is really disrespectful of that gift and the Giver of it. My personal favorite illustration of this is in Genesis: there are two original sins there. Eve eats of the apple, sure. But worse yet, she offers it to Adam. At this point Adam has a choice and it's a doozy:
Eve or God?
The guy chose the girl (and ultimately, temptations of the world of every kind) over God. (and (1) men still do this today! and (2) This places a rightful amount of the BLAME for the fall of mankind back on Adam who deserves at least a portion of the blame women have been getting forever) This was heartbreaking for God who came looking for them and could not find them because they were hiding, naked and ashamed. God was angry
BUT He also made clothes for Adam and Eve.
God wants to be loved and IMHO created mankind to love him and truly feels hurt when He does everything for us and we still turn away.
Ever been in a relationship like that? How about being in one for millions of years? Multiplied a few billion times?
The body may be a temporary vessel as you say; more possibly to the point it is the temple in which we carry that bit of God-ness we have within. That tiny piece of the Holy Spirit that we tend and nourish until that moment when we return with it to God.
I guess I feel like that temple is desecrated by this 'art' we are discussing, not so much by what is done to it (bad enough!) but for the reasons behind both the artists 'art' and the public's desire to view it (and paying so much for the opportunity'.
Miles: having a hard time calling the dead 'people' is natural, I think, for many people - I think that it's far too easy to extend that difficulty beyond that - say, the mentally challenged or the very old or the comatose or the handicapped - or, to some, unborn babies. (by this I don't mean you but I mean to imply that the passage of time naturally causes changes (erosion in this case) of social thought.)
When I mentioned earlier about mankind's stewardship of humanity 'slipping' I was speaking to the fact that there are so many people on this planet now, we have so much more information and such better ways of communicating (and the benefit of knowledge and understanding of past bad behavior) and things seem to get no better - and worse, some us, perhaps an alarming increasing number, seem to tend to dehumanize some people in the groups listed above and others.
We were meant to be biodegradable. We weren't, I thinkn't, meant to be disposable.
Also, as an aside to the end of Miles' post I believe some Jewish beliefs include bodily reincarnation at judgment, as well as some protestant groups but the Catholic church (now) and most protestant churches I'm aware of allow cremation. So I'm neither here nor there on the odds of my personal response to Gideon's Trumpet come that day based on the method of my respectful disposal. You are very right in that it's not (certainly shouldn't be) the central point of any denomination's teachings.
What should count is what you do while you are alive, of course.
-
I disagree with the assumption that this sort of display results in reduced respect for the human body and therefore humanity and God.
While I have no particular desire to go see this exhibit (out of disinterest rather than revulsion or something similar) from what I've seen on the site many of the corpses are arranged in lifelike poses. Seeing dead bodies arranged in a way that emphasises that these were once living things must drive home the fragility of our own bodies, which can't help but build respect and wonder if not for those around us then at least for our own bodies. In this way I think this exhibit is superior to a medical display which are usually (in my experience as someone who has handled a preserved head and similar and not realised it was real until later) clinical in the extreme and work to make us think of corpses as something totally removed from ourselves when really nothing could be further from the truth. What else can everyone in the world truly have in common except that one day we'll be just like those bodies.
This is all of course based on my previous statements about full consent and so on. I don't know enough to judge this particular exhibit but that has nothing to do with the content (that I have seen) and more to do with the shadiness brought up already. I don't think this sort of exhibit is unethical in itself.
To brighten the mood slightly: Dawg every time I read your well reasoned and obviously very personal posts I get to the end '<<Woodberry HELL-O!!>>' makes me laugh every time.
Edited to move a single comma. Because I love you so. Sorry there are are not more synonyms for body.
-
But isn't the whole idea behind Christianity that you ARE a soul and you HAVE a body? So that body is just a temporary vessle for that soul and is irrelevent once one moves on to their final reward. I have heard that some protestant sects place more importance on the shell but I have no idea how that came about.
I don't know what the Dawg's views are on this issue, but I think a lot of Christians believe this way, roughly. But don't most Christians believe in a physical resurrection (and so the body would certainly be more than merely a vessel)? Anyway, it certainly isn't the whole idea behind Christianity, and some believe that when you die, you rest until the resurrection. Your spirit or soul doesn't go somewhere and wait for it to happen. You just stay in the ground (or wherever you end up after death) until you are resurrected. I think it's actually kind of a contentious point in Christianity.
Based on what I know only some groups believe in bodily reincarnation based on either 1) Jesus ascended bodily and/or 2)those alive at the Rapture will ascend bodily. The Church believes that 1) only applied to the J-man and kind of downplays Revelation. I've tried discussing this with our resident born-again in the mail room to get his take on the bodily thing but I can't talk to that guy for more than 3 minutes without wanting to kick him in the throat. We once got into like a 20 minute argument because he denied that Jesus went to Hell.
Anyway, I don't think doing to educate others with a body is disrespectful. On the contrary I think a display skeleton or preserved "visible man" can be a useful and fascinating tool for examining and admiring the complexity of the body. I think the most disrespectful thing thing one can do with a body is put it in a water-tight casket or concrete vault. As if that body is too good to be returned to the food cycle.
-
but I can't stand this type of "the world was better back in some mythical time" bs I see all the time.
and i can't stand it when someone attempts to justify their inability to do right by making excuses that the same thing was done in the past.
don't want a better tomorrow? ok, leave. shooo, go away, make your time machine and hie to the past.
yes, lot's and lot's and TREMENDOUS amounts of BAD THINGS have been done in the past and we should ALL OF US AND EVERYONE know of them and hold vigil against them EVER happening again. NOT use them as EXCUSES and PETTY BULLSHIT JUSTIFICATIONS for doing BAD SHIT today and now and tomorrow.
that being said,
dead people are to be removed with an appropriate level of honor.
at a base level, comparing human flesh to squirrels and etc, i am ill at ease walking into a taxidermists. it is unsettling because it seems unnatural to me, and wrong.
at a higher level, i do not believe that i should PRESENT dead human bodies as some sort of art exhibit. They should be treated with dignity and honor. Autopsies, cremation, burial, following the deceased PERSON'S wishes, constrained by the best choices for the community.
I have held that i wish to be cremated and my ashes spread in various times of my past. if i come to understand some health reason not to, i would never think such again. Such that, if someone wishes to have their dead body dropped into the city water tower and left to rot, that person's wishes are moot. fuck 'em. there is not honoring them in the way they wished, since they did not wish to be honored but to fuck their community.
On the opposite side, i do no believe that i should VIEW an exhibit of dead bodies as i would an exhibit of any other proposed aesthetic example, because the DEAD HUMAN BODY IS NOT AN OBJECT OF ART.
others may disagree, and if they do so be it.
there is a UTILITY to a human CORPSE that exists:
autopsy to determine cause of death in an attempt to uphold the rule of law.
burial practices to uphold the family of the deceased, religious beliefs being but one example of ceremony binding family together.
scientific enquiry into human anatomy and etc for the greater good of mankind at large. doctors need to practice, disease and problems need to be studied, etc.
i'm sure there are more.
i do not see an AESTHETIC to a human CORPSE however.
even laid at rest in a casket, in a funeral parlor, it is not art, it is not beauty, it is a CORPSE, a lifeless frame representing MORTALITY AND DEATH, not a thing of BEAUTY IN AND OF ITSELF.
Thus,
to make an attempt to raise the HUMAN CORPSE to be an intrinsic OBJECT OF ART, to make the statement "the HUMAN CORPSE has an inherent BEAUTY and i feel it is a MEDIUM to be USED to convey MY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS" i would propose ie immoral, unethical, wrong, and DANGEROUS.
The culture i wish to be a part of, the community i wish to live in, the society i wish to share laws with:
IS NOT A DEATH CULTURE/COMMUNITY/SOCIETY.
and thus to come full circle: you think i don't know they USED to be that way? you think i don't know it IS that way? you think i don't know it WILL BE that way?
then you are wrong, because i do know that, and by saying that i was saying ""the world was better back in some mythical time"" you are missing my point entirely.
all this being said, i don't think, from what i know of the exhibit, that i woul d advocate shutting it down, but i sure think it's a bad sign that people would want to go and walk amongst the corpses and look upon the exhibits hoping for, and possibly creating of their own opinion, beauty.
-
but I can't stand this type of "the world was better back in some mythical time" bs I see all the time.
and i can't stand it when someone attempts to justify their inability to do right by making excuses that the same thing was done in the past.
don't want a better tomorrow? ok, leave. shooo, go away, make your time machine and hie to the past.
Oh I didn't say anything about not wanting a better tomorrow, whatever that may be in one's view. I just believe we should keep a sense of perspective while trying to get there is all.
I doubt there's any one of us here (however spiritually aligned or otherwise) who would not want the world to improve in some manner or another.
-
I'm fascinated by the 50/50 split on the poll question.
And thanks to Ark for distilling it so nicely. I haven't that talent and I tend to write far too many words for the meaning I'm trying to make.
Cort - interesting that your mailroom guy doesn't believe Christ went to Hell. Two of the major Creeds of the Early Christian Church (Apostle's and Nicene) state that as a tenet of faith. The third (Athanasian Creed) might too but, honestly, I've seen that one used so rarely I don't know if it's in there or not although that creed is so long I assume it must be.
I'm sure you aksed, so what is his answer when you ask him where Jesus was for the three days between his death, resurrection and ascension?
-
Cort - interesting that your mailroom guy doesn't believe Christ went to Hell. Two of the major Creeds of the Early Christian Church (Apostle's and Nicene) state that as a tenet of faith. The third (Athanasian Creed) might too but, honestly, I've seen that one used so rarely I don't know if it's in there or not although that creed is so long I assume it must be.
I'm sure you aksed, so what is his answer when you ask him where Jesus was for the three days between his death, resurrection and ascension?
It boiled down to him saying that the the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are Catholic stuff that he doesn't know about because they aren't actually in the Bible.
I had learned that Jesus descended into Hell to "rescue" the otherwise good people who had previously been barred from Heaven because of Original Sin (such as Moses, Noah, &c). He seemed deeply offended that I would even suggest that Jesus would go anywhere near Hell. He also didn't seem convinced about the gates of Heaven being closed before the Resurrection but this was over a year ago so I'm a bit hazy.
Plus it all stemmed from an argument that Bush is anti-choice but not pro-life so we weren't on the best footing to begin with.
-
If he's a protestant, he obviously rejects a lot of the Catholic stuff, so why is it interesting that he wouldn't believe it if it isn't in the Bible? You could argue that he's interpreting the Bible incorrectly, but why would you expect him to go to outside sources? He accepts what's in the Bible, and works with that, but I don't think he should be expected to accept the Nicene creed. I have to say this is a major problem I have with Catholics--at least the ones I know (not you Dawg, in fact I don't even know if you are Catholic, but I had a discussion with a Catholic recently along these lines). They assume that their story is the correct one, and that other Christians who don't buy large parts of the doctrine that developed over the centuries aren't really Christians.
But, protestants do the same thing. Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc., aren't really Christians because they bring extra stuff to the table in addition to the Bible. But as I understand it, the text of the Bible is already farily distant from Christ, so it's not like by sticking to the Bible you are really going to the original source, anymore than anybody else is. You might be closer, but not all the way there. It's weird that it's hardly ever enough for a member of one Christian sect to admit that other sects are also Christian, but they just use different sources to inform their faith. It's usually the case that the other sects aren't really Christian, only Christian in name. But perhaps it's easier for me to see it this way as an outside observer. In fact, it's probably stranger to expect members of one Christian sect to be totally understand of the beliefs of another. They belong to the sect because they believe its tenets and reject the others. But certainly, I don't think that there is anything interesting about this mailroom guy rejecting Catholic doctrine.
But Cort, it's strange to me that you would even debate this guy on the tenets of his faith (specifically, whether Jesus visited Hell), since you reject it all anyway. Why should you expect him to accept the story you learned if you reject it? Is it really reasonable to expect there to be just one Jesus, or just one story of he he is and what he did? What gives one story rank over another? That it's been around longer or because more people accept it? It's such a personal thing, and informed by lots of different things, including (perceived, at least) inspiration from God. How the fuck can you argue with that by countering with another story about who Jesus is?
Edit: To be fair, I would always do this sort of thing with my JW roomate. I would argue with him from the standpoint of a protenstant, even though the point I was arguing I rejected anyway. Partly beause it was fun (I guess I was playing some type of devil's advocate), and partly because it was interesting. And I think he believed it helped his faith anyway, so no harm done. Maybe that's just what you were up to?
-
I'm a Lutheran. It's like being Catholic with shorter services, fewer sacraments and less guilt.
I accept the Bible as the revealed word of God, but personally, I think it reveals itself to different people in subtly different ways. Also, it's filtered of necessity through language and culture. I'm not saying I take it with a grain of salt - it's like the Pirate Code - more of a guiiiideline than a code. A strong guideline. Arrrrgh.
The Creeds were basically written by the early church as a method to ensure that the most basic tenets of what became Christianity were codified. Mainly, they define the Trinity as well as each of the three components of the trinity and all three creeds describe each - God, the Father almighty, Christ, begotten and not made of the Father, and the Holy Spirit who 'proceeds' from the Father and the Son. I'm not sure how a Christian denomination can exist without reference to the Creeds because they sprang out of the earliest discussions that led Christianity into being a separate belief from Judaism. For some time following the death of Christ, those who were Christian were still Jewish as well. The aforementioned St. Paul was instrumental in moving the Church away from Judaism; possibly too far away looking at the history of the Jews since.
Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Methodists for sure use the creeds. I'm fairly sure Anglicans, UCC, and other 'mainstream' denominations also refer to the Creeds. I don't know about Baptist traditions, Four-Square Gospel Churches, and others. Perhaps the mail room guy belonged to a unaffiliated Baptist church led by a charismatic Pastor?
-
I'm not sure how a Christian denomination can exist without reference to the Creeds because they sprang out of the earliest discussions that led Christianity into being a separate belief from Judaism.
That makes sense, and I know that not only Catholics refer to the Creeds, but I don't see why a religious group couldn't form around a core belief in the divinity of Christ, and reject anything but their interpretation of the Bible. In fact, isn't this at least somewhat common? (Or maybe not.) And I don't see why this would make them not Christian.
Full disclosure: I may have mentioned before, or it may be obvious, but I was raised Mormon, and so when I was younger and accepted the faith, I was really annoyed by people who accused me of not being Christian. I'm agnostic now, so it's not a problem anyway (I'm not a Christian, but for less interesting reasons, I guess), but I still think it's an interesting issue.
-
I left the church not because I reject the faith but because I reject the people spreading it and their politicizing of religion. On the Sunday before election day in '00 our priest said, "and remember, because turnout is expected to be so high this year the republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday." I haven't been to church since. Especially when, after mass, this priest was unable to provide any evidence that the R candidate was "more Christian" than the D. He also used "pro-life" as a synonym for "anti-choice" which bugs the crap out me on priciple because of all people a freaking priest should know the difference. Then with things like the 700 Club guy praying for Supremes to drop dead I just became ashamed to be associated with the word "Christian."
