Can Religious Thought and Intellectual Honesty Coexist?

However even a quick read of the Greek classics will demonstrate that we have not made any significant progress in understanding the human condition in over two thousand years.

Moreover, reason does not answer all of the basic questions surrounding man's existence, his consciousness, and his fate. This indeed has been the central subject of the literature, cultural belief & mythology structures, and intellectual inquiry in every civilization about which we have records.

It seems to me that, explicitly or implicitly, we all adopt some element of faith-based assumptions regarding such questions - even atheists rely on unproven, or unprovable, assumptions.

Is an atheist who, in the absence of any proof asserts there is no creator of the universe, and no god, any more "intellectually honest" than one who believes there was a creator and who fills his awareness of the otherwise inexplicable isolation and loneliness of the human consciousness with the idea of god?

Does the assumption of belief or faith in an area where reason offers no answer at all truly constitute a 'suspension of the intellect'?

georgeob1 - In the first place, I no longer consider myself an atheist. I have come to the point in my life, where I realize that NOW there are few answers to the major questions that have concerned mankind concerning existence.

I believe that over time, we will know more about how the universe works, but I really cannot say whether we will ever have the answers to the ultimate questions. All I can do is learn as much as I am able, and, in the meantime, live as good a life as I am capable.

My religious evolution has gone through at least five phases in my lifetime. I tip my hat to Frank, who led me, kicking and screaming, through my latest and most mature incarnation.

georgeob1 wrote:

It seems to me that, explicitly or implicitly, we all adopt some element of faith-based assumptions regarding such questions - even atheists rely on unproven, or unprovable, assumptions.

Atheists, perhaps, but not agnostics. That's pretty much what agnosticism is all about: not relying on unproven or unprovable assumptions. That's why it is being put forward here as the only intellectually honest position.

Frank,

I am so glad your sister got out of there! I am sure that is a load off your mind. It's starting to get kind of stormy here, so you probably won't be hearing fromme again today.

Momma Angel

georgeob1 wrote:

It seems to me that, explicitly or implicitly, we all adopt some element of faith-based assumptions regarding such questions - even atheists rely on unproven, or unprovable, assumptions.

Atheists, perhaps, but not agnostics. That's pretty much what agnosticism is all about: not relying on unproven or unprovable assumptions. That's why it is being put forward here as the only intellectually honest position.

If the host doesn't want to carry the fetus to term, that's her business. Those trying to impose their will on the host doesn't understand anything about privacy.

cicerone imposter wrote:

If the host doesn't want to carry the fetus to term, that's her business. Those trying to impose their will on the host doesn't understand anything about privacy.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

CI , you continue to try to shield yourself and others from the reality of abortion by calling the pregnant woman a "host", as if the unborn child were a parasitical fungus or something.

If you really are comfortable with the abortion business in which unborn children are exterminated by slicing and chopping in D&C abortions, or by chemically burning them to death in saline abortions, or in running them thru a vacuum in a suction abortion, then why must you pussyfoot around the subject like a Jersey lawyer and refer to the "host" who "doesn't carry to term" ?

Why don't you tell it like it is?

We each have but one life to live and that of uncertain and limited extent. Of necessity we much choose the principles (or absence of them) we will attempt to live by. One who consistently places rationality above all other considerations would rightly be regarded as some kind of monster in his relations with others.

There is more to life and our understanding than can be apprehended by human reason alone. I'm not sure what the idea of "honesty" has to do with this at all, but I am sure that a life guided solely by reason would be sterile indeed.

real life, If you are so concerned about all pregnancies that are terminated in this world, how do you expect to accomplish your foolishness? Your name is a misnomer; real you are not. More like a religious nut that doesn't understand human nature.

Go to India where you might have some impact of babies already born. They kill girl babies by the millions there. Maybe you can save a few. Otherwise, quit being a hypcrite. You really aren't interested in saving lives.

You wouldn't understand "cicerone imposter" if it slapped you silly.

India

As John-Thor Dahlburg points out, "in rural India, the centuries-old practice of female infanticide can still be considered a wise course of action." (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'," The Los Angeles Times [in The Toronto Star, February 28, 1994.]) According to census statistics, "From 972 females for every 1,000 males in 1901 ... the gender imbalance has tilted to 929 females per 1,000 males. ... In the nearly 300 poor hamlets of the Usilampatti area of Tamil Nadu [state], as many as 196 girls died under suspicious circumstances [in 1993] ... Some were fed dry, unhulled rice that punctured their windpipes, or were made to swallow poisonous powdered fertilizer. Others were smothered with a wet towel, strangled or allowed to starve to death." Dahlburg profiles one disturbing case from Tamil Nadu:


Lakshmi already had one daughter, so when she gave birth to a second girl, she killed her. For the three days of her second child's short life, Lakshmi admits, she refused to nurse her. To silence the infant's famished cries, the impoverished village woman squeezed the milky sap from an oleander shrub, mixed it with castor oil, and forced the poisonous potion down the newborn's throat. The baby bled from the nose, then died soon afterward. Female neighbors buried her in a small hole near Lakshmi's square thatched hut of sunbaked mud. They sympathized with Lakshmi, and in the same circumstances, some would probably have done what she did. For despite the risk of execution by hanging and about 16 months of a much-ballyhooed government scheme to assist families with daughters, in some hamlets of ... Tamil Nadu, murdering girls is still sometimes believed to be a wiser course than raising them. "A daughter is always liabilities. How can I bring up a second?" Lakshmi, 28, answered firmly when asked by a visitor how she could have taken her own child's life eight years ago. "Instead of her suffering the way I do, I thought it was better to get rid of her." (All quotes from Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'.")
A study of Tamil Nadu by the Community Service Guild of Madras similarly found that "female infanticide is rampant" in the state, though only among Hindu (rather than Moslem or Christian) families. "Of the 1,250 families covered by the study, 740 had only one girl child and 249 agreed directly that they had done away with the unwanted girl child. More than 213 of the families had more than one male child whereas half the respondents had only one daughter." (Malavika Karlekar, "The girl child in India: does she have any rights?," Canadian Woman Studies, March 1995.)

The bias against females in India is related to the fact that "Sons are called upon to provide the income; they are the ones who do most of the work in the fields. In this way sons are looked to as a type of insurance. With this perspective, it becomes clearer that the high value given to males decreases the value given to females." (Marina Porras, "Female Infanticide and Foeticide".) The problem is also intimately tied to the institution of dowry, in which the family of a prospective bride must pay enormous sums of money to the family in which the woman will live after marriage. Though formally outlawed, the institution is still pervasive. "The combination of dowry and wedding expenses usually add up to more than a million rupees ([US] $35,000). In India the average civil servant earns about 100,000 rupees ($3,500) a year. Given these figures combined with the low status of women, it seems not so illogical that the poorer Indian families would want only male children." (Porras, "Female Infanticide and Foeticide".) Murders of women whose families are deemed to have paid insufficient dowry have become increasingly common, and receive separate case-study treatment on this site.

India is also the heartland of sex-selective abortion. Amniocentesis was introduced in 1974 "to ascertain birth defects in a sample population," but "was quickly appropriated by medical entrepreneurs. A spate of sex-selective abortions followed." (Karlekar, "The girl child in India.") Karlekar points out that "those women who undergo sex determination tests and abort on knowing that the foetus is female are actively taking a decision against equality and the right to life for girls. In many cases, of course, the women are not independent agents but merely victims of a dominant family ideology based on preference for male children."

Dahlburg notes that "In Jaipur, capital of the western state of Rajasthan, prenatal sex determination tests result in an estimated 3,500 abortions of female fetuses annually," according to a medical-college study. (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'.") Most strikingly, according to UNICEF, "A report from Bombay in 1984 on abortions after prenatal sex determination stated that 7,999 out of 8,000 of the aborted fetuses were females. Sex determination has become a lucrative business." (Zeng Yi et al., "Causes and Implications of the Recent Increase in the Reported Sex Ratio at Birth in China," Population and Development Review, 19: 2 [June 1993], p. 297.)

Deficits in nutrition and health-care also overwhelmingly target female children. Karlekar cites research


indicat[ing] a definite bias in feeding boys milk and milk products and eggs ... In Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh [states], it is usual for girls and women to eat less than men and boys and to have their meal after the men and boys had finished eating. Greater mobility outside the home provides boys with the opportunity to eat sweets and fruit from saved-up pocket money or from money given to buy articles for food consumption. In case of illness, it is usually boys who have preference in health care. ... More is spent on clothing for boys than for girls[,] which also affects morbidity. (Karlekar, "The girl child in India.")
Sunita Kishor reports "another disturbing finding," namely "that, despite the increased ability to command essential food and medical resources associated with development, female children [in India] do not improve their survival chances relative to male children with gains in development. Relatively high levels of agricultural development decrease the life chances of females while leaving males' life chances unaffected; urbanization increases the life chances of males more than females. ... Clearly, gender-based discrimination in the allocation of resources persists and even increases, even when availability of resources is not a constraint." (Kishor, "'May God Give Sons to All': Gender and Child Mortality in India," American Sociological Review, 58: 2 [April 1993], p. 262.)

Indian state governments have sometimes taken measures to diminish the slaughter of infant girls and abortions of female fetuses. "The leaders of Tamil Nadu are holding out a tempting carrot to couples in the state with one or two daughters and no sons: if one parent undergoes sterilization, the government will give the family [U.S.] \\$160 in aid per child. The money will be paid in instalments as the girl goes through school. She will also get a small gold ring and on her 20th birthday, a lump sum of $650 to serve as her dowry or defray the expenses of higher education. Four thousand families enrolled in the first year," with 6,000 to 8,000 expected to join annually (as of 1994) (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'.") Such programs have, however, barely begun to address the scale of the catastrophe.