Religion and Science

It’s a good idea to know a bit of background information about the universe and its origins.

ABOUT SIZE

We are a rather insignificant blue/green planet, part of the solar system.

It is usually thought that the universe is 13.9 billion years old and that our sun is around 5 billion years old

The size of our universe is determined by our ability to observe it. We cannot for example observe anything that is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light, because the light from it would never reach us.

Method

It is quite a good idea to trace each part of the topic through

The Big Bang

• Trace the early findings of scientists like Newton, Lemaitre and Hubble.
• have a rough idea about the concept itself (You’re not expected to be a scientist).
• Follow up ideas of Stephen Hawking, Fred Hoyle and Dr John Polkinghorne.
• Christians and non Christians seem to accept these findings.

Creatonism

• To a certain extent the work you did on God the Creator should be useful here.
• Creationists though accept the Bible as literally correct the inerrant word of God.
• These people are mainly conservative evangelical Christians.
• They feel that science challenges the relevance of God.
• Many of their objections are fuelled by their dislike of the findings of Charles Darwin.

Evolution

• Make sure you know and understand the main findings of Charles Darwin.
• His work on natural selection brought him into direct conflict with the teaching of the church in his day.
• It pointed out that mankind was only one species among many instead of being the pinnacle of God’s creation.
• See also on this point your work on the Design Argument – Darwin’s objections.
• Be aware of the ideas and conclusions of Richard Dawkins.

Intelligent Design

• This is a bit like the Design Argument restated with bits of the Cosmological Argument thrown in for good measure!
• However its origins are not religious and it is opposed to Charles Darwin’s findings.
• It is cosmological insofar as it begins with the world and looks to an ultimate cause, which is not part of this world.
• It sees regularity and purpose in the intricate parts of life and seeks an intelligent designer.
• Developments of this point of view may be seen in the work of Michael Behe and Stephen Jay Gould.

Conclusion

• You need to be able to evaluate the various positions.
• Evangelical Christians with their Bible based viewpoint – some maintaining a “God of the Gaps theory”, other using pseudo scientific ideas based on the Fossil record.
• Roman Catholics who maintain a propositional view of the Bible. It is the true word of God, but needs to be understood and interpreted using human reason (do you detect Thomas Aquinas in there somewhere?)
• Other Christians who take a non-propositional view of the Bible and think the Bible is the work of men who wrote down how God interacted with human beings. They have no problem with accepting the scientific findings of physicists (Big Bang) and Biologists (evolution) and find in them no challenge to their faith.
• Athiests who want to follow the scientific route and believe that science in all its forms has contributed to the idea of the death of God.

Applied Ethics Genetic Engineering

GM Crops

Easy to overlook this one.

What you should know

1. What are GM crops? – crops gown from seed whose genetic make-up has been changed to promote better growth, greater yield and resistance to pests.
2. Originally devised as a solution to the world’s food problems. It would enable crops to be grown in areas of drought etc.
3. Industry and especially some American multinational companies have done rather well out of this. They produce the seed and new supplies have to come from the original source.

Advantages

1. Harvests can be predicted and yields ensured.
2. Bigger and better yields.
3. Unblemished crops – especially important in the case of fruit, potatoes, carrots etc.
4. Even the taste can be controlled.

Disadvantages

1. The long-term effects on the soil and the environment, especially wildlife are unknown.
2. Questions have arisen about allergies and long-term impact on humans.
3. Poverty and malnutrition is certainly made worse by poor food, but other factors such as political stability, social awareness and lack of education also contribute to mass starvation.
4. There is a natural reserve when it comes to “messing about” with the food that we eat. The term “Frankenfood” was adopted by the British Press about GM crops and protesters attacked field trials in the UK.

Genetic Engineering in animals and humans

Remember Dolly the sheep
Dolly was the first and famous example of a cloned animal, created in Edinburgh in 1997 .

Human stem cell research
Embryonic stem cells– as a result of IVF, large numbers of spare stem cells may be obtained from a woman and these may be used in stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells must be used quickly – up to 11 days – then they must be discarded. They are useful because they have the potential to grow into any body cell.