Quite frankly I don't know if the descending into Hell part is in the Bible. At mass they only read a few passages over and over and over on a 3-year cycle and I've never read the Bible on my own (everything I know of Job or Goliath is from popular media) so maybe there was an iron-clad argument for me but I wouldn't know.
I'm mainly just fascinated by how exclusionary mailroom guy's version of a "loving god" is. He thinks people like Moses can't get into Heaven because they weren't Christian and only practicing Christians can get in. That boggles my mind. He also believes the Bible is literally true, even the parts that other sects have accepted as metaphor (the 6 days of creation, the Tower of Babel), but conveniently glosses over the part where he rejects the church that Jesus specifically told Peter to start.
He's also our office whiner. He complained to HR that he was offended by the comic I had posted by my desk (You can't kick Jesus!). So I complained that I'm offended that every time I go into the mail room for paper I have to hear on his radio a guy screaming at me that I'm going to Hell. But HR can't do anything about that apparently. Plus the "preacher" sounds creepily like Paul Heyman. So basically I go out of my way to give him a hard time now.
-
The two protestant groups I'm most familiar with, the Presbyterians and the Disciples of Christe, both use the Apostle's Creed.
Personally, I love Jesus. What a great teacher! What a loving soul! It's just that some of his followers get me down. But I think that speaks more to human nature than the nature of Christianity. I'm sure there were Pat Robertsons among the Aztec and the Zoroastrians.
I think religion is a human creation and therefore flawed. Church just doesn't do anything spiritual for me.
On the other hand, I know there is a higher order in the universe that we are all a part of. It would be nice if I could find an organized group of people that I could share my journey toward that higher power with. To date, I haven't found that group.
-
Good for you, Cort. You go right on torturing that mailroom guy.
You may find some assistance here (http://www.nobeliefs.com/). The gifts page is particularly nice.
-
I left the church not because I reject the faith but because I reject the people spreading it and their politicizing of religion. On the Sunday before election day in '00 our priest said, "and remember, because turnout is expected to be so high this year the republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday." I haven't been to church since.
I would have left too - but I would have found another church. I really try to avoid politics as much as possible in my faith life. I'm not trying to build barriers, I'm trying to build bridges and I think politics and religion together create too many conflicts to overcome.
Aug and Cort - you both sound to me like people with some core beliefs - and also, possibly what a good friend of mine calls a "God-shaped hole". In the absence of sprititual practice like worship or prayer and, of course, grace, people with one naturally try to fill the hole. Usually with things like secularism or politics or intellect, sometimes with drugs or bad behavior but for many people, everything feels kind of wrong until they find that way to grow their core beliefs and values in a comfortanle and nurturing (at least at the beginning) environment. If that includes you, I hope you (and anyone who has such a need) finds that place. It's a good place, especially when things are not going as planned. (Like my life for the past 6 months or so)
-
Aug and Cort - you both sound to me like people with some core beliefs - and also, possibly what a good friend of mine calls a "God-shaped hole".
Whoa! You know Bono (http://www.macphisto.net/u2lyrics/Mofo.html)? That's awesome!
-
St. Ambrose lived in around 300AD and he wrote about the God-shaped vacuum in all of us...
My friend who uses this image a lot is the same guy I linked to a couple of weeks ago who is an artist.
-
Ergh. I'm going to write a long-winded, "pity-me" post, and I hate myself for it, but...I have a weird philosophy towards religion, and I think this explains it.
When my parents met, they were both lapsed Christians; he was a lapsed Catholic and she was a lapsed Church of Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_christ) member. Because my dad's parents were a lot more Catholic than my mom's parents were...Church of Christ, my parents agreed to raise us Catholic, *wink wink*, meaning we'd be raised nothing. And this was all fine and dandy until my mom's parents moved to Louisville; my mom started going to church with them and the next thing you know I'm eight years old and a guy is telling me that homosexuals fuck goats. That I'm going to hell forever if I don't act right. That everyone else, EVERYONE, is going to hell, regardless of how THEY act, because they weren't lucky enough to hear about the Church of Christ; after all, doesn't it say in the Bible that "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you, for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." So anyone who's not from the Church of Christ must not be KNOCKING hard enough, the poor dumb fucks.
When my dad found out that his kids were being raised in what basically amounts to a hate group, he was freaked out, and thus proceeded to do the worst possible thing: he turned into Super-Catholic. He's written books. He's better-versed in the writings of the early church fathers than any priest I've ever met. Hell, I've heard Solo Scriptura debated so many times I don't give a damn what "Petros" means anymore. And, according to my mom, he was trying to get us to go to hell.
This went on for about 8 years, until I was 16 and my parents were too a)exhausted, and b)insane to continue to fight the Protestant Reformation over the damn dinner table. I continued to have guilt-related breakdowns for several years, including a series of apocalyptic visions I had while reading Augustine's "City of God," until therapy somewhat healed the scars that religion left. However, because God decided to mess with me again, my sister became extremely religious in the Church of Christ when we moved in together, which resulted in even more screaming matches and ambulance-rides to the emergency room.
I think that the "God-shaped hole" I may have once had is completely filled, because I'd really like to never hear another WORD about God, for the rest of my life. I realize that this is because I'm just fucked up, and so I try to understand that religious people, by and large, are trying to be good people, and almost all are. But religion, any religion, is dead to me; the only proof I can see of any sort of God is the wide range of shit that happens to me, which leads me to believe that God hates me and likes to mess with me. I've been trying to get into Merton recently, because I really love his Walnut Street Epiphany (http://www.internetmonk.com/index.php?s=walnut) (second entry down), but I can't even pretend to care anymore, and I don't feel anything like what Merton describes. I knocked as hard as I could for as long as I could and I got nothing; if God needs me, He can come to my door this time
-
I'm fascinated by the 50/50 split on the poll question.
I think the split on the poll represents the fact that, well, asking "Yes" or "No" on this question isn't quite asking enough. I was initially hesitant to vote because there was no "Yes, But With Reservations About This Instance" option, for reasons that I have already exposited about at great length to total board apathy. I suspect there are relatively few "yes/no, and DAMN THE TORPEDOES" votes in there and more "well, it depends."
-
I've been trying to get into Merton recently, because I really love his Walnut Street Epiphany
Wouldn't that be his Muhammad Ali Boulevard Epiphany now?
Bozack have you ever read The Sirens of Titan. I was just browsing through it the other day and your post reminded me of it.
-
This discussion is very moving and emotional. I haven't voted in the poll because, like V pointed out, it's not a yes or no question. It's too very gray. To weigh in, I am a former Baptist who now rejects the Bible. I believe in morality and I have hope/faith that there is something greater in the universe, but I can't find a religion that offers me any comfort. I want to place my faith in science because science is more honest about what it doesn't know, but I feel were probably still a million years or more away from science uniting with religion. The answers are out there, what is the origin of the universe, what lies beyond the grave, etc., but we'll not discover them in our lifetimes. So I'll face the abyss with my vague concept of what lies ahead. I'm sure it doesn't matter, whatever happens is gonna happen regardless of my beliefs.
I don't know about the ethics of this particualr exhibit and the people doing the work, but for me, I would love to be put on display in an exhibit such as this. The title of my particular display, "fuck*ng."
~Paul
-
I actually believe it is a yes/no question.
I also tend to believe that as humans both intellectualize and secularize, and as humanistic thought forces out theistic faith (of all kinds, not just Christian), people lose the ability to strongly take a side one way or the other. Conditions are created, what if's begin to take place of what we know (or feel or understand or believe) to be true. And suddenly white and black bleed into gray not because the ANSWER has been diluted, but because the QUESTION has. The answer is still there. (And it could be either answer - the basic component of the answer is that which you base your beliefs and your values on)
This is the value, to me, of my faith: When there is a position I can take based on those values, it's easy for me to take that position in a very black and white way and defend it in my own clumsy-but-confident way, understanding that , for this board anyhow, in general it's likely to be a minority position.
-
I can easily answer yes, it is ethical, as long as the bodies were legally obtained.
However, I consider my ability to see most things as not black/white as a value.
-
I'm developing a thought here -
I probably should have said that I tend to see moral/ethical questions as black and white. Because I believe there is such a thing as good and evil...and once you place good and evil, then moral and ethical questions, to me, of necessity, have to be black and white because the issue is, generally whether something proceeds from (or is proceeding to) a premise (or result) of good or evil, or right or wrong, Godly or Satanic, or whatever you label the opposing choices.
You have to base your values/ethics/morals on something and that something should be a fairly solid something. That makes the decisions less doubtful (or the 'gray area' smaller/nonexistant) and the temptation to place conditions on the question weaker.
Questions like what kind of cheeee I like the best or anything 100% provable by any human method doesn't fall into this idea I'm developing here.
-
Yeah, I have to say, if we're getting into deeply-held beliefs: as a scientist and (let's be honest here, and also this is not a dirty word) humanist, I believe that the ability to answer ethical and moral questions in shades of grey is an incredible virtue. Not that it's wrong to think things are black or white -- if you have a strong "yes" or "no" on this one, that's entirely respectable -- but the ability to answer ethical questions with full consideration of context, situations of which one might not be aware, and other factors is important. As questions become more complex, answers also become more complex as a necessity.
-
Given that, in order for me to maintain my life of comfort, thousands are starving or living in horrible conditions, I have to see things in shades of grey to prevent myself from taking a long walk off a short pier for the benefit of humanity.
-
I also think that if you take any complex question you can break it down into simpler questions. What you might come up with is a matrix or patchwork of answers, some of which are ethical and unethical or right and wrong or whatever and arrive at a conclusion about the larger question.
There are some things that are more unforgivable in, let's say, an ethical question than others - that is, one 'bad' against many goods can still push the question to the unfavorable side. And vice-versa.
I still think at the end, though, the values from which an individual behaves and draws conclusions about morals/ethics questions is really the most fundamentally important component in the process that arrives at the decision.
-
as humanistic thought forces out theistic faith (of all kinds, not just Christian
Seems to me that theistic faith ( especially the Christian kind ) is the one doing the forcing out these days.
-
as humanistic thought forces out theistic faith (of all kinds, not just Christian
Seems to me that theistic faith ( especially the Christian kind ) is the one doing the forcing out these days.
I'm not.
Faith is individual. In the universe of theistic faith, Christians are a minority.
-
I'm not.
I'm not accusing you of anything. But you stated that humanistic thought is forcing out theistic faith. Which is not true, certainly not here in America. No other country in the world has a museum which features humans and dinosaurs co-existing (http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/).
Faith is individual. In the universe of theistic faith, Christians are a minority.
Even if you're speaking simply in terms of sheer numbers (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html), that is not true. Christians are not a minority, especially here in America.
-
To be clear, I have respect for those who are able to see things in black/white that I can only see in gray. Sometimes I wish I was able to come down definitively on one side when I'm not, and I certainly am able to for a lot of things. But I also consider it a virtue to see that intelligent people can argue for both sides of an issue nearly equally well a lot of the time. And not only that, but that there might not be a right answer, at least not for every situation.
Mad props everyone for keeping this whole debate civil. Stuff of this nature has gotten out of hand before on this board it seems. These are touchy issues. In fact, one professor of mine, who teaches a lot of ethical theory classes, has banned any discussion of sex, religion or contemporary politics in class or papers because that sort of discussion tends to get too emotional, and when that happens, it's often the case that people can't do philosophy as well.
-
Even if you're speaking simply in terms of sheer numbers (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html), that is not true. Christians are not a minority, especially here in America.
ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm)states that 32% (and dropping) of the world is Christian while Islam and Hinduism alone account for 32% together and Islam is growing while Hinduism is stable. Add in Judaism and a few other assorted theistic faiths like Baha'i and Sikhism and it's a fair case to make that Christianity is indeed a worldwide minority and set to continue losing statistical ground to Islam and faiths practiced in growing nations particularly in Asia.
Like many things, it depends on who you ask - I think the important thing is that Christianity in general is not growing while, particularly, Islam is. And Islam is spreading into Europe rapidly as well.
-
ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm)states that 32% (and dropping) of the world is Christian while Islam and Hinduism alone account for 32% together and Islam is growing while Hinduism is stable. Add in Judaism and a few other assorted theistic faiths like Baha'i and Sikhism and it's a fair case to make that Christianity is indeed a worldwide minority and set to continue losing statistical ground to Islam and faiths practiced in growing nations particularly in Asia.
um, when i look at a pie chart, and one piece of pie is larger than any single other piece of the pie, i would NEVER even IMAGINE to label that largest piece of the pie a MINORITY.
you want to phrase it as "quite possibly going to be in the future someday maybe dependent on a lot of shit that noone really knows a minority maybe", fine.
---
also, shades of grey. great. ya, me too.
all other mitigating factors that i can conceive of point to the fact that i think the society i live in embracing a death culture is BAD.
-
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/isthereagod.jpg)
This made me laugh.
THE ANSWER MAY SUPRISE YOU!
I can't really think of any really suprising answer to that question. I mean, one you have "yes" and "no" down, both of which are relatively common choices, where do you go from there? Let me guess-
"Is there a God? MAYBE!"
-
... and God, and the Bible...
-
... and God, and the Bible...
Fake girl, you should be allowed to have your own imaginary baby.
-
This made me laugh.
THE ANSWER MAY SUPRISE YOU!
I can't really think of any really suprising answer to that question. I mean, one you have "yes" and "no" down, both of which are relatively common choices, where do you go from there? Let me guess-
"Is there a God? MAYBE!"
Oh, man, now I'm picturing some of the surprising answers.
Q: Is there a God?
A: That'd be the butt, Bob.
-
... and God, and the Bible...
And stuff!
Thank you, Mr.Show
-
Oh, man, now I'm picturing some of the surprising answers.
Q: Is there a God?
A: That'd be the butt, Bob.
Q: Is there a God?
A: This is a lighthouse. Your call.
-
Q: Is there a God?
A: SURPRISE! (everyone jumps out of the closet wearing party hats; confetti falls)
Q: Oh, you guys. You shouldn't have.
-
THE ANSWER MAY SUPRISE YOU!
I can't really think of any really suprising answer to that question. I mean, one you have "yes" and "no" down, both of which are relatively common choices, where do you go from there? Let me guess-
"Is there a God? MAYBE!"
No, there are several. And Xena was completely accurate. Well, up until the last season anyway.
-
ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm)states that 32% (and dropping) of the world is Christian while Islam and Hinduism alone account for 32% together and Islam is growing while Hinduism is stable. Add in Judaism and a few other assorted theistic faiths like Baha'i and Sikhism and it's a fair case to make that Christianity is indeed a worldwide minority and set to continue losing statistical ground to Islam and faiths practiced in growing nations particularly in Asia.
um, when i look at a pie chart, and one piece of pie is larger than any single other piece of the pie, i would NEVER even IMAGINE to label that largest piece of the pie a MINORITY.
you want to phrase it as "quite possibly going to be in the future someday maybe dependent on a lot of shit that noone really knows a minority maybe", fine.
---
also, shades of grey. great. ya, me too.
all other mitigating factors that i can conceive of point to the fact that i think the society i live in embracing a death culture is BAD.
