Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: ippy on February 28, 2016, 03:15:07 PM
-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/22/spirit-of-healthcare-the-nhs-chaplains-religion
I've no objection to any religious person being a hospital chaplain, I just think whatever religion supplies the chaplain should be the ones financing their chaplain, it's not the taxpayers place to be involved with any religious practices including the newly placed humanist, at present financed by the N H S.
ippy
-
Most of the people who ask to see a chaplain are dying. I don't begrudge indirectly paying for this service.
-
Most of the people who ask to see a chaplain are dying. I don't begrudge indirectly paying for this service.
Me neither, and in a long NHS career I worked with several hospital chaplains and had the greatest respect for them all. I never found one who was intrusive, proselytising or insensitive and, in fact, I count one (a now retired Church of Scotland minister) as a personal friend.
-
Me neither, and in a long NHS career I worked with several hospital chaplains and had the greatest respect for them all. I never found one who was intrusive, proselytising or insensitive and, in fact, I count one (a now retired Church of Scotland minister) as a personal friend.
I know a chaplain that a friend demanded not to be seen by, but don't think that is an argument against the service as a whole. For the buttons it costs, it seems more than worth the money.
-
I would be the last person to grudge chaplaincy to anyone dying or for anything else it's the way religious organisations, just by chance, happen to find various ways of getting their hands on to government money, just a little here and another little bit there, like this little N H S number the Prison chaplaincy then the Services chaplaincy and before you know it it's not quite such a little bit when you add them all together, oh yes we finance their schools for them as well, oh yes free transport to religious schools but none for children of non-religious parents to the same school; yes the school bus fiddle practised by the various religions is well on it's way out but there are still a few getting away with it.
Isn't he mean grudging the sick, the prisoners and the services chaplaincy?
After all it's only a small amount in the overall scheme of things?
Well no I don't want to deny any of these things to the religious it would be wrong of me to deny these things to anybody, I just don't see why we should be paying, when grouped together these not so small amounts to or for religious organisations of any kind it's for those that want these religious services to pay, the not so small accumulated amounts, for them themselves.
As for those that believe in pie in the sky, well that's fine by me, if you feel the need to spread your pie in the sky, that's fine by me too, just don't ask me to pay for your promotions.
ippy
-
Hospital chaplains do not proselytise, they merely walk alongside people and that can be comforting. If they were not funded by the NHS I daresay churches would set up a fund to pay them for their time. Same with prison chaplaincies.
-
I just don't see why we should be paying, when grouped together these not so small amounts to or for religious organisations of any kind it's for those that want these religious services to pay, the not so small accumulated amounts, for them themselves.
Ippy - I work in a large Trust and the directorate I work in also contains the Chaplaincy service. I can assure you it is a very, very, very small part of our budget. As a directorate we probably spend more on biro's than we do on the Chaplaincy service.
Weighing the small amount we spend against the comfort given, is for me a no-brainer - we continue to pay for the service. The NHS should be providing a holistic service to patients - if we can't be bothered to pay out for some small grain of comfort for patients at the end of their lives - whether or not we believe in God - we may just as well all pack up go home and say "You are on your fucking own".
I say this as a fully paid up atheist.
-
Ippy,
So what humanist org should be paying for this humanist chaplain? What church congregation do you want paying for the nondenominational chaplain? The police, military, hospitals all have a paid position of chaplain, it is not an outreach position/mission by any church.
-
I wasn't in favour of the NHS funding chaplains, but Trent's changed my mind. The only thing I don't like about it is that discrimination laws don't apply, so the NHS ends up discriminating against gay people because of the CofE's rules.
-
Weighing the small amount we spend against the comfort given, is for me a no-brainer - we continue to pay for the service. The NHS should be providing a holistic service to patients - if we can't be bothered to pay out for some small grain of comfort for patients at the end of their lives - whether or not we believe in God - we may just as well all pack up go home and say "You are on your fucking own".
I say this as a fully paid up atheist.
This
-
Ippy,
So what humanist org should be paying for this humanist chaplain? What church congregation do you want paying for the nondenominational chaplain? The police, military, hospitals all have a paid position of chaplain, it is not an outreach position/mission by any church.
I don't think the humanist should be paid for by the state either Woody, it's the whole principle that's wrong, not the amount of the funding.
ippy
-
I wasn't in favour of the NHS funding chaplains, but Trent's changed my mind. The only thing I don't like about it is that discrimination laws don't apply, so the NHS ends up discriminating against gay people because of the CofE's rules.
Where does the NHS end up discriminating against gay people, because of the employment of a chaplain?
I don't think a chaplain would get the job if he discriminated.
I think the discrimination laws do apply, a chaplain has to deal with anyone, if asked regardless of sex, religion or none.
Most of the ones I've encountered have been so liberal in their ideas, they barely rate as Christian.
-
Ippy - I work in a large Trust and the directorate I work in also contains the Chaplaincy service. I can assure you it is a very, very, very small part of our budget. As a directorate we probably spend more on biro's than we do on the Chaplaincy service.
Weighing the small amount we spend against the comfort given, is for me a no-brainer - we continue to pay for the service. The NHS should be providing a holistic service to patients - if we can't be bothered to pay out for some small grain of comfort for patients at the end of their lives - whether or not we believe in God - we may just as well all pack up go home and say "You are on your fucking own".
I say this as a fully paid up atheist.
Yes, it's just a little thing if patients want it.
I wish the end of life, experience could be made better. It's a pity more people don't have access to a hospice or that hospitals don't have extra funding to deal with that side of things.
-
I don't think the humanist should be paid for by the state either Woody, it's the whole principle that's wrong, not the amount of the funding.
ippy
What's wrong ippy, is you expect everyone else to conform to your prejudices, and do without a comforting and valuable service.
The service also caters for those who want that service, but don't have a formal religion, who don't want to call out some strange local vicar who they don't know ( who might be extreme or judgmental) but who just want to talk or have someone take the time to read something for them.
Nurses don't have the time.
Hospitals can be hard and cold at the best of times, the patient who is extremely vunerable, can just feel like a lump of meat that blood is taken from. Not because any one intended that, but the nurses are just overstretched.
Anything that softens the hospital experience is a plus.
The chaplaincy is the human side of hospitals, everyone else is too busy to give the sort of individual care they would like to.
Nurses don't have time to hold the hand of a dying patient or read their favourite poem or bible reading, chaplains do.
I think they do a great job.
-
What's wrong ippy, is you expect everyone else to conform to your prejudices, and do without a comforting and valuable service.
The service also caters for those who want that service, but don't have a formal religion, who don't want to call out some strange local vicar who they don't know ( who might be extreme or judgmental) but who just want to talk or have someone take the time to read something for them.
