Entry 267, on 2005-12-20 at 15:45:54 (Rating 5, Religion)
Today a couple were convicted and discharged as a result of an incident in 2003 where they failed to provide medical care for their sick baby boy. He died because of the lack of medical help because he had an undiagnosed kidney condition. Why did they not seek help? Because they are Christians and believed God would heal him instead.
I certainly don't think they should be found guilty of murder, or anything of that sort, and they certainly suffered as a result of their neglect. But I do think they need some help to cope with possible similar situations in future. And there needs to be a signal that religious belief is not an excuse for acting in a unreasonable way.
I think they need psychiatric help in coming to terms with the fact that their beliefs are not real. We currently let religious people away with away too much. If I had failed to help my children because I believed some invisible guy who lives in the clouds and talks to be when no one else can hear was going to help them instead, I would definitely require psychiatric help. So what is the difference? As I often say: religion is OK, as long as you don't take it too seriously. Clearly, these people took it away too seriously. They need help to come to terms with reality.
What I am saying is not very politically correct, and I'm sure a lot of people would disagree. After all, shouldn't we give people freedom to believe what they want? Yes we should, except when it affects others, even members of their own family. I don't think people do have the right to believe and act on any arbitrary belief system when others are involved, especially innocent children who have never had the option of deciding if they want to follow the belief system of their parents.
So in this case the defendants should have been discharged, but they should have been required to attend counselling sessions to help them make appropriate decision in future, just like any other delusional people involved in a very sad and regrettable incident like this.
I'm a Christian, but I do think that this example is a bit too extreme. Reminds me of the joke about the pastor who was on his church's roof during a flood, and twice a boat came and offered to rescue him, but he declined and said that he had faith that God would deliver him. Later, when the waters rose, a helicopter flew down and tried to pick him up, but he stayed on his church roof and ended up drowning. When he got to heaven, he asked, "Lord, why did you not save me?" And God replied, "What's the matter with you, man? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!" So, I choose to think that when these two parents ask God why he did not save their child, he'll respond that that was most likely why he gave them medicine.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2007-08-14 at 09:52:53:
So according to your beliefs it is impossible to tell the difference between a natural intervention of some sort and a supernatural or divine intervention. If god is only going to help in mundane ways, such as sending boats or helicopters, then Christians should not be encouraged to think that more impressive things might happen. Maybe its because of all the spectacular miracles in the Bible which just don't seem to happen any more. I wonder why.
Comment 3 by WF99 on 2007-08-14 at 10:27:31:
I believe that everything is supernatural and the work of God.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2007-08-14 at 10:40:56:
Why would you believe that when there is a much more straightforward explanation for what we see happening around us? The laws of physics and other observations of the natural world provide a consistent, predictive framework which actually works. We can use science to predict how the Universe works and we can use it to create useful technology. What benefit does belief in a supernatural explanation of the world give us?
Comment 5 by WF99 on 2007-08-15 at 06:49:46:
Assume, for the sake of argument, that a supernatural being did create everything. Then, logically, everything that would result from his creation would be supernatural by nature. I'm just saying that that's where the couple in this example got it wrong.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2007-08-15 at 08:42:59:
You seem to be saying that everything is supernatural. I suppose that depends on your definition of the word. Supernatural (adjective) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Doesn't really sound like the "real" world to me.
Comment 7 by WF99 on 2007-08-15 at 11:44:20:
Okay, whatever word you want to use for it. My point was that God had already provided a means for their son to get well. I'm trying to clear up any possible misconceptiopn that Christianity says that you shouldn't provide medical attention for someone who's sick. I agree with you that the couple should not have taken that course of action. The path that we both took to get to that conclusion is the difference.
Comment 8 by OJB on 2007-08-15 at 16:44:15:
Well many Christians are encouraged, through their church, to rely on supernatural solutions to various problems (including medical conditions) instead of relying on modern medicine (which is the product of science, including stuff they don't agree with, like evolution). Are you sure there is no way to interpret parts of the Bible as meaning you should rely on supernatural intervention?
Comment 9 by WF99 on 2007-08-16 at 09:23:37:
It could be interpreted that way, I guess. I would just classify modern medicine (and the science from which it resulted) as supernatural intervention from God. God doesn't have to send down a mystical shower of glowing rain to supernaturally do something. At any rate, we're having a debate over something with agree on now. :-p
Comment 10 by OJB on 2007-08-16 at 09:53:47:
Well that's a difficult opinion to debate against. No matter what I say you could respond by saying it was god working through whatever mechanism I mentioned. Of course, I could just as easily say it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn who was responsible with exactly the same amount of supporting evidence (none). This is a modern interpretation of religion which I find perhaps even more annoying than the traditional one!
Comment 11 by WF99 on 2007-08-16 at 11:54:05:
What exactly are we debating on? Whether or not the couple did the right thing? We both have common ground there. I don't see why you're trying to argue with me on this.
Comment 12 by OJB on 2007-08-16 at 12:14:55:
No, I think we both agree they did the wrong thing. Of course, there might be those who say that the parents kept their faith and the children have gone to a happier place. But I'm not really arguing with you on that.
Can you see how the argument that medicine and other benefits of science being hidden gifts from god is a weak argument? Science has advanced mainly through abandoning faith and following the evidence. It was mainly during the enlightenment where religion was rejected that science really advanced. Claiming that we can thank god for the outcomes of that is a bit hypocritical.
Also we can substitute the Christian God in that argument with anything: Hindu gods, Buddhist meditation, aliens from space, fairies at the bottom of my garden, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves). Its a non-argument really.
Comment 13 by WF99 on 2007-08-17 at 08:53:59:
Everything is from God, according to Christianity. That includes science. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. When I claimed that science came from God, I wasn't arguing that to you (it wouldn't apply to you at all); I was arguing that to the couple.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE