Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 30th August 2008 Change Date

RBS Ambassador, Luke Donald

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Science cannot answer moral dilemmas, says archbishop



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 12 May 2008
By Beverley Rouse
SCIENCE can tell us what is possible, but it is up to individuals to decide what is right, the Archbishop of Canterbury said ahead of today's second reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
Dr Rowan Williams said he welcomes the opportunity for "further serious debate" on the "difficult issues" raised.

The opportunity to create so-called "saviour siblings" to help those suffering serious illnesses was "one of the most poignantly diff
icult areas", he wrote in a newspaper.

Dr Williams said a better understanding of the science involved would help people to make up their minds about some of the issues, but added: "Science in itself is never going to be able to tell us what the right thing is for us to do – it can only tell us what is possible."

He said most people agree it is morally wrong to use someone else for themselves.

"So we condemn rape, torture and blackmail. We don't allow experiments on people's bodies or minds without their consent. And we don't breed human individuals to create a pool of organs that could be transplanted to save the lives of others."

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has said he will allow Labour MPs – like those in opposition – a free vote on some of the issues in the bill.

Dr Williams said he was grateful that politicians and scientists recognised the need for further debate on "matters of conscience".





The full article contains 243 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 May 2008 7:57 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Scullion,

Canada 12/05/2008 02:09:24
I'm not sure religion has done such a bang up job on the morality front either.
2

Guga II,

Rockall 12/05/2008 03:53:46
#1 Scullion.

Not unless you class mass murder, torture and burnings as moral.
3

Jason,

Japan 12/05/2008 04:11:45
Same old, same old. Religion running interference on advances in science and technology. Morality; give me a break. Where was morality when the Holy Inquisition was operating for some 600 years?
4

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 12/05/2008 08:35:35
I'm not sure that the Archbishop's comments constitute religious interference. His full speech (printed in the Daily Mail) makes no mention of religion and presents the moral issues very well. For example, he doesn't imply, as the quotes above might suggest, that a human embryo constitutes a human body. He doesn't mention "soul" at all, and also admits to being confused.

"This doesn't mean we are bound to think of the primitive embryonic material as in every sense a "person", but it does mean that we can't lose sight of the fact that this organic unit is a potential person, and that the decisions we make about it are decisions about possible human and personal futures."

But his views must make you wonder about his religious beliefs. If science tells us what's possible, is he denying the power of prayer. Over the last 150 years or so, the Anglican Church has continued to drop beliefs in the more incredible parts of traditional Christianity (the magical stuff). Apart from the ceremony and pageantry, the church's views are increasingly hard to separate from those of Humanists and other groups that propose secular morality. Isn't it time it had a new bible?
5

hertscot,

12/05/2008 10:42:37
Science cannot answer moral dilemmas, says archbishop.

The churches (Hindu, CoE, CoS, RC, Islam, Judaism) don't exactly come across as a bastion of morality. #4 the archbishop will always speak from a religious (CoE) point of view, or else he wouldn't be doing the job expected of him, the fact that it is dressed up in a secular speech, says more about the CoE not wishing to rock the establishment vote, than any acceptance that secular morality can be just as effective as its religious predecesssor.
Science does not deal in morals per se, but puts forward ideas and thinking. Every one of us has a right to voice opinion, to criticise or accept what is put forward. But I am afraid that the influence of religion prevents this from happening.
Cardinals, Archbishops, Imans and Rabbis all have influence over their congregations and often suggest/impose points of view that are actually detrimental to the greater population since those points of view are interpreted from or influenced by religious orthodoxy and dogma, most of which was put in place to deal with the social, political and economic power stuggles of the 1st to 5th centuries AD.

It is time for this to be removed from power (such as bishops sitting in the House of Lords. We are grown up and non superstitious enough to make up our own minds, and since science is either supported by the masses or reviled by them, a natural road to morality is available.
6

Spoot,

Third rock pool on the left 12/05/2008 11:47:41
Archbishop cannot answer moral dilemmas, says Scotsman online reader, who also goes on to say that views of the leader of a minority sect in small country not very far away have little relevance the rest of the world.
7

Selgovae,

12/05/2008 11:49:28
#5 hertscot

I'm pretty much in agreement. But I'm not sure that many of the moralising pronouncements of the CoE (and CoS) leaders these days are based on "religious orthodoxy and dogma". The Archbishop of Canterbury is frequently quoted in the press, but I don't recall any of his quotations coming from the bible. You could easily argue that it is secular speech dressed up as religion. As to what "the job expected of him" is, your guess is as good as mine.
8

sam the god,

12/05/2008 12:26:19
Hopefully science will do a better job of humanity than religion has done.
(science fact as opposed to science fiction).
9

John Blackley,

Florida 12/05/2008 19:21:20
Banging on about the past failings and crimes of organised religion (in which this man played no part) or sneering about the failures of a church to live up to its doctrine doesn't change what the man is saying.

"Science can tell us what is possible, but it is up to individuals to decide what is right." seems to me to be an obvious truth. So what should the man do to carry out his job? Simply say, "Oh goodness! I work for a church that has committed crimes over the past X-hundred years! Perhaps, because of that, I should never say anything on any subject."?
10

Saoghal Beag,

12/05/2008 20:29:29
The bishop pointed out that aetism is much a commitment of faith as religion is. THe real problem is the conviction of absolute truth that prevails in too many religions. It is sadly ironic that the Confessions of a Justified Sinner is as relevant today as it was when it was written.

Faith is not hte problem, organised religion and humanitarism are.
11

hertscot,

12/05/2008 20:47:25
10 Saoghal Beag, so an archbishop is now pontificating on the nature of atheism and describing it as a faith, my atheism does not involve faith, not in science, not in man and obviously not in a supernatural being. The archbishops stance on atheism is typical of organised religion being unable to deal with people who don't tow their line, they describe it as a commitment of faith, not to upset atheists but to try to confuse their own departing flocks.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.