I was looking at Christians vs the rest of the theistic world. Another point we can't address with the data is the how the data is collected - because a number of respondents in all the categories are place themselves there nominally but aren't actively practicing any religion. Self-identification is a nice start, but it's not a state of being.
-
I was looking at Christians vs the rest of the theistic world. Another point we can't address with the data is the how the data is collected - because a number of respondents in all the categories are place themselves there nominally but aren't actively practicing any religion. Self-identification is a nice start, but it's not a state of being.
...
so, uh, how bout them bears, eh?
anyways,
let's get back to our mutual agreement that this corpse show is unethical,
you from your position of faith, me from my position of, um, non faith.
-
You must have faith in <something> or you wouldn't have a place to make your ethical stand, though. Where do you perceive the root of your values is?
-
Question for AD and Side Show: Is there a way an exhibition like this could be done that you would be satisfied with? Say, if all the following conditions were met:
-- Only the bodies of people who had given their express written permission were used;
-- The bodies were displayed in an neutral, utterly non-provacative manner;
-- All proceed were donated to a suitable charity;
-- Educational/informative/instructional material accompanied each display.
Would that make a difference or are you inherently opposed to this practice?
Sorry, I've been away for a while, and when it comes to this thread, I went and set a fire and walked away, so now I'm responding one post at a time. For me, yes, if all of the above happened then I'd be okay with it, and would probably want to go again.
My problems are: centrally, that at least some of these bodies are those of people who did not give their personal consent, and this especially bothers me if some are the bodies of marginalized people who have their rights ignored through out their lives - it just seems like such a cruel joke to continue the abuse perminantly after these people die. My secondary problem with it is that this scientist takes on the image of being an artist - I find this deeply insulting both to the people he is presenting as art, and to myself as an artist.
-
Wait, I thought of one more question.
Would it be ok to provocatively display (for obscene profit) the body of someone who had tortured people for the SS during WWII, against their wishes and the wishes of their family? What if he had a barbed c*ck?
Or ate babies?
Yes, a baby eating Nazi with a barbed c*ck should definilty be posed in a very dirty way and a lot of money should be charged to see the sight. But only if said Nazi authorized it himself before he died.
I kid, I kid...
-
All of these exhibits that we have convenielty objectified into works of art or three dimensional diagrams are children, maybe parents, brothers, sisters. We are all related to each and everyone of them in some distant way. And we should understand that they deserve better than to be skinneed, peeled, posed, and gawked at.
I realize that I'm a minority voice here - and that my somewhat conservative views may not reflect the majority in all places. But humanity is slipping badly in terms of stewardship to this thing called life - whether you take Side Show Mel's point of view or my point of view it comes down to whether or not you are willing to sacrifice your own humanity on the altar of humanism.
Thanks AD - it's a little weird for a gal with such different political views that yours in most situations to be agreeing, but this is the point for me. I don't care how these bodies were altered, there is a deep deep well of human emotion tied to these now dead, now splayed and displayed human beings. While I'm pretty sure you'd oppose this side of things, if someone in my family came to me and said they wanted this to be done to their body, I'd have no problem with it, and probably view it as a celebartion of them that they could be dealt with in passing in exactly the way they wished. But knowing that even the creater of this exhibit doesn't deny the shady way in which these bodies is what makes it so inhumane to me. If you know that these bodies were not offered up willingly, then how can you walk through the doors an celebrate the exhibit as the presenters so openly invite you to do? It's a moral crime against the familes of these people, and, if like most people (but not like me), you believe in a soul, then isn't it a moral crime against the souls of these people?
I don't think it's nessisarily a left vs right issue to argue for ethics and morality. You can still be on either side of the abortion debate yet agree that poor women shouldn't be urged to have abortions so their embryonic cells can be used for science can't you? Being an athiest doesn't give me carte blanche to be an uncaring person. I think it's very important to look at our humanity. As a secular humanist, I feel that it's very imporant for me to still look at what I feel is right, what I feel is wrong - to stand up for what is important to me as a human being. If anything, I think that my life and the lives of the people around me are the most sacred core of life, especially since I belive the life we have is all we get. My life shouldn't be violated by having my mentally ill mother hacked to bits skinned and displayed for profit just because I lose track of her for a year or two.
-
I'm fascinated by the 50/50 split on the poll question.
I think the split on the poll represents the fact that, well, asking "Yes" or "No" on this question isn't quite asking enough. I was initially hesitant to vote because there was no "Yes, But With Reservations About This Instance" option, for reasons that I have already exposited about at great length to total board apathy. I suspect there are relatively few "yes/no, and DAMN THE TORPEDOES" votes in there and more "well, it depends."
Y'know I tried three times to provide a third option of "Whatever" but everytime it wouldn't let me post it, which was really annoying.
I meant for this to be a debate over whether it is ethical or not to use bodies where the consent of institution (hospital, psychiatic ward, prison) is obtained, but not nessisarily the consent of the individual or their familes. I kind of forgot that the way a body is handled has spiritual implications for many people, since it really doesn't for me.
-
I would love to be put on display in an exhibit such as this. The title of my particular display, "fuck*ng."
Damn fine idea - would this be a solo exhibit, or would there be one or a few more people?
-
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/isthereagod.jpg)
This made me laugh.
THE ANSWER MAY SUPRISE YOU!
I can't really think of any really suprising answer to that question. I mean, one you have "yes" and "no" down, both of which are relatively common choices, where do you go from there? Let me guess-
"Is there a God? MAYBE!"
Oh, Bozack - you please me!
-
I'm fascinated by the 50/50 split on the poll question.
I think the split on the poll represents the fact that, well, asking "Yes" or "No" on this question isn't quite asking enough. I was initially hesitant to vote because there was no "Yes, But With Reservations About This Instance" option, for reasons that I have already exposited about at great length to total board apathy. I suspect there are relatively few "yes/no, and DAMN THE TORPEDOES" votes in there and more "well, it depends."
Y'know I tried three times to provide a third option of "Whatever" but everytime it wouldn't let me post it, which was really annoying.
I meant for this to be a debate over whether it is ethical or not to use bodies where the consent of institution (hospital, psychiatic ward, prison) is obtained, but not nessisarily the consent of the individual or their familes. I kind of forgot that the way a body is handled has spiritual implications for many people, since it really doesn't for me.
Still this is why I love this board - I love that a cartoon about cats and alive stuff animals draws in such thoughtful people.
-
To tangent on something that Paul said two pages ago, I hate, hate, HATE the phrase 'faith in science'.
Let me explain.
I'm a (almost finished!) science student at the university of queensland. Like all undergraduate uni students I am full of vitriol and rabid idealism, but lacking interest in religion or politics (not strictly true: they are both fascinating subjects but not something I get particularly idealistic about) I am big on science, I would take the scientific method to bed and show it a night of passion such as it has never seen.
Anyway: science is not and should not and has never been about faith. It really bothers me that people seem to see science as a viable substitute for religion and are therefore treating it in the same way as they would treat religion (in no small part because scientists in general haven't been great at communicating with the general public). In my mind it is this sort of thinking that has led to stuff like 'What the Bleep do we know' and 'ID is too science' because people are taking scientific findings and theories out of context and shoe-horning it into their own philosophy without understanding that in science being sure the question you are asking is the right one is usually vastly more important than the answer you get.
I see it in the following way: Philosophy in general is a creation process, it's like working with clay, or painting, there was nothing there before so you create some sort of belief about the universe. Science starts with a big block of marble and chips away, working out (insanely slowly at times) which bits don't belong and throwing them away. There are borders between the two of course, but they should never be crossed. Science can't tell us about what is in the middle of the marble block until it chips out enough and philosophy can't define parts of the statue that have already been removed.
Sorry for the rant, it is just something I see a lot that bothers me since it is a misrepresentation of something I care about a lot (note 'care about', not 'believe in'). Of course I'm guessing now V who is a proper science type is going to smack me down for talking total crap.
Believe in the people doing science, believe that they are doing their jobs properly and thinking things out right so they draw the correct conclusions. Don't believe in science itself.
Ok, I'm done now.
-
I would love to be put on display in an exhibit such as this. The title of my particular display, "fuck*ng."
Damn fine idea - would this be a solo exhibit, or would there be one or a few more people?
Just you and me Mel.
~Paul
-
To tangent on something that Paul said two pages ago, I hate, hate, HATE the phrase 'faith in science'.
Let me explain.
I'm a (almost finished!) science student at the university of queensland. Like all undergraduate uni students I am full of vitriol and rabid idealism, but lacking interest in religion or politics (not strictly true: they are both fascinating subjects but not something I get particularly idealistic about) I am big on science, I would take the scientific method to bed and show it a night of passion such as it has never seen.
Anyway: science is not and should not and has never been about faith. It really bothers me that people seem to see science as a viable substitute for religion and are therefore treating it in the same way as they would treat religion (in no small part because scientists in general haven't been great at communicating with the general public). In my mind it is this sort of thinking that has led to stuff like 'What the Bleep do we know' and 'ID is too science' because people are taking scientific findings and theories out of context and shoe-horning it into their own philosophy without understanding that in science being sure the question you are asking is the right one is usually vastly more important than the answer you get.
I see it in the following way: Philosophy in general is a creation process, it's like working with clay, or painting, there was nothing there before so you create some sort of belief about the universe. Science starts with a big block of marble and chips away, working out (insanely slowly at times) which bits don't belong and throwing them away. There are borders between the two of course, but they should never be crossed. Science can't tell us about what is in the middle of the marble block until it chips out enough and philosophy can't define parts of the statue that have already been removed.
Sorry for the rant, it is just something I see a lot that bothers me since it is a misrepresentation of something I care about a lot (note 'care about', not 'believe in'). Of course I'm guessing now V who is a proper science type is going to smack me down for talking total crap.
Believe in the people doing science, believe that they are doing their jobs properly and thinking things out right so they draw the correct conclusions. Don't believe in science itself.
Ok, I'm done now.
No, I think I agree with you, actually; no smackdowns coming from this direction. One of the important things in science is to ask the correct questions and to know what you're asking. No matter how rigorous your logic is, if you ask something incorrectly focused or stupid it's just going to fail. A classic example is creation science/ID: the problem isn't so much the conclusion as it is the question. "Is something huge and ineffable and improvable responsible for the creation of all things?" is not a question one can answer with science, so treating it as a scientific question is fundamentally misguided.
(On the other hand, to go back into an argument I had at dinner tonight -- a lot of the questions that non-scientists think are stupid are actually just necessary parts of creating a basic foundation of knowledge in a field. I have a prof here who has spent his entire career studying two specific cells in the zebragiraffe brain, for instance; this is stultifyingly retarded-sounding and exceptionally difficult to explain, but in fact, working on those two cells in the zebragiraffe brain is yielding incredible results related to spinal cord regeneration. Weird questions are not necessarily stupid question.)
I too tire of the "science = religion" thing, because it usually demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how science functions and self-evaluates. What scientists have "faith" in is that their colleagues accurately report their data and use good experimental procedure, but they also demand proof of this, so it's not "faith" in the religious sense to any meaningful degree. One has "faith" in a theory only as an operating principle that matches the empirical observations you have made; you don't believe in it unless it matches all the observations, and if it stops matching or a better-fit theory comes along, you discard it. Scientists have "faith" in evolution because it works. If it didn't, it'd be gone.
I think the real problem here is that most people never go beyond the high-school or college-intro level of science, where you are taught scientific concepts as dogma. However, that approach doesn't hold even in the higher levels of undergraduate science education, let alone graduate school and the real research world. It's just the way you get people to accept first principles and get their footing; higher levels are significantly more analytical and demand a burden of proof that true religious faith does not.
-
Hey, Doc and V-Adore, just curious, do you have a stance on the realism/anti-realism debate in the philosophy of science? I've been studying that for a while now. I'm not a scientist at all, and so I like to hear what the real deals think about it.
If anyone isn't familiar with the debate (I certainly wasn't before a year ago): Realism is, roughly, that scientific theories or theoretical entities are true or approximately true (or real), while anti-realism denies this, usually stating that they are just useful tools, and could be true or false, but we don't know which.
Also, I think your characterization of philosophy is a bit off the mark, Doc. In a lot of philosophy classes, at least in the analytic tradiation, you're taught precise skills in constructing arguments and are forced to scrutinize them for soundness. Also, you inherit a long tradition with which you must work. You're right, it's not like science, or not exactly like science (some philosophers of mind do a lot of empirical research, but I think that's more a case of science and philosophy intersecting), but it seems that you equate philosophy with religion, and I'm not really sure why.
-
I accept the Bible as the revealed word of God, but personally, I think it reveals itself to different people in subtly different ways.
You sure said a mouthful there Dawg. It's interesting that you should say that because you were talking about original sin and I have a slightly different interpretation of the events.
in Genesis: there are two original sins there. Eve eats of the apple, sure. But worse yet, she offers it to Adam. At this point Adam has a choice and it's a doozy:
Eve or God?
The guy chose the girl (and ultimately, temptations of the world of every kind) over God. (and (1) men still do this today! and (2) This places a rightful amount of the BLAME for the fall of mankind back on Adam who deserves at least a portion of the blame women have been getting forever) This was heartbreaking for God who came looking for them and could not find them because they were hiding, naked and ashamed. God was angry
I don't blame Adam or Eve, I blame God. You see, Adam and Eve were doing just fine in Paradise. They were having fun, enjoying life and doing everything just exactly like God said to. Then along comes Satan. Oh boy, this guy is a snake. He's such a smooth operator. The dude is so slick he conned a third of the Angels in Heaven to rebel against God himself. And here we are in the garden and God left Adam and Eve alone with this fucker about. Those two kids never stood a chance. It was bad enough that God himself was tempting them. 'All this is yours, just don't eat of that tree. You know that one over there, the one with the most beautiful, most delicious fruit. Yeah that one, stay away from that shit.' So it's already on their mind. They are doing alright, but they just can't stop thinking about that forbidden fruit. So add Satan into the mix, 'hey it's alright, you can at least try it. The old man just wants you to stay away from this tree because he's throwing a party this weekend. He's saving the fruit for that, gonna make up some pies. So you see you'll be eating it on Saturday anyway so go ahead and give it a little taste now. It is delicious too, even better than it looks. Look, he ain't gonna miss it. We go way back, what a practical joker, he's always doing something like this. Forbidden fruit, pffft, c'mon, and you believed that shit...'
So yeah, God isn't there for us, we have to invent him. And he wasn't even there for Adam and Eve.
~Paul
-
Hey, Doc and V-Adore, just curious, do you have a stance on the realism/anti-realism debate in the philosophy of science? I've been studying that for a while now. I'm not a scientist at all, and so I like to hear what the real deals think about it.
If anyone isn't familiar with the debate (I certainly wasn't before a year ago): Realism is, roughly, that scientific theories or theoretical entities are true or approximately true (or real), while anti-realism denies this, usually stating that they are just useful tools, and could be true or false, but we don't know which.
I think that's a pretty strange distinction to draw, personally. My leanings tend towards "useful tools"; that is, that theories and the like are not valuable in and of themselves but are valuable in that they give us a framework for our knowledge and a skeleton on which to expand it. That said, false theories are intrinsically poor tools/frameworks, so, you know. I suppose you could call me an anti-realist in that I don't consider most theories to be valuable as entities.
-
*OMG* thread *BLOWMYMIND*
God is an invention of people. Animals in packs need alphas. People in groups don't work without either an alpha or a system. YHWH was a systematic alpha that worked until some genius kid realized that some older folk were taking advantage of the system - he figured out that system's problems and invented a new alpha: G*D. The systems that have evolved have each taken a single (or group of singular) teaching and warped it toward their own false prophets' goals, whether those goals be better or worse for people in the long term.
I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but speaking as a lifelong student of religion and the spirit, Christianity is a lesson in opportunism. No matter the sect, Christians are vulnerable to any who profess a belief in Jesus.
I'm not saying any other religion is different: are Muslims more or less likely to believe in a dfferent Imam? Are Jews more susceptible to this Rabbi than that? I don't know.
What I do know is that there are at least three sects of Judaism: Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox. I've heard of at least two sects of Islam, Sunni and Shia, and there are most probably more. I know personally of several sects of Christianity: Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Calvinist, Methodist, Lutheran, and more.
Who is any one of us to say which faith is right, true, and correct?
Dawg, I know this at least mirrors your argument of secular humanism's detriment to faith. Where, I ask, is the answer? Is it so personal that no person can aid another? Is it so general that a single faith is truth?
Not that I'm letting you off the hook. I expect -- or at least hope for -- an answer.
-
I never said a single faith is truth - I have great friends who are Muslim and other faiths, and I think their faith is true - because I believe there are many ways to worship God.
It's the motivation behind and the results of your faith that I believe are important, not the how. I hope God feels the same way.
Dennis Prager is way smarter than me (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2003/05/27/170057.html)
-
You must have faith in <something> or you wouldn't have a place to make your ethical stand, though. Where do you perceive the root of your values is?
there are differences between faith, belief, and hope.
i don't really have faith. never been able to.
-
I actually place those things on a contunuum - I think they're related, although hope is above and beyond all things in a way - I would think it would be difficult to internalize hope if you had no faith there was some kind of energy working toward whatever it is you hope for. And I think it's tough to have faith if your faith isn't faith in something you believe in.
I was just thinking about this the other day in terms of evangelism - I came up with a sort of hierarchy (the first two are parallel)
Antibelief
Non-belief unaware of the Message
Awareness of the Message
Understanding the Message
Belief in the Message
Faith in the promise of the Message
Evangelism about the Message
Mission to teach, live and propagate the Message
Ministry to provide continuous support to all of the above
Or something like that.
-
I actually place those things on a contunuum - I think they're related, although hope is above and beyond all things in a way - I would think it would be difficult to internalize hope if you had no faith there was some kind of energy working toward whatever it is you hope for. And I think it's tough to have faith if your faith isn't faith in something you believe in.
i believe i will see the sun tomorrow. while i am cognizant of the risks surrounding me that might stop me from seeing the sun tomorrow, i do not expect to, for instance, be killed in my sleep by my kitten.
i hope i will see the sun tomorrow. i look forward to it, i anticipate it, and i wish for it to be such.
i do not have faith that i will see the sun tomorrow. i do not implicitly feel as though my seeing the sun tomorrow is a, um, done deal.
-
I do.
That might be the difference between us.
-
I do.
That might be the difference between us.
cool. i am envious of other's faith, faiths, and Faith.
not _everybody's_, but most.
from what i know, i most certainly am envious and respective of yours.
-
a stance on the realism/anti-realism debate in the philosophy of science?
I'm not familiar with this myself but from your description I think I'd say anti-realism. As V already said theories by their very nature can be proven wrong, so saying they have some existance or worth of their own is kind of silly. The way I would represent it is that theories are our best understanding of the way or reason why something works the way it does, but just because the theory we have today explains most (or even all) of what we observe doesn't mean we won't come up with a new observation tomorrow that will need further explanation and therefore modification (or even abandonment) of said theory.
Reading over my post you are totally right, I did kind of go philosophy == religion. To clarify when I spoke about philosophy and science it probably would have been more correct to say that there are two sets of knowledge : one that comes from philosophy (which I am defining here as understanding about the universe or people primarily through thought experiments or similar, basically stuff you can't actually test, including religion) and one that comes from science (which I'm defining as stuff you can test).
My idea was that both are valuable but you shouldn't expect science to be able to tell you about philosophical matters which can't be tested or philosophy to convincingly contradict something that can be tested empirically.
That doesn't mean there isn't overlap, you mentioned philosophers doing emperical research, without knowing for certain what sort of things you mean I would guess that I could classify this as application of a scientific method in service to philosophy. Similarly many scientific endeavours involve things that are ethically questionable, we don't use science to make decisions of what is appropriate in this situation, we use ethics derived from philosophy.
This is why I don't think religion and science are incompatible, though I'm not religious myself (anymore, I still dig catholic mass on special events and have cultural guilt to spare), I think that if we can show that something works in a particular way that contradicts your religious code of choice then it is fair to say that that part of the religion was wrong. That doesn't invalidate the whole religion or even most of it, I think the fundamentals of religion are things that cannot or never will be proven, all it really does it toss out a lot of the dogma that is irrelevant to true belief which seems a beneficial effect to me.
Choop: I'm not going to go into whether I agree with you or not, since this thread has really stayed away from trying to challenge others beliefs so far, but you should get a copy of the Salmon of Doubt, a collection of Douglas Adam's writing published after he died and read 'Is there an Artificial God?'. Douglas agreed with you on where religion came from (note quite actually but close enough), but made some interesting points in that even if you consider religion to be based on incorrect beliefs it has created some social structures that have undeniable benefit. Not in all cases of course and to understand his point fully you'd have to read it but it is well worth. You can probably pick up the book in a bargain bin these days too.
You think this is bad, you should have seen me in the Doom movie when they said the last 10% of DNA contains the human soul.
I thought it would be a funny-bad movie, not a prison-rape-bad movie! May God have mercy on my DNA.
-
I've read The Salmon of Doubt - good read. In fact, there's only one by Adams I haven't read (the Kilimanjaro one). Though he likely wouldn't have admitted it, he was a Great Philosopher. I believe, like Adams, that organized religion has had some good effect and has helped many people in worldly matters, but I believe that it is bad for the spirituality of the individual. Jesus was probably an awesome dude, but so were Luther and John Paul II. This current Benedict, that Borgia pope, or Koresh? Not such awesome dudes; yet they still each headed a Church for a time.
Personally, I don't believe in a god. I believe, in fact, that there is no god; rather, that there is a spiritual connection between people, and that in place of any "Higher Being" is the interconnecting construct made of singular connections.
I also don't believe in Good or Evil. I believe in Knowledge, which is good, and Ignorance, which is not good. (Don't ask me to expound on this, as that post will enchant the entire readership into a coma.)
Of course, this is all still quite malleable, as like I said upthread I consider myself a *lifelong* student of religion and the spirit, and everything I learn effects me. I have hopes, and faiths, and beliefs, but no singular Hope, Faith, nor Belief.
-
Tonight I got hit on by a dude.
~Paul
-
Tonight I got hit on by a dude.
Got to be the 'stache. None can resist it.
-
I started drinking early "tonight" (1:45 PM) and this (really creepy) dude was hitting on my friend the entire time, until we left to hit up the next bar.
This was actually said:
Dude: "So, how big are you?"
Friend "Well, uh, um..."
Dude: "I mean, are you just a mouthful, or am I gonna choke?"
Apparently, this guy's a regular, and has commented before that my friend has perfect dick-sucking lips. My friend's not gay, but I think he enjoys the attention.