Nurses don't have the time.
Hospitals can be hard and cold at the best of times, the patient who is extremely vunerable, can just feel like a lump of meat that blood is taken from. Not because any one intended that, but the nurses are just overstretched.
Anything that softens the hospital experience is a plus.
The chaplaincy is the human side of hospitals, everyone else is too busy to give the sort of individual care they would like to.
Nurses don't have time to hold the hand of a dying patient or read their favourite poem or bible reading, chaplains do.
I think they do a great job.
If you read my posts you will see that I have plainly stated that I am not wanting to curtail the chaplaincy service in any way and it's blindingly obvious that that it is an essential service, something else I've said or referred to previously.
Why do some of you think I want to do away with the chaplaincy service, or that I don't think that they are a bunch of really good eggs?
They are a very necessary and and usually a great bunch of dedicated people and I am greatfull for the service they render on a daily basis.
Right,I hope that misunderstanding is cleared up now; it's mostly the C of E supplying these chaplains and of course it's a good thing they do, supply them, but the C of E doesn't miss any oportuinity to get it's hands on government money where ever it can and although in relative terms, as pointed out by Torri and he's right, the funding is small beer in the overall figures of running the NHS.
If you stand back and look at all of these little sums, I have allready described just a few of them in my previous posts on this thread, there are a lot more of places where this religious bunch have got their fingers in the pie and when you start to add them together including the small sum from the NHS among them it no longer can be considered a small sum, that's the point I'm trying to make.
Don't think for one moment think these pies the church has it's fingers into are not seen as many, all be it individually small sums, subscriptions to the perpetuation of this rapidly becoming defunct organisation and as it goes further and further down the tubes they will be clinging on to this, as they se it, funding, as though their lives depend on them and it does, so why not deny them and help them on their well deserved way out?
By the way Rose, prejudice; I have made due consideration, about how the NHS chaplaincy should be funded, so tecnically my view of this isn't a prejudiced pov.
ippy
-
If you read my posts you will see that I have plainly stated that I am not wanting to curtail the chaplaincy service in any way and it's blindingly obvious that that it is an essential service, something else I've said or referred to previously.
Why do some of you think I want to do away with the chaplaincy service, or that I don't think that they are a bunch of really good eggs?
They are a very necessary and and usually a great bunch of dedicated people and I am greatfull for the service they render on a daily basis.
Right,I hope that misunderstanding is cleared up now; it's mostly the C of E supplying these chaplains and of course it's a good thing they do, supply them, but the C of E doesn't miss any oportuinity to get it's hands on government money where ever it can and although in relative terms, as pointed out by Torri and he's right, the funding is small beer in the overall figures of running the NHS.
If you stand back and look at all of these little sums, I have allready described just a few of them in my previous posts on this thread, there are a lot more of places where this religious bunch have got their fingers in the pie and when you start to add them together including the small sum from the NHS among them it no longer can be considered a small sum, that's the point I'm trying to make.
Don't think for one moment think these pies the church has it's fingers into are not seen as many, all be it individually small sums, subscriptions to the perpetuation of this rapidly becoming defunct organisation and as it goes further and further down the tubes they will be clinging on to this, as they se it, funding, as though their lives depend on them and it does, so why not deny them and help them on their well deserved way out?
By the way Rose, prejudice; I have made due consideration, about how the NHS chaplaincy should be funded, so tecnically my view of this isn't a prejudiced pov.
ippy
The c of e also maintain many ancient and beautiful churches, part of our heritage.
So many of them are being closed down or turned into homes.
You might be glad to see the back of them, but I won't.
It's part of our history.
I don't begrudge them the small amount they get for doing the chaplaincy bit.
We tend to take it for granted that they maintain our heritage.
It probably costs the c of e far more to keep up buildings, so those of us interested in architecture can wander in.
Chaplaincy has got to be peanuts in comparison.
They could just leave the building to rot and worship in a field at less expense, but we'd all be worse off for that, heritage wise. IMO.
Historically the c of e holds a unique place, heritage wise, in the uk.
It's not even all about religion really, but about its special place in history,
destroy that and you are destroying our heritage.
Of course they have their fingers in lots of pies, it's because they played a central role in our unique history.
Our heritage is something we have, which others don't. Like the pound, it is uniquely British.
The queen is uniquely British as are many of the traditions.
Lose it, and it's gone forever, buried in the scrabble for us all to become clones of each other and like everyone else.
I like our eccentric bits, it's what makes us..... Well us!
Heaven forbid we should ever find ourselves with an opportunity for a president like Donald Trump!
God help us all, if he gets in.
-
I haven't read all of the way through your post yet but I'm sure I haven't said anything about churches on this thread, as it happens of course they are a pŕrt of our heritage and I'm all for them being preserved, but this has nothing to do with the OP of my post?
ippy
-
I haven't read all of the way through your post yet but I'm sure I haven't said anything about churches on this thread, as it happens of course they are a pŕrt of our heritage and I'm all for them being preserved, but this has nothing to do with the OP of my post?
ippy
You were objecting to the c of e special status, with regard to fingers in pies.
-
You were objecting to the c of e special status, with regard to fingers in pies.
The many places the C of E picks up a little bit here and another little bit there, of which our taxes paying for the chaplaincy service is only one of the many places the church keeps taking from money from us that isn't due to them.
We shouldn't be subsidising religion, any religion, secular humanism or anything like the TUC*, in any of the very many small amounts or large amounts either, in both cases the principle is exactly similar, the money the church filch off of us behind the scenes, overall is no small amount and just as they like it not immediately obvious.
Looking after our old buildings such as Iron Bridge and the many of the beautiful churches that adorn our countryside is an absolute must I agree with you.
* All equally worthy of a subsidy or not.
ippy
P S I wouldn't want to rewrite history and I can't think of any rational reason why anyone would want to do something like that.
-
Reading this thread made me wonder if there are actually any humanist hospital chaplains. Yes, is the answer - there's one, and to my great surprise she's right here in Leicester: http://goo.gl/fCytRd
-
Where does the NHS end up discriminating against gay people, because of the employment of a chaplain?
I don't think a chaplain would get the job if he discriminated.
I think the discrimination laws do apply, a chaplain has to deal with anyone, if asked regardless of sex, religion or none.
Most of the ones I've encountered have been so liberal in their ideas, they barely rate as Christian.
There's already been a case where the CofE revoked the license of a gay priest who worked as an NHS-funded chaplain because he married his partner. Without a license he couldn't do the job.
It's not the priests who discriminate, but the CofE.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/aug/16/sexism-church-of-england-prejudice
I can see why they wanted to put things into place to try and please everyone, but reading this link, I can also see how that in itself can cause offence.