Adult stems cells– these may be removed from an adult without any complications at any time. These stem cells can only be grown into the organ from which they were extracted. Be aware that new research into this area has revealed that scientists have been successful in rewinding adult stem cells taken from certain areas of the body and converting them back into pluripotent embryonic-like stem cells. If this line of experiment continues to be followed then all the ethical reservations about the use of stem cells will be avoided.

Genetic manipulation

Somatic cell gene therapy
Genes of a particular organism are modified, but the modification is not passed on to the next generation.
Diabetes sufferers can be given some gene treatment to control the production of insulin and cure the disease.

Germ line therapy
Germ-line cells are reproductive cells. These can be altered to combat and eradicate diseases. The alterations are transferred to the next generation and will consequently affect the human gene pool.
Haemophilia is a hereditary disease that could be eliminated altering the genes that carry the disease, but there is much discussion about which ailments should be tackled.

Enhancement
This involves “enhancing” or “improving” an individual by manipulating his or her genes. But what counts as an improvement? The issue of designer babies is still mainly theoretical. In theory though parents could arrive with a wish list of talents they might want for their expected child.

Eugenic-genetic engineering
This is the improvement of a whole nation or race through genetic engineering. The associations with this idea are unhappy ones. Two examples – there were the aims of Hitler and his personality developers! and other nations have sought to practise compulsory sterilisation of the mentally unfit.

Cloning

This exists in two forms therapeutic and reproductive .

Therapeutic cloning

This is cloning which is intended to produce a human embryo that can be used to generate stem cells for medical purposes. Such embryos are not allowed to develop beyond 14 days , the point at which the primitive streak (and thus the ability to register pain) would be formed.

Reproductive cloning

The process is the same as for therapeutic cloning but the cloned embryo is placed in the womb and allowed to develop as a normal foetus and eventually a person. There are two reasons for permitting this:

1. The cloned person could then provide whole organs, tissues and blood in the case of cancer
2. It could be a replacement for a person killed prematurely or as alternative to childlessness.

This kind of cloning is currently illegal in the UK.

RELIGIOUS ETHICS

The sanctity of life is a key theme and this means that human life has intrinsic value.

Roman Catholic Ethics

Using an embryo for the sake of another human is wrong as an embryo has intrinsic worth. But there is no similar objection to using adult stem cells. Natural Law is positive about advances in medical science that improve human life, but never at the expense of human life.

On the other hand Roman Catholicism claims that certain acts are intrinsically evil.

There are those who suffer evil eg blindness of mental handicap. Correcting these impairments is therefore a good thing, but the use of genetic engineering to achieve this is ruled out. The Catholic Church rules out embryo research as being unnatural and destroying life

Other Churches

Situation Ethics based on agape still holds great sway.

Joseph Fletchersaw a human being as a “maker, selector and designer” who acts morally when in control of genetics. He was not opposed to IVF and it could be said that embryo research is the most loving thing to do with spare embryos, when the alternative is simply throwing them away.

However creating embryos for research is more difficult to justify.

NATURAL LAW

Basic principle. Everything is created for a purpose and when this is examined by human reason, a person should be able to judge how to act in order to find ultimate happiness.

Natural Law has the primary precept of self-preservation and from this the secondary precept is that there should be no embryo research because it destroys life.

Some research though is acceptable because it preserves life by curing diseases.

UTILITARIANSM

Basic principle maximizing of happiness and the minimising of pain

Utilitarians would not accept that life has absolute value and this should be upheld at all costs. Instead Utilitarianism attempts to assess each individual situation on its own merits to promote the greatest happiness. But Utilitarianism only works if it is possible to access the results of genetic engineering and embryo research and decide whether or not most people have found benefit. From a utilitarian point of view, it is better to save many lives in the future by embryo research at the cost of a few embryos now. Bentham’s Hedonic calculus can only be applied to those who suffer. An embryo would not be classed as a living being and cannot feel pain so they are not measured in the equation.

KANT’S ETHICS

Basic principle – the categorical imperatives.

To apply the categorical imperative to genetic engineering and embryo research would be difficult. There seems to be no universal principle application.

Similarly the second precept about not using people as a means would only apply if it could be proved that the embryo is a person. Kant was not clear on the moral status of embryos.

However Kant’s idea or respect for persons and the requirement for human rights to be respected, that informed consent should be obtained would mean that genetic medicine, testing screening and adult stem cell research would be seen as truly humanising.

Euthanasia – defining the terms

Euthanasia – translated “a good death”

Definition “Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a person whose life is not thought to be worth living. It is done for the patient’s own sake.

Make sure you are familiar with the following terms

Voluntary Euthanasia– when a terminally ill person requests death

Involuntary Euthanasia – when a person is killed or allowed to die to save them from more pain, even if they don’t request it.

Non-Voluntary Euthanasia – when a person is unable to make the request for himself or herself.

Active Euthanasia– to do – illegal in the UK. The killing of a person. In the UK the 1961 Suicide Act permits suicide but forbids it being assisted.

Passive Euthanasia – not to do- legal in the UK. Allow a person to die e.g. not feeding.

Where the Christians stand on this issue? Christians emphasise that life is sacred and a gift from God. Remember your Old Testament ideas from the creation narratives of Genesis, Psalm 139:13-16, Job 1:20-21 and in the New Testament Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:16-18. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians think that to end life prematurely is a mortal sin. (See Natural Law.) Anglicans pay lip-service to Natural Law but in reality tend more towards Situation Ethics. Non-Conformist Christians also defend the sanctity of life but in practical terms defend active euthanasia, arguing that in attempting to keep a patient alive rather than letting nature run its course, is to interfere with the will of God.

In some ways that is an oversimplification because there are many refinements of those opinions found in all branches of Christianity.

Natural Law This follows the ideas of Aquinas. Fundamental to this approach is the concept that life is sacred and should be preserved. To take a human life or to terminate a human life is against a fundamental principle of Natural Law. Remember thought the doctrine of double effect – the doctor’s duty is to cure or alleviate pain. If in doing so the high dose of the pain killer ends the patient’s life then no wrong has been committed. The doctor has been performing a good act but it has a secondary consequence. In practice a doctor may use ordinary means to keep a patient alive, but not extraordinary means. The problem these days for followers of Natural Law is the definition of ordinary and extraordinary.

Situation Ethics Situationists will ask the question “What is the most loving thing to do in this situation”. They may argue that in some circumstances to help someone to die is a more loving solution than to keep them alive and in great pain. This invokes the concept of Christian compassion but runs foul of the scriptures which talk about the will of God taking a backseat to the precepts of men! Small wonder that the Roman Catholic church condemned the philosophy from the outset. Even so Situation Ethics can appeal to the anti-nomian attitude of Jesus who spoke out against the law. Many feel it is a Christian common sense solution.

Kant Kant did not write about euthanasia, but he regarded suicide as wrong. Have a look at the first and second formulations of the categorical imperative. The willing that this should become a universal rule? Suicide is treating oneself as a means and not as an in one’s self.

Utilitarianism As always the consequentialist approach is a complex appoach and you must make sure that you examine all parties involved. The solution will of course consider the needs of the patient, but possibly the needs of others, friends, family and the hospital authorities. Make sure you look at the problem from all sides.

Bentham’s approach. Quantitative Utilitarianism may well agree to euthanasia in a particular instance. Consequentialist in its appraoch and it looks at all the consequences of (i) keeping a patient alive and (ii) allowing his or her life to be ended. You must not simply look for happiness here – and there isn’t a great deal of that – but the avoidance of pain. The Hedonic Calculus looks at the maximising of happiness and the avoidance of pain. It is the second part that might allow euthanasia to happen.

Mill – higher and lower pleasures don’t at first seem to yield a solution, but Mill would probably argue that the right to die with dignity and for an individual to retain a measure of autonomy over his own life and death, might be regarded as a higher pleasure.

Utilitarianism does not provide a one sided answer. Some utilitarian principles are in favour of euthanasia, while others would count against it. That is why this is a favourite choice for examiners. If you know your stuff there is plenty for you to get your teeth into.

Utilitarian pro euthanasia arguments

1. If the patient is in pain then the Hedonic Calculus might find there is no pleasure to balance against the pain. As might seem likely the patient’s condition deteriorates, then there will be more pain. In this case qualitative euthanasia might be justified.
2. If equipment used in a hospital to keep a patient alive could be used elsewhere to save lives, the hospital authorities may wish to rationalise use of their equipment. Similar arguments may surface over costs and hospital budgets.
3. Mill would argue that the right to die with dignity is a higher ideal if not actually a higher pleasure.
4. If the health and well-being of next of kin to the terminally ill person is being compromised eg those who visit a patient in pvs – see notes on Tony Bland.

Utilitarianism and arguments against euthanasia

1. When a patient is unable to communicate with family or medical staff, many utilitarians support anti-euthanasia legislation which safeguards human rights.
2. There is a fear that vulnerable elderly people might be co-erced into asking for euthanasia by family pressure.
3. Utilitarianism looks closely at the consequences of any decision. However there is a possibility that the diagnosis of a doctor could be wrong. A wrong decision could cause maximum pain and no happiness for the family.
4. There is a sense in which even utilitarians accept that one can only push these principles so far. Suppose one allowed euthanasia on demand. That might lead to an increase in calls for involuntary euthanasia of the terminally ill, the chronically sick, social outcasts, homosexuals, gypsies – is this starting to ring any bells?

Archive on Assisted Suicide Dr Anne Turner

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Dr Anne Turner ends her own life

Dr Anne Turner aged 66 had been suffering from an incurable terminal brain disease called “progressive supranuclear palsy” (PSP). She was a widow with three grown up children. Some years ago she watched her husband Jack die from a degenerative illness and was determined that she would not suffer the same fate. She decided therefore to end her life in her own time. “Everyone” she said “has the right to die with dignity.” Sadly for her the government, most doctors and leading churchmen in the UK do not agree and “Assisted Suicide” is illegal. Dr Turner began discussions with an organization called Dignitas. In Switzerland assisted suicide is not illegal. Last Wednesday Dr Turner and her family made her final journey to Zurich. In Zurich she was joined by a representative from Dignitas. The party went to an apartment where Dr Turner, still surrounded by her family, received a lethal dose of barbiturates. Within five minutes she was asleep and a few moments later she died. On her final journey to Zurich Dr Turner was accompanied by members of the press who had been invited. She wished to publicize the plight of suffers of PSP and she hoped to influence those who have the power to alter the law on euthanasia. Dignitas is an organization founded by a Swiss lawyer, Ludwig Minelli in 1998. Its aim is to help people with chronic terminal illnesses to die a quick and painless death.

British Press Links News Telegraph

Guardian Unlimited

The Independent

Archive on Assisted Suicide Daniel James

Sunday October 26th 2008

A rugby injury in March 2007 left a young man, Daniel James, paralysed for life. The student was left paralysed from the chest down after his spine was dislocated when a scrum collapsed during training with Nuneaton Rugby Club. Despite several operations and a period of convalescence at a private health clinic, Daniel’s condition failed to improve. He made several attempt to end his own life, but these failed. In accordance with his wishes he was taken by his parents to the Dignitas Clinic in Zurich, Switzerland, where his life was ended. Daniel had been an enthusiastic rugby player. He had played for England Schoolboys and was not able to adapt to what he described as “a second-class existence”. This incident seems to be unprecedented. It is the first time that a person from the UK has travelled to the Dignitas Clinic with a condition that was not essentially terminal.

News report of Daniel James’ death  Telegraph

Guardian Mary Warnock

BBC BBC report on the Police enquiry.

Archive on Assisted Suicide Craig Ewart (2008)

Wednesday December 17th 2008

The case of Craig Ewert has pushed the debate about Assisted Suicide to new levels. He allowed his visit to the Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland, where he was helped to end his life, to be filmed. The film was shown on Sky Television on Wednesday 10th December 2008. Television watchdogs expressed concern that the programme, Right to Die, shown on Sky Real Lives, would promote euthanasia. Mr Ewert, who suffered from motor neurone disease (MND), was filmed as he passed away, comforted by Mary, his wife of 37 years, at the Dignitas clinic in Zurich in September 2006. The screening of the documentary caused a great deal of controversy among the usual groups but on this occasion repercussions were felt even in the House of Commons. At Prime Minister’s Question Time Gordon Brown made clear his own opposition to assisted suicide, saying: “I believe that it is necessary to ensure that there is never a case in this country where a sick or elderly person feels under pressure to agree to an assisted death or somehow feels it is the expected thing to do. That is why I have always opposed legislation for assisted deaths.’”

Information about the programme Telegraph

Ewert’s wife explains his hopes about the film. Telegraph

Comment on the programme Telegraph

Legacy Margo MacDonald a Scottish MP on the “right to die”. Telegraph.