But the guy is soooo creepy.
-
Tonight I got hit on by a dude.
Were you wearing a lot of leather? Just what with the moustache if you added a leather vest and some classy chaps I could see you being YMCA material. Y'know, if you felt like it, the Dragonfire could even be part of the act.
I wonder what perfect dick sucking lips look like? How do you tell? That seems like something I'd want to know, just in case it was a life and death situation.
-
I wonder what perfect dick sucking lips look like? How do you tell? That seems like something I'd want to know, just in case it was a life and death situation.
Remeber back in like '97 when searching the web for "dsl" gave you way different results than it does today? Stupid Verizon.
-
I wonder what perfect dick sucking lips look like? How do you tell? That seems like something I'd want to know, just in case it was a life and death situation.
(http://untruenews.com/images/angelina_jolie_lips.jpg)
-
Those are not lips. That is a pu$$y hastily pasted onto a face.
-
(On the other hand, to go back into an argument I had at dinner tonight -- a lot of the questions that non-scientists think are stupid are actually just necessary parts of creating a basic foundation of knowledge in a field. I have a prof here who has spent his entire career studying two specific cells in the zebragiraffe brain, for instance; this is stultifyingly retarded-sounding and exceptionally difficult to explain, but in fact, working on those two cells in the zebragiraffe brain is yielding incredible results related to spinal cord regeneration. Weird questions are not necessarily stupid question.)
I'm going to throw in a fairly unrelated anecdote here, because it's going to end up with a picture of psychedelic monkey experimentation and so I figure it is justifiable offtopicness. My boyfriend is majoring in cognitive science, which as far as I understand, is some recently invented interdisciplinary thing that is like neuroscience + psychology + philosophy + computer programming, and one of his professors, apparently a world-famous cognitive science guy, doesn't make it to lectures often, because he is working on covering up monkeys' eyes and attatching videocameras to them and attatching the video cameras to the monkeys' brains. Thanks, science!
Anyways, yes, on the topic of how the questions that Science asks are frequently incomprensible to Arts types like myself, here is a diagram that SO sent me.
(http://www.awesomeblurry.com/images/monkey.JPG)
But, I mean, the things I learn about as a philosophy major/cultural studies minor must seem beyond useless to most other people in the world.
Oh, and as for the corpse-thingy, I'm seeing it in Toronto with boyfriend and family as a heartwarming pre-Christmas event.
-
That image is confusing me too since just looking at a brain with a regular video camera you aren't going to get funky patterns. At least I don't think so, I don't have a lot of physiology.
Just in case someone actually does know I want to get my guess in first as the colours representing the concentration of a particular chemical or isotope in the brain that correlates to brain activity. I believe PET scans look something like that but from memory those are done using isotopes and a big stinkin' 360 degrees detector around the head, not a video camera.
Damnit someone explain that image.
Does anyone else love how totally haggard yet serene the monkey is looking. Like he has a really hard job but he knows he is doing it for the greater good and so it fills him with peace. Either that or 'ahhh I love the alternating coloured stripe show'.
EDIT: I just noted the wavelength on the illumination light, I guess they are looking for a compound that reflects light at this wavelength and using intensity of reflection as a measure of concentration?
-
Those are not lips. That is a pu$$y hastily pasted onto a face.
If I ever see a pu$$y like that I'm running.. I postulate it's some sort of fleshy bat.
-
Doc-- the expression on the monkey's face makes him the animal jesus. he is not averse to suffering for the good of... the... the videocamera-brain-cool-colors machine.
They will be selling this next holiday season. A monkey with a video camera and a tv, and the TV shows calming patterns-- just like in the monkey's brain!
people will watch it to fall asleep to.
Or, try to learn how to poke the monkey so that the patterns change.
-
It would be cooler if the monkey were looking at patterns from it's own brain and it created some kind of feedback loop of pure terror. Or serene acceptance, but terror would be more entertaining and could probably get it a Fox special and when you're a lab monkey it's all about knowing how to sell yourself.
Also Misterque is right on the fleshy bat hypothesis methinks. It has nested on her face and sucks the blood of her co-stars.
-
That image is confusing me too since just looking at a brain with a regular video camera you aren't going to get funky patterns. At least I don't think so, I don't have a lot of physiology.
Just in case someone actually does know I want to get my guess in first as the colours representing the concentration of a particular chemical or isotope in the brain that correlates to brain activity. I believe PET scans look something like that but from memory those are done using isotopes and a big stinkin' 360 degrees detector around the head, not a video camera.
Damnit someone explain that image.
I don't work in this field specifically, but I interpret it this way: when a brain region is active, the concentration of oxygen in the blood changes, which results in a change in the wavelength of light reflected. The camera then captures the wavelengths of light reflected on the brain, and based on the wavelengths, you can determine which parts of the brain are active.
Whew.
Does anyone else love how totally haggard yet serene the monkey is looking. Like he has a really hard job but he knows he is doing it for the greater good and so it fills him with peace. Either that or 'ahhh I love the alternating coloured stripe show'.
If my experience is any indication, this is exactly the base state of every neuroscience researcher ever. It's hard, but it's for science.
-
An intelligent and well reasoned explanation.
Well, when you put it like that.
If my experience is any indication, this is exactly the base state of every neuroscience researcher ever. It's hard, but it's for science.
So the monkey is the researcher? Rock on.
-
If my experience is any indication, this is exactly the base state of every neuroscience researcher ever. It's hard, but it's for science.
So the monkey is the researcher? Rock on.
He's a co-researcher. Here in neuroscience, we value every contribution!
(I think I'm joking, but on the other hand, I did credit the rats on my research poster this summer.)
-
Yes, the monkey is awesome, especially the Mona Lisa smile on his little monkey face.
I would like it better if the image was of a nice ripe banana, then I could simplify my understanding of the monkey smile, because, right now, the monkey smile is complex and sad.
-
Yes, the monkey is awesome, especially the Mona Lisa smile on his little monkey face.
I would like it better if the image was of a nice ripe banana, then I could simplify my understanding of the monkey smile, because, right now, the monkey smile is complex and sad.
I hate to go all Researcher on this, but: the reason the image is something abstract is so that only the appropriate visual centers are stimulated, not anything else. If it was a banana or a lady monkey or something like that, you'd get data contamination, because in addition to the visual centers, the monkey's "mmmmmm, banana" centers would also light up and all hell would break loose.
(That was the last scientific explanation of a scientific concept ever. I apologize.)
-
I associate that smile with someone other than Mona Lisa. (http://www.hippiemuseum.org/ghandi.jpg)
C'mon, look how serene that monkey is. That is one monkey that is committed to the principles of non-violence.
I would like to say that I am not comparing Ghandi to a monkey, but comparing a monkey to Ghandi. I am not disrespecting Ghandi; I think Ghandi was awesome.[/url]
-
I associate that smile with someone other than Mona Lisa. (http://www.hippiemuseum.org/ghandi.jpg)
C'mon, look how serene that monkey is. That is one monkey that is committed to the principles of non-violence.
I would like to say that I am not comparing Ghandi to a monkey, but comparing a monkey to Ghandi. I am not disrespecting Ghandi; I think Ghandi was awesome.[/url]
Today I am wearing my Ghandi shirt, which indeed has him smiling contentedly. The one thing I hate is when I accidentally spill the food I am eating on Ghandi's face. He just keeps on smiling benevolently, and I feel bad, because it's usually something greasy and un-
Ghandi like, and it's like a subtle reminder that I am a slob, especially compaired to Ghandi.
-
To make up for it you have to spill some eggplant on the shirt. Balances out the Mojo.