You lost me with the third sentence:

"In contrast properly performed male circumcision in childhood or adulthood has now been proved to have many substantial health benefits for both males and any future partners."

This is absolute rubbish. No matter how much Jews and other circumcised religious groups would like to believe that there are some genuine health benefits to circumcision, objective health studies show this is not the case. (The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states that "there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision".) Add in the risks of mutilation or even death due to a bungled procedure -- see for instance http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3069491.stm -- and it becomes clear that only a deluded person would inflict this painful and unnecessary procedure on themselves or their child.

The rest of the article -- couldn't be bothered, sorry

GP,
I think you have missed the authors point. My interpretaion is that the author is suggesting that scientific discoveries in many fields are forcing us to use out rational thinking ability to overcome our sometimes ridiculous instinctual reactions to evidence that is not as expected and thereby forcing sapien beings to develop well reasoned ethics for the new situations. Isn't that the point of his argument about competent male circumcision? Justice demands the protection of future partners!

JonJ
Your comment came up only afer I had posted my recent comment.
On circumcision I will quote two recent opinions which I recently read. The first is from a comment in the most recent 'The Skeptic' by Professor Brian Morris of the School of Medical Sciences, U. of Sydney and reads that, "Uninformed opinions - in contradiction to the clear scientific evidence concerning the many lifelong health benefits of this simple safe proceedure - should be treated with the utmost scepticism."
The second opinion is from Asst Professor Guy Cox, Electro Microscope Unit, U. of Sydney who states that, "There is no doubt that from a strictly medical basis circumcision is hugely beneficial." He also added, "sex is better."
You were wrong on that matter so maybe you would have learnt something had you continued to read.

What a prat this author seems to be. I don't give a rats arse about religious absolutes, but his 'absolutes' are no reason to claim all god-botherers as 'diddling little boys'. Perhaps he want to diddle them himself, and is projecting his twisted desires on others?

That first claim is clear evidence that the article is not a serious attempt to find moral grounding, but an excuse to bash people he despises, probably without even knowing them.

As happens sometimes around here, the tag line for this article (“How often has religion supported war and failed to condemn injustice such as abject poverty?”) seems to have drifted away from the content a little.

It’s a pretty insurmountable challenge, sorting out the difference between morals and ethics in 1200 words, and Turner hasn’t really gone beyond providing us with some nice quotes about the human condition.

I would take issue with the view that “Modern science is leading humanity (albeit very slowly) towards a charter for rational, logical moral and ethical behaviour.” Scientific investigation is providing us with data upon which we can make rational judgements, and revealing that many of our traditional views are ill-founded. However science is just that: science – a system of rigorous and testable investigation. Far from leading the armies, science is simply loading the muskets being fired on irrational systems of belief. It’s our own in-built need for consistency and fairness that is leading us towards rational ethical behaviour. A long, but very readable article in the New York Times recently summarised current thinking in this direction: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

Most importantly, however ...
“Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.”
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html

The source of the above quote, A Framework for Ethical Decision Making, is an excellent rubric for resolving ethical issues, minimising the role of belief in ethical determinations – always a good thing.

Foyle, not much of a believer in coincidence myself, did you notice Turner’s use of a quote you yourself have been using? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7582#117671

Oh, and Sells, indoctrination is “teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically.” http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=indoctrination Sounds like a very good description of religious instruction to me, and most definitely not a slur.

I'm not sure at all that we have lost our moral compass. We hear a lot of static, that's all. It isn't necessary to be a practising Christian - or an adherent to any other religion - to work by the simple rule outlined in the Ten Commandments: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

In other words, in all circumstances, apply the simple test of putting yourself in the shoes of the other person. I think most people do this; there is an innate sense of justice present in the human psyche.

Science provides empirical fact (well, sometimes!). Religion operates, as for example Karen Armstrong so powerfully argues, in the 'parallel universe' of faith-based myth and custom.

Our real test as a society is to sort the wheat from the chaff in public debate. Now there's a challenge.