I am always interested in reading Michael Cook's articles. Has he written any books at all?

Don't know if he has written any books, but he edits these online journals:

http://www.mercatornet.com/

http://www.bioedge.org/

I agree - great article.

A very good article. Clear and well thought out. Thanks.

I think anyone reading this article should do themselves a favour and access the link to Steven Pinker's original piece provided by the author. It is very good.

And I can see what would have upset Michael Cook. As a theocon bioethicist himself he would have rankled at Pinker's summary "theocon bioethics flaunts a callousness toward the billions of non-geriatric people, born and unborn, whose lives or health could be saved by biomedical advances. Even if progress were delayed a mere decade by moratoria, red tape, and funding taboos (to say nothing of the threat of criminal prosecution), millions of people with degenerative diseases and failing organs would needlessly suffer and die. And that would be the biggest affront to human dignity of all."

I think when examining the views of people like Mr Cook we need to ask whose dignity are they really protecting with their pontifications and the answer more often than not is their own. I accuse both sides of this. In the case of Singer his arguments for the euthanasia of severely disabled infants appear to centre on the position they are less human than fully abled peers rather than any discussion about the preservation of their dignity. However one gets the very strong impression they are an affront to his own dignity.

Admittedly while I am more than happy to hear well constructed argument from the clergy I do prefer my bioethicists theocracy free. It is my bias for less bias so to speak.

On the one hand the author writes about human dignity.

On the other hand his homebase Opus Dei helped produce a vile sado-masochistic snuff/splatter film, in which the "hero" was systematically beaten to death.

So much for human dignity.

The message being that it is necessary to mortify and abuse the body in order to become "holy".
All the usual shedding of blood and "noble" suffering double-minded nonsense. Which inevitably leads to the dreadful politics of scapegoating.

Plus his website has direct links with all the usual right wing boosters of the Pentagon military/industrial/"entertainment" complex. The death machine which now dominates every aspect of USA "culture".

Needless to say the author wont even begin to address that issue.

'Dignity' is just the latest theological buzzword put forward to try and take the place of the increasingly threadbare concept of 'sin'. After two thousand years of religion it was becoming plain to nearly everyone that 'sinning' usually just meant having a better time than somebody else. Enter 'dignity'.

Acting with 'dignity' means doing what God and the establishment tell you to do. It sounds better than 'Consume, be silent, die', but it means basically the same thing.

What about when humans display courageous dignity in refusing to follow what the establishment dishes out from on high? Opposing the abolition of the idea of human dignity could be the last bastion of opposition to the pharmaceutical/industrial/military/consumerist hegemony which now has its grip on the world and threatens to reduce humans to pawns in a utilitarian game of "killing me softly".

Why do Pinker and others of his ilk have such an aversion to ideas simply because they may have some connection with religious belief? If they are good ideas, let them flourish. Does he want to impose anti-theism on everyone? How can he claim to defend the saving of lives while approving of abortion? Maybe an irrational aversion to religion blinds him to his inconsistencies. If "the mind is what the brain does" religion can look like a no-brainer and human dignity like nothing more than respect for molecules. But if the mind is what understands the brain (and a lot more), then many other things make sense, too, including human dignity, rational argument, respect for life, suffering, even God.

Dignity refers to individual worth and autonomy.

Sin refers to wrongdoing - not used that much because people feel uncomfortable about moral criticisms. It is sometimes replaced by euphemisms like "terrible thing".

We should try to understand both words rather than lable them "religious", as though that's a reason not to think about them.

Hey BR,

I would have thought to sin was to trangress against one's god.

Dignity however is less clear cut.

Is it how others view us or how we view ourselves that is of the greater import when we think about dignity?

There must inevitably exist tension between religion/sin vs dignity. Australia's recent amendments to give more equal legal treatment to homosexuals was a win for human dignity but was problematic for many of those who have adopted traditional thiestically inspired values.