I guess it's like a lot of things, it has to many ( extremists isn't the right word) but people who feel strongly about certain issues in places of authority.)
Perhaps one day they will move on and split.
Perhaps that wouldn't be such a bad thing, I have heard it said that one of the reason they are afraid of being more open to homosexuality is the reaction of African churches which are growing, that they might break away.
My friend is ordained in the C of E and I was surprised she didn't support women bishops. It isn't all men that object to it, but women too.
-
There's already been a case where the CofE revoked the license of a gay priest who worked as an NHS-funded chaplain because he married his partner. Without a license he couldn't do the job.
It's not the priests who discriminate, but the CofE.
http://goo.gl/N7TLiH
-
http://goo.gl/N7TLiH
I think that whole thing is bizarre
Pemberton’s marriage to his partner, Laurence Cunnington, in April 2014 was in defiance of a CofE ban on gay weddings for clergy, although they are permitted to enter into civil partnerships.
The bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, Richard Inwood, revoked his permission to officiate, which prevented Pemberton from taking up a job at King’s Mill hospital in Mansfield even though he was to be employed by the NHS as a hospital chaplain.
Bishop Inwood argued at the tribunal that according to CofE doctrine, marriage could only be between a man and a woman. The tribunal ruling said there was “no doubt whatsoever that the present doctrine of the church is clear”.
The 58-page ruling stated: “The claimant would never have been in this position had he not defied the doctrine of the church. The claimant knowingly entered into that marriage and knew what the potential consequences could be for him.”
By marrying, Pemberton was in breach of his oath of obedience. “There is the canonical requirement that he has to live his life as a priest consistent with his calling. In getting married to his partner, he was flying in the face of the clear restating of doctrine in relation to same-sex marriage.”
Pemberton has continued to work as a hospital chaplain in Lincolnshire, where the diocese issued him with a rebuke over his same-sex marriage but did not revoke his licence to officiate.
If they are allowed to be in a civil partnership, what are they doing differently joined in a marriage? ( that the bible prohibits)
Doesn't make much sense.
I get the whole " a man shouldn"t lie with a man" argument, that some Christians that accept gay people are born that way, but take the stance it's their belief it's wrong to act on it. ( btw getting something doesn't mean I agree with it, )
But once you have allowed civil relationships which means men lie with men, what's the big deal with marriage ?
Ok I get the church doesn't want to perform it, but if the state performs it, what difference does it then make, for a secular marriage to be accepted in the same way as a civil partnership?
Somehow the church isn't consistent.
its all over the place IMO.
Their rulings don't make any sense IMO.
Ok they think marriage is between a man and a woman, so don't do church ones.
They accept civil partnerships, so why not secular gay marriages?
They could still object to the gay, religious marriages performed by the c of e, in principal.
:-\
-
This sort of cock-up is an inevitable consequence of having two systems running side-by-side simultaneously. As a private individual the man is perfectly legally entitled to marry his same-sex partner in a civil wedding from which all religious references are excluded. His occupation, or rather his employer, says that he can't.
-
This sort of cock-up is an inevitable consequence of having two systems running side-by-side simultaneously. As a private individual the man is perfectly legally entitled to marry his same-sex partner in a civil wedding from which all religious references are excluded. His occupation, or rather his employer, says that he can't.
But in this case the employer is the NHS. The CofE gives him a license but did not employ him.
-
But in this case the employer is the NHS. The CofE gives him a license but did not employ him.
OK, fair enough - I wasn't actually clear on that.
-
OK, fair enough - I wasn't actually clear on that.
This is where it bothers me - the CofE shouldn't have the right to force the NHS to discriminate.
And even if his own bishop wanted to grant him a license, he can't. All priests and bishops swear to obey the bishop above them and the chain goes up to Welby. Which brings us round to the lack of justice and freedom of belief within the CofE, especially for its clergy.
The evangelical wing tried to introduce laws preventing clergy from committing heresy, oh, must be about fifteen years ago now.
-
Dear Leonard,
Undo millions of years of evolution ( even monkeys are religious ) good luck with that one. :o
Gonnagle.
One minute you haven't got a clue about how evolution works and it now looks like the next minute you're telling us about some form of religious evlutionary developments we have shared with monkeys for millions of years; well that's a new one Gonners, tell me more about that, it should be interesting.
ippy
-
There's already been a case where the CofE revoked the license of a gay priest who worked as an NHS-funded chaplain because he married his partner. Without a license he couldn't do the job.
It's not the priests who discriminate, but the CofE.
I've met many NHS chaplains and knew two of them quite well. They were all gay*. Very kind people who really cared about patients, and staff. I am really surprised that the CofE revoked the licence of the priest you mentioned, they could have turned a blind eye surely? There are so many gay vicars, in long term partnerships too that everyone knows about. The Church presumably wouldn't have taken his licence away had he had a civil partnership.
*Never thought about it before but known a couple of gay prison chaplains. Is there something about chaplaincies that attract gay people?
-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/22/spirit-of-healthcare-the-nhs-chaplains-religion
I've no objection to any religious person being a hospital chaplain, I just think whatever religion supplies the chaplain should be the ones financing their chaplain, it's not the taxpayers place to be involved with any religious practices including the newly placed humanist, at present financed by the N H S.
ippy
The cost is not just the chaplains it is the upkeep of the small chapels in the hospitals. When my sister, parents and other family members died, I felt it a comfort to be able to go to the chapel and sit and pray for a while whilst everything going on around us. The chapel could be used by anyone even just as a place to sit and collect your thoughts and feelings.
I do not begrudge people being able to take communion on their sick bed or have the comfort of talking to someone. The elderly especially those living alone and isolated found company when the chaplains visited them.
One of our vicars was such a chaplain and he was brilliant in that you knew he really cared for those people he visited and prayed for them. It wasn't just a job to him. It isn't a easy job either. So fair do's to them and God bless them for all their hard work and care they give...
-
I've met many NHS chaplains and knew two of them quite well. They were all gay*. Very kind people who really cared about patients, and staff. I am really surprised that the CofE revoked the licence of the priest you mentioned, they could have turned a blind eye surely? There are so many gay vicars, in long term partnerships too that everyone knows about. The Church presumably wouldn't have taken his licence away had he had a civil partnership.
*Never thought about it before but known a couple of gay prison chaplains. Is there something about chaplaincies that attract gay people?
Clergy cannot be sexually active with or married to a partner of the same sex. Hence the loss of license.
As for chaplaincy work, it does appeal to those for whom parish work isn't suitable. I think it entirely likely that a gay priest who has a partner would find more security and less judgement and hassle if he or she undertook chaplaincy work rather than a parish.
-
The cost is not just the chaplains it is the upkeep of the small chapels in the hospitals. When my sister, parents and other family members died, I felt it a comfort to be able to go to the chapel and sit and pray for a while whilst everything going on around us. The chapel could be used by anyone even just as a place to sit and collect your thoughts and feelings.
I do not begrudge people being able to take communion on their sick bed or have the comfort of talking to someone. The elderly especially those living alone and isolated found company when the chaplains visited them.
One of our vicars was such a chaplain and he was brilliant in that you knew he really cared for those people he visited and prayed for them. It wasn't just a job to him. It isn't a easy job either. So fair do's to them and God bless them for all their hard work and care they give...
I'm sure that a lot of people gain a lot of comfort from the chaplaincy service, please note I wouldn't want to see this service curtailed in any way, there must be areas in hospitals where people can go for a bit of peace and quite, you can call it a chappel, a left handed swivel shop or whatever you would like to call this room, I just think whatever belief it is that supplies the chaplincy service should be the ones paying for the chaplains or any special room they require, say one of these groups was a belief in fairies belief group why should the state have anything to do with paying these people to go through whatever belief in fairies groups go through with those in hospital or payment for rooms or the upkeep of whatever room they use?
And ditto any other form of chaplaincy service whatever the belief happens to be the only other thing is I think that it's the principle for the beliefs finance their own chaplains is more importent than how much it costs per chaplain whether it's a large or small amount.
ippy
-
This is where it bothers me - the CofE shouldn't have the right to force the NHS to discriminate.
It didn't. The CofE was clear that they allowed them to enter into civil partnership but not marriage.
The person in this case knew he had done what was not allowed. He therefore broke the terms of contract for his licence.
That said, the action was taken as it would be for any vicar breaking any of the rules for a licence...the licence was suspended.,
And even if his own bishop wanted to grant him a license, he can't. All priests and bishops swear to obey the bishop above them and the chain goes up to Welby. Which brings us round to the lack of justice and freedom of belief within the CofE, especially for its clergy.
His Bishop will not go against the rules he stands to uphold. It isn't about freedom of belief because the tenets of faith are clear.
It is about entering into an agreement where the agreement rules are defined in law. If you break those rules for whatever reason then you lose your licence. Nothing to do with freedom of belief because all clergy enter the agreement knowing the facts. He knew he could have a civil partnership but he could not marry.
He therefore broke his contract and therefore lost his license.
The evangelical wing tried to introduce laws preventing clergy from committing heresy, oh, must be about fifteen years ago now.
It really has nothing to do with the guy breaking the contract himself by doing what is contrary to his agreement.
-
It didn't. The CofE was clear that they allowed them to enter into civil partnership but not marriage.
The person in this case knew he had done what was not allowed. He therefore broke the terms of contract for his licence.
That said, the action was taken as it would be for any vicar breaking any of the rules for a licence...the licence was suspended.,
But the chaplain is employed by the NHS, not by the CofE.
-
But the chaplain is employed by the NHS, not by the CofE.
I can only think if he lost his job with the nhs, it was because he no longer held a license to act as a religious chaplin.
He won't have lost it because of his sexuality or because he married someone of the same sex.
If you lose your driving license and driving is your job, discrimination doesn't come into it.
The c of e took away his license, which may have had an impact on his job.
If it was a requirement for the nhs chaplaincy, then it wasn't the nhs who discriminated.
The nhs would have just been following procedure.
It's not fair, but unfortunately life is like that.
-
So losing your driving license due to drink driving or dangerous driving is the moral equivalent of losing a license to work as a chaplain due to marrying one's partner?
There are laws in this country to ensure fairness and equality in the workplace. The CofE is allowed to piss all over them, not only within its own organisation but within the NHS also.
-
So losing your driving license due to drink driving or dangerous driving is the moral equivalent of losing a license to work as a chaplain due to marrying one's partner?
There are laws in this country to ensure fairness and equality in the workplace. The CofE is allowed to piss all over them, not only within its own organisation but within the NHS also.
And this hits at the heart of the issue - hospital chaplains are effectively religious positions within a secular organisation (and in this case paid for and employed by that secular organisation) - they aren't secular roles. So you could have a fantastic and qualified counsellor who is also a priest and in the post of chaplain - yet he will lose his job if another organisation (CofE) who doesn't pay him nor employs him decides he should lose his licence for doing something that is entirely legal (getting married) and indeed the NHS would normally be required to consider with out discrimination (marital status and sexuality). Yet no doubt he would remain perfectly able to provide excellent psychological and spiritual support in that role.
In a secular organisation (the NHS) those employed should be fulfilling a secular role, as there is no justification for the NHS providing religious services. The NHS should be providing clinical services on the basis of patient need not patient religion. If there is a need for patients to receive religious support in a hospital (which is of course the case for some, but by no means all patients) then that responsibility for both providing and paying for the chaplains must rest with those religious organisations. And indeed this is the situation in many cases - someone will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that religious support for RCC patients is provided by and paid for by the catholic church, and not the NHS - that is as it should be.
-
I googled and found this: https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/corporate-services/chaplain
It seems that the Catholic chaplains receive a salary from the NHS, not just the CofE.
Prison chaplains of all shades receive a salary.
It seems to be that the CofE adhered to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit, by revoking the chaplain's licence because of his marriage. It is quite hypocritical - although strictly speaking it is within the rules of the CofE, not illegal - when so many are in same sex relationships.
-
I googled and found this: https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/corporate-services/chaplain
It seems that the Catholic chaplains receive a salary from the NHS, not just the CofE.
Prison chaplains of all shades receive a salary.
It seems to be that the CofE adhered to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit, by revoking the chaplain's licence because of his marriage. It is quite hypocritical - although strictly speaking it is within the rules of the CofE, not illegal - when so many are in same sex relationships.
I stand corrected
-
And this hits at the heart of the issue - hospital chaplains are effectively religious positions within a secular organisation (and in this case paid for and employed by that secular organisation) - they aren't secular roles. So you could have a fantastic and qualified counsellor who is also a priest and in the post of chaplain - yet he will lose his job if another organisation (CofE) who doesn't pay him nor employs him decides he should lose his licence for doing something that is entirely legal (getting married) and indeed the NHS would normally be required to consider with out discrimination (marital status and sexuality). Yet no doubt he would remain perfectly able to provide excellent psychological and spiritual support in that role.
In a secular organisation (the NHS) those employed should be fulfilling a secular role, as there is no justification for the NHS providing religious services. The NHS should be providing clinical services on the basis of patient need not patient religion. If there is a need for patients to receive religious support in a hospital (which is of course the case for some, but by no means all patients) then that responsibility for both providing and paying for the chaplains must rest with those religious organisations. And indeed this is the situation in many cases - someone will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that religious support for RCC patients is provided by and paid for by the catholic church, and not the NHS - that is as it should be.
