My approach to such issues as stem cell research is decidedly non-theological. This is not because I reject religious arguments, but rather because I have been influenced by a range of religious traditions, including Buddhism, all of them interpreted philosophically. I think religion and philosophy (which includes the sciences) have been very helpful to one another, and that dialogue should continue. A very interesting example of such dialogue may be found at Tech Central Station. Michael Rosen begins with this:
On Wednesday, President Bush deployed his veto pen for the first time in his presidency. His decision to reject Congress's passage of a bill providing federal financing for embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research was thoughtful, painful, and reflective of the president's trademark conviction and consistency. It was also unfortunate.
I note that this is how to begin a civilized argument. Then he suggests that both sides give up some of the conceits that make honest conversation impossible.
First, dedicated proponents of ESC research must respect, acknowledge, and engage the arguments posed by their opponents. Depicting critics of techniques that destroy embryos as anti-science boors does nothing to advance the debate.
Second, foes of the research should move away from their focus on "alternative" avenues such as adult and cord-blood stem-cell research. This isn't to say that such modes of research won't be fruitful -- on the contrary: they already are quite productive -- but rather that there's no reason to consider them an alternative to ESC research simply because they share the word "stem-cell." Just as the government funds cancer research as well as AIDS research, so too can it easily sustain funding for both embryonic and non-embryonic stem-cell work.
I think he is right on both counts. Then, after acknowledging that there is a debate within the Jewish community about these matters, he presents his understanding of Jewish thought as it applies to the issue. Here is a sample:
As I argued in October, traditional Judaism takes what might be described as a pragmatic approach to issues involving pre-birth life. This entails a recognition that while embryos and fetuses are worthy of respect and mustn't be discarded at will, they are ontologically different from babies who have emerged from the womb.
Thus, abortion-on-demand and in other circumstances is strictly prohibited. But destroying an embryo for legitimate purposes -- including the potential for healing the terminally ill -- is permissible according to the vast majority of Jewish religio-legal authorities.
You can read the rest for yourself, and I strongly encourage you to do so. In accord with the school of thought in which I was trained, I regard religious traditions as authoritative. This doesn't mean that I have to take what any or all of them say as true. It means that I take seriously what each says because of who said it.
This is so for two reasons. First, well established religious traditions represent long histories of engagement with issues that science and philosophy are concerned with. One can be certain that there are things to be learned by consulting them. Second, all religions begin with the proposition that human life is somehow screwed up (according to the Biblical tradition, man is fallen; according to Buddha, life is suffering), and each claims a revealed truth about how to un-screw it. Those claims are not refutable by science, so I think they stand as philosophically exciting.
You can read the first part of Rosen's argument here, and the second here. Hat tip to RealClearPolitics.
Recent Comments