GeorgeW

For what it is worth, I think we all have an intuitive sense that a zygote or fetus is special and the closer it gets to birth, the more special it becomes. I don't think anyone views a fertilized human egg, at any stage of development, as morally equivalent to an appendix, a toe nail or other body part which can be removed. At what point it should get legal protection is a difficult question about which reasonable people can differ. The issue is which point-of-view should be imposed on everyone else. George

There is an interesting article in Wikipedia about what early Christians thought about abortion here: http://en.wikipedia....ly_Christianity In any event, I don't think any early source would be controlling today, if for no other reason, changes in medicine and science. George

Nor do I. But, none of the arguments against same-sex marriage are rational. They are emotional reactions and should be understood as such. George

Of course the relative risk to each would be a factor but, in all cases, I think the mother's life should have priority. George

Joseph, I wasn't clear on the term "living fetus." Is a just fertilized egg a "living fetus?" George

I suspect this is another flip-flop designed to appeal to urban women in Ohio. He was for it before he was against it. George

I think you are defining your personal 'moral' line. Where do you think the 'legal' line should be drawn above which it would be murder? My personal moral line is viability and maybe my preferred legal line as well. The problem is that some of these lines are fuzzy and changing (with medical technology). So, drawing a clear legal line between conception and birth can problematic from an enforcement point of view. George

Exodus 21:22-25 addresses a miscarriage rather than abortion per se. Here, if a miscarriage is unlawfully caused, the remedy is compensation to the parents. This seems to view the fetus more like property (such slaves, animals, etc.) than a protected life. I don't object to people who are pro-life. There is no scientific answer, or consensus in our society, to the question of when life begins and they are entitled to their view. However, this view, IMO, should not be imposed on others who are also entitled to their view (within limits). I think most Americans agree that once the fetus is born, it should be a protected life. So, that is where I think the legal line should be drawn. George

Anonymous Truth-Seeker, First, welcome to the forum. For your information, Bishop Spong does not participate in this forum. I don't know, but rather doubt, that he reads any of the posts. We ask new members to introduce themselves in a thread so titled. We would be interested in learning more about your background and how you came to this place. George

Dennis, Thanks for the clarification. I don't think anything you have said would not be 'progressive.' I would comment that perhaps an alternative word to 'evangelical' might be useful since as you say, it has been "co-opted." The meanings of words do change over time (example: gay), so misunderstanding of older definitions can become more prevalent as the newer meanings become more established. (FWIW, I think Corbett is being descriptive, not prescriptive.) George

Clien, First I would suggest being tolerant of the each other's theology. I don't think religion should be a one-size-fits-all proposition. Each of us has different backgrounds, psychological and social needs. As to worship, if the preferences are too much at odds, would it be possible to attend separate churches? I know of several situations in which the spouses worship separately and apparently with full acceptance and understanding. Just some thoughts. George

Dennis, I would be interested in how you define 'evangelical.' Some of the features described in the book Religion in America by Julia Corbett include "salvation only though faith in Jesus Christ," "the importance of missions and evangelism," and "the truth of inerrancy of Scripture." Some of these would seem to be at odds with Progressive Christianity, especially inerrancy of the Bible and exclusive salvation through Jesus. George

Myron, the problem with our rationalizations are that they are often wrong. In experiments, people give reasons for their moral judgements, but the reasons are often flawed. A good example was one involving incest. A hypothetical situation was posed in which siblings had sex using contraceptives. Subjects would explain that incest is wrong because of adverse genetic effects if a pregnancy results. But, when pointed out that the couple used contraceptives, the subjects would persist in their moral judgement. Similar results have been found in tests of the 'Trolley Problems' (see Moral Minds by Marc Hauser) George

Myron, good point. This needed clarification. Yes, Haidt uses the word with the latter meaning - to make rational. George

Haidt claims that reason is used to rationalize our intuitive moral instincts, not to motivate our decisions. I think this is largely correct. A few years ago, I was debating capital punishment with my father (me against, him for). He was claiming that he favored it because it was a deterrent. I pointed out that the evidence did not support this. But, he persisted in his position. Then, I thought, what if the evidence did favor capital punishment as a deterrent, would I change my view? The answer, I concluded was no. We were both invoking a moral values, not rational argument. We were using reason to rationalize our (intuitive) moral values. The one area, that I don't think Haidt discusses, where reason may come into play is is resolving moral conflicts. When there are two rights or two wrongs, I think reason may be invoked to decide a course of action. I would like to know what Haidt would think about this. George

Haidt would argue not. And, I think his evidence and reasoning are sound. As an example, we don't sit down around the campfire and reason that incest should be taboo. In fact, Haidt has an experiment in which subjects are unable to reason against a hypothetical incestuous situation and still remain revulsed by it. Similar experiments have been done with food taboos. A great example of our moral instinct (vs. reason) is illustrated in the so-called "trolley problem." http://en.wikipedia....Trolley_problem People, cross culturally, tend to give similar responses, but cannot reason their answers. George

I would like to point out that one does not need to be reading this book to comment or pose questions about the author's claims or the subjects discussed. The discussion is open to anyone. George

Annie, These taboos, of course, have an evolutionary basis. Imagine if each child had to learn for themselves which things are nutritious and which are poison through through reason. We probably wouldn't be here today as a species. It has been argued that cooking is what distinguishes us as humans ("Catching Fire: How Cooking Made us Human," Richard Wrangham). Among the benefits of cooking is it kills toxins and germs. One is much more likely to get sick from raw foods, particularly meats. Not surprisingly, most food taboos involve meats. George

Alamar, Welcome. It sounds like you have tried a little of each dish without finding the recipe that is just right for you. George

This is a very short overview of the Introduction and Chapter 1 Introduction Haidt begins by saying, “I am going to make the case that morality is the extraordinary human capacity that made civilization possible.” It was the moral mind that allowed human animals to produce cooperative groups without the necessity of kinship. Chapter 1 – Where Does Morality Come From? Haidt, throughout the book, uses an elephant-rider metaphor. The basic idea is that our intuitive mind is the elephant and our reasoning mind is the driver. The elephant has both a weight and size advantage. He claims that moral intuitions (the elephant) arise automatically and almost instantaneously before our reasoning (the rider) ever kicks in. Another central metaphor is that humans are “90 percent chimp and 10 percent bee.” The chimp, in this case, behaves as a selfish individual satisfying its individual needs. The bee, as a member of a group, works for the welfare of the group. So, according to Haidt, we are some of both. We have our selfish interests (the major portion – 90%) and we have our community interests (the bee, 10%). It is our bee-like nature that “facilitates altruism, heroism, war and genocide.” Haidt refers to various studies that demonstrate that children have innate moral impulses that are not taught. He says, “Children construct their moral understanding on the bedrock of the absolute moral truth that harm is wrong.” But, he goes on to demonstrate that the moral domain involves much more than simple harm and fairness. In various studies, Haidt shows were people will identify ‘wrongs’ and then will rationalize the harm. But, even when the harms they invent, are shown to be wrong, they stick with their intuitive reaction of moral wrong. As he says, “They [the subjects of the study] were working quite hard at reasoning. But, it was not reasoning in search of truth; it was reasoning in support of their emotional reactions.” He concludes that moral intuition is a combination of innateness and social learning. This is why moral values, at some level, are consistent from one culture to another and, at another level, differ from culture to culture. Comments and questions? George

Originally, I had thought we should take each of the major sections separately. But, as I go back through the book, there is so much material worth discussing, I am now thinking that we should go chapter by chapter. What sayeth the book clubers? If so, I will post some summary material on the first chapter tomorrow to kick off the discussions. George

I think most progressives would say not. This would be a most interesting question for a traditional or fundamentalist Christian. If the answer is yes, the followup should be, what would you do differently? In actuality, I really don't think most people would live their lives much differently. Given our amazing ability to rationalize, we easily explain away bad behavior and justify good. I don't think Mother Teresa went to Calcutta to win a spot in heaven. George

Joseph, evolution is about as "black and white" as any scientific theory can be. Not only has it held up well to time and extensive testing, but some elements such as explaining eusociability (extreme sociability) have received even more support recently than earlier. FWIW, the term "theory" has a different meaning in science than on the street. In science, it means a model that explains the observed data. On the street, "theory" is one step above speculation. George

Paul, I think a reasonable argument can be made for requiring schools to teach evolution in a science program, but I think that "child abuse" is too strong a term. There are all sorts of things that parents do that may not be in the best long-term interest of their children that would not fall under the category of "child abuse." I think this is one that would not. Freedom of speech allows people to say some pretty stupid things. Likewise, freedom of religion and parental rights should, IMO, give wide latitude to churches and parents to teach what some us think are pretty stupid things. George

Oh boy, that is a difficult question. I am conflicted. One side of me says all children should get a basic education (which would include basic biology). Another side, says that private schools should have the right to teach or abstain from teaching whatever they wish. At this point, I will vote 'present' on this, but I would like to hear other views. George