But there is no role for a secular chaplain.
They should provide scientists to remind people that they or their relatives are in the process of becoming wormfood/starstuff (delete as applicable) and to walk about the wards with an app on their phones which plays ''always look on the bright side of life''.
-
But there is no role for a secular chaplain.
Yet humanist chaplains exist. What is it that you think (I use the word loosely, out of necessity) they do?
-
But there is no role for a secular chaplain.
Perhaps if you see a chaplain as having a specifically religious role.
But there is certainly a role for the highest quality pastoral and psychological support for people in hospital that is available to all equally regardless of their religion or lack thereof. Don't forget that the non actively religious majority also need care and support that isn't just standard clinical/physical care to support them through illness and hospitalisation. That group of people is poorly supported in the current system, as many are deeply suspicious of the motives of a religious chaplain and will therefore chose not to ask for their support and are therefore left without appropriate support as there is a lack of a secular alternative who is able to cater for all.
-
Yet humanist chaplains exist. What is it that you think (I use the word loosely, out of necessity) they do?
Wheel people onto the veranda to catch a final reassuring glimpse of the Atheist Bus.
-
Wheel people onto the veranda to catch a final reassuring glimpse of the Atheist Bus.
Ah. Incapable of genuine discussion, then. Quelle surprise.
-
Ah. Incapable of genuine discussion, then. Quelle surprise.
I have no problems with Humanist chaplains
-
I have no problems with Humanist chaplains
Apart from them having (in your view) no role.
-
But the chaplain is employed by the NHS, not by the CofE.
But the chaplain cannot work without the license from the CofE and would have known in his contract with the NHS he had to have the license.
-
I found this:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006986.html
-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/22/spirit-of-healthcare-the-nhs-chaplains-religion
I've no objection to any religious person being a hospital chaplain, I just think whatever religion supplies the chaplain should be the ones financing their chaplain, it's not the taxpayers place to be involved with any religious practices including the newly placed humanist, at present financed by the N H S.
ippy
I've always understood that the NHS has a responsibility for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of its 'clients'. Why, if that is the case, should one of those elements not be paid for by the tax-payer? After all, religious and other organisations across the county provide services that the state is meant to be providing but can't or won't - for whatever reason.
-
But the chaplain cannot work without the license from the CofE and would have known in his contract with the NHS he had to have the license.
Sassy, a chaplain doesn't need the license from the CofE specifically, but they will need a licence from whichever denomination they belong to. Furthermore, most chaplaincies are multi-denominational, some even multi-faith - from Christian to Muslim, Humanist to Hindu.
-
This to ippy, on the thread topic.
ippy, can you explain why, if the NHS was designed to provide support for three aspects of human life - the physical, mental and spiritual - the taxpayer should be asked to fork out for the support of two of these aspects, but not the third?
-
One of the synonyms go for normal is natural. My friends may not all be the average but they are normal. People get very confused about the use of language here and will happily use such terms as 'abnormal' while ignoring the pejorative connoatation that word has. It would be more accurate to describe heterosexuality as the norm but recognise that homosexuality in the sense of natural is normal, and not as some would have it as something to be compared to a disease or be thought of as bad as murder.
I don't think so. The norm is usually used to mean what is most common. Normal means natural for the individual.
-
I thought I had spelled out clearly that my bone was with the funding of chaplaincy in the UK NHS, prisons and the Forces.
I'm also sure that I explained why somewhere nerar the begining of this thread or thereabouts, why have you asked me to repeat myself Hope? My views haven't changed; government money promoting the word, something the C of E can't resist getting it's hands on, someone else, anyone else paying for their promo work, they love it.
ippy.
-
I gather that about 8% of the world's population have blue eyes, so clearly in Hope's warped world these people have a 'medical condition' involving 'mutations' and 'misdevelopments' and are 'imperfect' and 'abnormal' and are 'suffering' from blue-eyedness and should be 'cured' so that they can be brown eyed like 92% of members of the human species.
Shows how limited your underrstanding of genetics is, PD ;)
-
Shows how limited your underrstanding of genetics is, PD ;)
Hope, really not a good idea to try this one on those that are clearly so much better informed than you are.
-
Hope, really not a good idea to try this one on those that are clearly so much better informed than you are.
Well, it's only what I'm told by people who do know better than me. In any such situation one can only go on what the experts say and are reported as saying.
-
Handedness does seem to have a genetic element, PD. Or at least that is what I've been told by doctors and scientists.
He is a scientist. ::)
-
Dear Rhiannon,
He is a scientist.
And!!
If the good Prof told you to go jump in the Clyde would you do it.
Further! Our Leonard thinks it is all genetic, wonder if the Prof agree's with Leonard.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
And!!
If the good Prof told you to go jump in the Clyde would you do it.
Further! Our Leonard thinks it is all genetic, wonder if the Prof agree's with Leonard.
Gonnagle.
Hope says he's taking the word of scientists, yet PD is one and Hope ignores him. Could that be because PD says stuff that Hope doesn't like?
-
Further! Our Leonard thinks it is all genetic, wonder if the Prof agree's with Leonard.
Gonnagle.
Bearing in mind that our responses to environmental conditions are also dependent on our genetic makeup.
-
Indeed. So stop citing these myriad 'scientists and doctors' that you know as 'evidence' and try using a little humanity instead.
I think that referencing such 'scientists and doctors' is very much a case of using (more than) a little humanity, Rhi.
-
And yet you continue to ignore PD. Funny that.
-
Dear Leonard,
Bearing in mind that our responses to environmental conditions are also dependent on our genetic makeup.
So does that bring us winging all the way back to.
1. Nature.
2. Nurture.
3. A mixture of both.
Does this in anyway answer why you are gay and I am not, are we any way forward Leonard??
Gonnagle.
-
Not sure that a kiss helps with genetic re-coding, ippy. ;)
Gotta be worth a try!
ippy
-
Several on this thread
ippy
Hi ippy, I've reread the whole thread, and especially your posts, and have found absolutely nothing about why the tax-payer shouldn't pay for one part of the overall purpose of the NHS. Yes, you have said that you believe that tax-payers oughtn't to be paying for the spiritual element of the NHS's purpose, but at no point have you explained why this element shouldn't be paid for whilst the physical and mental elements should be. In what way are the latter 2 different from the former?
-
And yet you continue to ignore PD. Funny that.
I don't ignore him; just that I don't assume that he is right and others I speak to are wrong. If anything, I suspect that no-one really knows and therefore - in my view - the issue remains open for debate.
-
Dear Leonard,
So does that bring us winging all the way back to.
1. Nature.
2. Nurture.
3. A mixture of both.
The individual response to environment is not uniform, and I feel that can only be due to genetic makeup.
Does this in anyway answer why you are gay and I am not, are we any way forward Leonard??
I think it answers it in every way, Gonners. However, you don't have to agree with me. :)
-
Dear Leonard,
So does that bring us winging all the way back to.
1. Nature.
2. Nurture.
3. A mixture of both.
Does this in anyway answer why you are gay and I am not, are we any way forward Leonard??
Gonnagle.
One thing's certain it wont be religion that finds the answer in some sort of revelation, it'll be more hard working practical scientists working in the real world again, as opposed to man made religious fantasy.
ippy
-
One thing's certain it wont be religion that finds the answer in some sort of revelation, it'll be more hard working practical scientists working in the real world again, as opposed to man made religious fantasy.
ippy
And it may well be that the trigger that leads said scientists to such a discovery is their religious faith, ippy.
-
And it may well be that the trigger that leads said scientists to such a discovery is their religious faith, ippy.
Doubt it, since this would imply that scientists doing 'science' would in some way factor the divine into their theories, hypotheses and methods: and if they do that then they stop being scientists and they aren't doing science any more.
-
And it may well be that the trigger that leads said scientists to such a discovery is their religious faith, ippy.
Well that might be but there's so few, contradiction of terms, religious scientists, it's more likely to be a scientist with a realistic world view that will find the answer, just on the odds alone Hope.
ippy
-
Well that might be but there's so few, contradiction of terms, religious scientists, it's more likely to be a scientist with a realistic world view that will find the answer, just on the odds alone Hope.
ippy
People are becoming less rounded that's for sure.
There's also the propensity nowadays to think that what you do and how you do it is the way that the world is.
If we go back though religious scientists were by far in the majority.
In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.
-
There are lots of scientists who have faith ippy. Probably not famous ones but they certainly exist and not in small numbers.
-
Well that might be but there's so few, contradiction of terms, religious scientists, it's more likely to be a scientist with a realistic world view that will find the answer, just on the odds alone Hope.
ippy
Are there really 'so few' religious scientists, ippy. If that is the case, a lot of them must be towards the top of their profession - Andrew Pinsent, Denis Alexander, Mike Hulme, John Polkinghorne, Ben Carson (though I'm not overly in awe of his politics!!), Michal Heller, Russell Stannard, John Houghton, Rosalind Pickard, Raymond Vahan Damadian - to name but a few. There are others listed at http://bit.ly/1Uus90c - and I could add further names as well.
That's only a list of Christians who are also leading scientists. Here is a selection of 20th century Muslim scientists - http://bit.ly/1RzBk9I. I believe that there are a number of scientists who are also Hindu in religious belief.
In a recent study, some 1/5th of American scientists appear to have religious beliefs -
The study also found that 18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services, compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population; 15 percent consider themselves very religious (versus 19 percent of the general U.S. population); 13.5 percent read religious texts weekly (compared with 17 percent of the U.S. population; ...
http://news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misconceptions-of-science-and-religion-found-in-new-study/ (Feb 2014)
An even more recent report (Dec '15) suggests tht the divide is perhaps even smaller than that.
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html
-
People are becoming less rounded that's for sure.
Not it isn't 'for sure' - that is merely an unevidenced assertion of yours. So please clarify; in what way are people becoming 'less rounded' Vlad?
There's also the propensity nowadays to think that what you do and how you do it is the way that the world is.
I don't think I agree. There is certainly a move towards greater individual freedoms, but that isn't the same as thinking what you do is the way the world is. I think people are more sophisticated than that - if you accept that you have individual freedom, then it isn't rocket science to accept that others do too, and therefore they may adopt a different approach to you. Actually the 'one size fits all' approach you are suggesting (i.e. my way is the only way) is much more akin to more authoritarian approaches of the past, and guess what that includes religious authoritarianism, which is alive and well today. Who is it who was demanding that because they didn't believe in gay marriage that no-one should be allowed to have it; who wants to ban abortion, whether or not your personal conscience thinks it OK; who wanted to ban embryonic stem cell research etc etc. Not the more libertarian personal freedom lot, but the more authoritarian religious elements.
If we go back though religious scientists were by far in the majority.
True - but that is simply because the vast majority of people (scientist or otherwise) were religious. I have no idea whether in the 19thC the proportion of scientists who were religious was less than in the non scientific population. Quite possibly, but I don't think we have the evidence.
Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists
Really?!?
I know hundreds of professional scientists from all around the world and work with them all the time. I have never encountered a scientist who is motivated to conduct their scientific research because of anti theism. Never, not one.
How many scientists do you regularly interact with Vlad?
-
Dear Brownie,
Here's a famous one,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
His faith in no way stopped him from helping to map the human genome in fact it may have inspired him to search for the hand of God.
Gonnagle.
-
Not it isn't 'for sure' - that is merely an unevidenced assertion of yours. So please clarify; in what way are people becoming 'less rounded' Vlad?
I don't think I agree. There is certainly a move towards greater individual freedoms, but that isn't the same as thinking what you do is the way the world is. I think people are more sophisticated than that - if you accept that you have individual freedom, then it isn't rocket science to accept that others do too, and therefore they may adopt a different approach to you. Actually the 'one size fits all' approach you are suggesting (i.e. my way is the only way) is much more akin to more authoritarian approaches of the past, and guess what that includes religious authoritarianism, which is alive and well today. Who is it who was demanding that because they didn't believe in gay marriage that no-one should be allowed to have it; who wants to ban abortion, whether or not your personal conscience thinks it OK; who wanted to ban embryonic stem cell research etc etc. Not the more libertarian personal freedom lot, but the more authoritarian religious elements.
True - but that is simply because the vast majority of people (scientist or otherwise) were religious. I have no idea whether in the 19thC the proportion of scientists who were religious was less than in the non scientific population. Quite possibly, but I don't think we have the evidence.
Really?!?
I know hundreds of professional scientists from all around the world and work with them all the time. I have never encountered a scientist who is motivated to conduct their scientific research because of anti theism. Never, not one.
How many scientists do you regularly interact with Vlad?
About half a dozen.
-
Dear Brownie,
Here's a famous one,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
His faith in no way stopped him from helping to map the human genome in fact it may have inspired him to search for the hand of God.
Gonnagle.
Did he find it? Not that it matters, "God" could always grow another one. ;)
-
About half a dozen.
And how many of them are motivated to do their scientific work by their anti theism.
Just in my own academic school I can increase that number by a factor of 10, just for members of academic staff I line manage - never encountered one motivated by antitheism, although quite a few are atheists, plus there are a good number who are religious of a variety of faiths, as might be expected when your faculty is highly international.
