Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
The Godless Delusion
- Stephen C Due (11 December 2007)
-
Haiku Curfew
- Hugh Mann (12 December 2007)
-
Is the reciprocal of pain bonding?
- John P Heptonstall (13 December 2007)
|
|
|||
|
Stephen C Due, Medical Librarian Geelong Hospital, PO Box 281 Geelong VIC 3220 AUSTRALIA
Send response to journal:
|
Your columnist Theodore Dalrymple might be a clever doctor, but judging by his piece in the BMJ of 24 November 2007 he is weak on logic, ethics, theology and biblical scholarship. Nobody except the ignorant now support the utilitarian ethics of John Stuart Mill. His notorious calculus of happiness can hardly be described as wholesome. Logically its foundation is the arbitrary and rather sad assumption that happiness alone is the proper end of all human action. The argument proposed by James Young Simpson - that God would not have made chloroform available had he not intended man to use it to relieve the pain of childbirth - is question-begging and cannot be sustained in logic. You might as well argue that God made gunpowder available intending man to use it to kill people. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. As for the argument about Hebrew philology, applied to Genesis 3:16, one must only suppose that Simpson knew more than the translators who prepared those modern English versions of the Bible - the New American Standard, the NIV, the New King James and so on - which use the word ‘pain’ in relation to childbirth in that verse. The fallacy of the Simpson argument is reinforced by the fact that the Bible correctly states that woman in her natural state will give birth in pain – precisely the precondition supposed by those arguing for pain relief in childbirth. What the implications might be of the biblical statement that God has brought this situation about is another matter. Presumably Dalrymple is an atheist. He sneers at God and ridicules what he takes to be the religious position. He then in time-honored fashion introduces what he thinks is a clever piece of biblical scholarship to show that the stupid people who actually believe the Bible have got it wrong anyway. The only trouble is that he himself has got it wrong. He is wrong in every respect. His logic is hopeless. He fails to distance himself in ethics from the heartless utilitarian system of J. S. Mill. He fails to state openly his position on religion and the Bible. He has nothing positive to offer regarding the substantial issues his article has raised. And what anyway is the point of the article? To celebrate what he erroneously calls the ‘bravura performance’ of his hero James Young Simpson? But then he admits the whole performance is only to knock down a straw man. It seems to me it would be better for Dalrymple to read the Bible, which at least is worth reading, and to celebrate its truly astonishing contribution to the development of our society, our culture, our ethical outlook and our spiritual understanding. He could begin with the following question from Jesus to those who were unsure about the testimony of John the Baptist: “What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind?” A straw man. A reed swayed by the wind. Nothing substantial. Nothing of interest. But John the Baptist was another matter. He had something to say. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hugh Mann, Physician Eagle Rock, MO 65641 USA
Send response to journal:
|
Time is God's patience. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Perhaps the pain God 'intended' for childbirth provides a more effective bonding between mother and child - the reciprocal arrangement between endogenous opiate production and oxytocin output providing a clue to God's intention? Man's (and women's understandable) desire to ease the pain of childbirth interferes with natural bonding; does taking pain out of lifes experience take the experience out of life? Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||