-
And how many of them are motivated to do their scientific work by their anti theism.
Just in my own academic school I can increase that number by a factor of 10, just for members of academic staff I line manage - never encountered one motivated by antitheism, although quite a few are atheists, plus there are a good number who are religious of a variety of faiths, as might be expected when your faculty is highly international.
I guess you have me on numbers but I speak more in terms of influence.
Thanks to Dawkins, the public awareness of science proceeds very much with antitheist influence. Dawkins advocates certain influential physicists and Carroll is an influential string theorist.
If you can reassure us that in reality antitheism is not a feature I think I will breathe a sigh of relief and proceed to use that as ammunition against antitheists.
-
I guess you have me on numbers but I speak more in terms of influence.
Thanks to Dawkins, the public awareness of science proceeds very much with antitheist influence. Dawkins advocates certain influential physicists and Carroll is an influential string theorist.
If you can reassure us that in reality antitheism is not a feature I think I will breathe a sigh of relief and proceed to use that as ammunition against antitheists.
So you rant and rave about the alleged influence you think that these mythical antitheists have, but consider that their lack of influence is ammunition against them.
Sounds like a pretty major problem you've got there, Vlad.
-
I guess you have me on numbers but I speak more in terms of influence.
Thanks to Dawkins, the public awareness of science proceeds very much with antitheist influence. Dawkins advocates certain influential physicists and Carroll is an influential string theorist.
So you have no evidence to back up your claim then Vlad.
And I think you are way off the mark. I know you are obsessed by Dawkins, but he isn't really known these days as a scientist at all. And actually I doubt that when he was engaged in his ground breaking evolutionary research that he was 'motivated by anti theism'.
And you pick Carroll out the air - why? Might it be because he is known to be an atheist, rather than because he is a particularly prominent scientist, which he isn't.
Unsurprisingly given my line of work I do understand the motivations of research scientists, including some rather well known ones, because I know them and have talked to them. I'd categorise motivation in three areas, two principled and one pragmatic.
The principled motivations are:
1. A desire to increase knowledge, to find out new things, to follow our natural tendencies to be inquisitive.
2. To improve society, for example by striving to develop new treatments for disease or new ways to generate energy or to create new and better technologies.
In my area people tend to be motivated by a combination of these, as my area involves 'blue skies' investigative science and also more applied science. In some other areas, e.g. my colleagues involved in astronomy or particle physics the motivation is more the first one.
And the pragmatic - effectively I have an aptitude for science and I can make a decent career out of it and it helps to pay the bills and ensures I have a secure future.
I'd categorise my motivations as a mixture of all three. What I am not motivated by is anti-theism, indeed I don't see myself as an anti-theist, but if you wish to categorise me as such I think my motivations in that area come from an interest in ethics and philosophy, not my profession as a scientist.
-
Hi ippy, I've reread the whole thread, and especially your posts, and have found absolutely nothing about why the tax-payer shouldn't pay for one part of the overall purpose of the NHS. Yes, you have said that you believe that tax-payers oughtn't to be paying for the spiritual element of the NHS's purpose, but at no point have you explained why this element shouldn't be paid for whilst the physical and mental elements should be. In what way are the latter 2 different from the former?
I assumed you know that I'm a Secular Humanist, religions should be invisible to the government, any government and all of the rest that, I would have thought you were fully conversant with all of the details about Secularism, therefore no government money to or for religious purposes of any kind.
Seeing that principle would have to include all beliefs such as Secularism and Humanism, a level playing field, what's wrong with that, the present humanist chaplain is taking government money I don't like it they should be sticking to the level playing field principle, I think and I hope they are thinking, what's good for the goose etc and at the same time working toward the level P principle.
ippy
-
People are becoming less rounded that's for sure.
There's also the propensity nowadays to think that what you do and how you do it is the way that the world is.
If we go back though religious scientists were by far in the majority.
In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.
Well in the past the scientists would have been inclined towards religiosity since the churches had a far tighter grip on all levels of education than they have now and it would have course followed that there were more scientists that happened to be religious believers too, nothing strange about that Vlad.
By the way Vlad, how come your handle is Jonique Anoo, not one of your best handles, IMO.
ippy
-
Well in the past the scientists would have been inclined towards religiosity since the churches had a far tighter grip on all levels of education than they have now and it would have course followed that there were more scientists that happened to be religious believers too, nothing strange about that Vlad.
By the way Vlad, how come your handle is Jonique Anoo, not one of your best handles, IMO.
ippy
I'm not convinced you have any clue about religion Ippy being a second or third generation unbeliever.
I was as you were but recognised my unbelief eventually for the God dodging it was.
Science is not the same as atheism in the same way that Brobat toilet cleaner is not the same.
Both science and Brobat are tools.
-
Dear Brownie,
Here's a famous one,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
His faith in no way stopped him from helping to map the human genome in fact it may have inspired him to search for the hand of God.
Gonnagle.
It may, but more than likely without much luck.
ippy
-
Science is not the same as atheism in the same way that Brobat toilet cleaner is not the same.
Both science and Brobat are tools.
In which case why do you consider that scientists are primarily motivated by anti theism (whatever that might be).
-
In which case why do you consider that scientists are primarily motivated by anti theism (whatever that might be).
This is what I wrote:
In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.
Let's be fair that is what I mean. Note in terms of proselytising, eveangelical faiths in science (THE CONTEXT) I MAINTAIN THAT OF THOSE ANTITHEISM HAS THE BIGGEST INFLUENCE.
Are you trying to say that most scientist who blog on religion aren't in fact antitheists?
-
This is what I wrote:
In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.
Let's be fair that is what I mean. Note in terms of proselytising, eveangelical faiths in science (THE CONTEXT) I MAINTAIN THAT OF THOSE ANTITHEISM HAS THE BIGGEST INFLUENCE.
Are you trying to say that most scientist who blog on religion aren't in fact antitheists?
Given that you seem to be the only person who even uses the term anti theist, I'm not even sure what you mean by the term.
But if you mean that they against religion rather than simply disagree with religion, then no I wouldn't agree with you. I think most scientists who post about topics that link to religion are posting because they are pro-science and rational evidence and therefore consider certain religious views (e.g. creationism) to be wrong. There is a difference between pointing out that someone else's opinion is wrong, in your view and in light of evidence and being against religion.
But that isn't what you said - you didn't say that scientist were anti-theists, nope you claimed that the motivation for scientists was their anti-theism, in other words the reason why they do science is because they are opposed to religion. I think that is flat out wrong (as I have indicated above) and also deeply arrogant of you to assume that everyone's reasons for doing things revolves around religion even if they aren't religious.
I'm not religious, but guess what never once in my scientific career have I thought 'do you know what I'm going to do this experiment to prove those pesky religionists wrong' - never, not once.
I have been frustrated when science and religion collide in the political arena, for example when religious lobbyists tried to prevent the government from amending the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to allow human embryonic stem cell research to be conducted in the UK. But my reasons weren't to try to put two fingers up at religion but because I considered that this type of research held great promise, both in terms of enhancing our fundamental understanding of human biology but also ultimately to allow new treatments to be developed. I was also frustrating at cherry picking of studies by lobbyists, and actually my frustrations were with both 'sides' of the argument.
So I may have disagreed with the views of (some) religions but I most certainly wasn't being an anti theist (whatever that might mean).
-
Given that you seem to be the only person who even uses the term anti theist, I'm not even sure what you mean by the term.
But if you mean that they against religion rather than simply disagree with religion, then no I wouldn't agree with you. I think most scientists who post about topics that link to religion are posting because they are pro-science and rational evidence and therefore consider certain religious views (e.g. creationism) to be wrong. There is a difference between pointing out that someone else's opinion is wrong, in your view and in light of evidence and being against religion.
But that isn't what you said - you didn't say that scientist were anti-theists, nope you claimed that the motivation for scientists was their anti-theism, in other words the reason why they do science is because they are opposed to religion. I think that is flat out wrong (as I have indicated above) and also deeply arrogant of you to assume that everyone's reasons for doing things revolves around religion even if they aren't religious.
I'm not religious, but guess what never once in my scientific career have I thought 'do you know what I'm going to do this experiment to prove those pesky religionists wrong' - never, not once.
I have been frustrated when science and religion collide in the political arena, for example when religious lobbyists tried to prevent the government from amending the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to allow human embryonic stem cell research to be conducted in the UK. But my reasons weren't to try to put two fingers up at religion but because I considered that this type of research held great promise, both in terms of enhancing our fundamental understanding of human biology but also ultimately to allow new treatments to be developed. I was also frustrating at cherry picking of studies by lobbyists, and actually my frustrations were with both 'sides' of the argument.
So I may have disagreed with the views of (some) religions but I most certainly wasn't being an anti theist (whatever that might mean).
Let's put this in the context all this started in.
Len James says there is a problem with religious scientists bringing their religion into science.
I counter that by saying that antitheism is likely to have a far bigger influence in that respect.
Firstly it equates itself with science . The danger therefore comes from the likes of Dawkins and the universal Darwinians and the Carrollites whose aim is to solve the ''problem'' of a finely tuned universe. Many physicists question why this should be thought of as a problem other than it being some kind of problem for an antitheist perspective.
That Carroll then goes on to say we should retire falsification (in favour of elegance presumably).
Added together then antitheism is potentially far more dangerous to science since it seeks to change it's very nature to suit it's own agenda...and not just to influence research.
-
Let's put this in the context all this started in.
Len James says there is a problem with religious scientists bringing their religion into science.
I counter that by saying that antitheism is likely to have a far bigger influence in that respect.
Firstly it equates itself with science . The danger therefore comes from the likes of Dawkins and the universal Darwinians and the Carrollites whose aim is to solve the ''problem'' of a finely tuned universe. Many physicists question why this should be thought of as a problem other than it being some kind of problem for an antitheist perspective.
That Carroll then goes on to say we should retire falsification (in favour of elegance presumably).
Added together then antitheism is potentially far more dangerous to science since it seeks to change it's very nature to suit it's own agenda...and not just to influence research.
You have still failed to provide a shred of evidence to support your claim that 'Swiveleyed anti theism ... is a big motivation behind scientists'.
Show me a scientist who claims to be motivated to engage in scientific research to try to get one over on religion.
If you turned it on its head then you might have more credence, in other words that science is the motivation for some to disagree with and criticise religion. But that is the opposite way around to what you are claiming.
You might just as easily claim that the motivations behind christians like yourself is anti-islamicism.
-
You have still failed to provide a shred of evidence to support your claim that 'Swiveleyed anti theism ... is a big motivation behind scientists'.
Show me a scientist who claims to be motivated to engage in scientific research to try to get one over on religion.
If you turned it on its head then you might have more credence, in other words that science is the motivation for some to disagree with and criticise religion. But that is the opposite way around to what you are claiming.
You might just as easily claim that the motivations behind christians like yourself is anti-islamicism.
Once again Davey let me republish what I said in it's entirety and not just the wee snippet fashion adopted by yourself.
In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.
Note the accentuations.
-
Once again Davey let me republish what I said in it's entirety and not just the wee snippet fashion adopted by yourself.
In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.
Note the accentuations.
Makes no difference - the inference of what you have said is that anti theism is a big motivation for scientists, not that science is a motivation for people being anti theist.
I have never met a single scientist whose motivation for engaging in scientific research is anti theism, and I suspect nor have you. But critically you haven't provided evidence for a single scientist (whether or not you have met them) saying that the motivation behind their engaging in scientific research is anti theism or to get one over on religions, or anything similar.
I wonder why that might be - might it be because, as ever, you are spouting complete drivel.
Had you said that science was a motivation for (some) people being opposed to religion then I'd agree, but that's not what you claimed.
-
Once again Davey let me republish what I said in it's entirety and not just the wee snippet fashion adopted by yourself.
In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.
Note the accentuations.
Well actually the bits your accentuated make absolutely no sense whatsoever Vlad - in fact they are totally unintelligibly gobbledegook. The only part of the whole phrase that is intelligible is:
'Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists'
Wrong, but at least intelligible.
-
I'm not convinced you have any clue about religion Ippy being a second or third generation unbeliever.
I was as you were but recognised my unbelief eventually for the God dodging it was.
Science is not the same as atheism in the same way that Brobat toilet cleaner is not the same.
Both science and Brobat are tools.
What went wrong Vlad and how do I doge something that's more likely than not, not there?
Terrible handle by the way Vlad, at least Vlad suits you.
ippy
-
Moderator:
This thread has been restored minus the major derail on homosexuality, which we will consider separately.
We hope this thread will now amble back towards to topic of NHS Chaplaincy.
-
If I were you Gordon (& I am not anything like you, I'm sure), I wouldn't bother re-posting the derailments on homosexuality. Not my decision of course (thankfully). All the best x
-
Dear Brownie,
You can't send Mods kisses :P :P :P
Anyway, bring back Hope, BRING BACK HOPE :'(
Gonnagle.
-
Hope will be back I'm sure. That's if he wants to come back after all this fuss. I hope he does return so I can ask him one or two things - on the other hand, I don't really want to drag it all up again. So we'll wait and see.