Catholic ethics, and the Australian Museum

Comments (14)

1. Conflict of interest: I’m a former winner. Yes, it is enough to make me slightly uncomfortable. But the judging is done by philosophers (I know several people who have been on the panel, and all are atheists). I just went through the list of winners and finalists. Ford is the only one on the entire list pushing a theological agenda of any kind, and he was a finalist, not a winner.

   1. Good to know. I was only raising the question, not answering it, however, by linking to that post.

2. 1) The list of panelists is <a href="http://eureka.australianmuseum.net.au/about/judging-the-eureka-prizes"here
   and it is misleading to say that the “judging is done by philosophers”, as if that makes them secular or at least, not part of the Vatican push to get its people and agenda into quangos and government policy.

   Dr John Quilter is listed as “Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Australian Catholic University”. An example of his work can be found in the Papal document Veritatis Splendor.
   As a philosopher, see him also in Australasian Philosophers of Religion.

   Bernadette Tobin, another panel member who likes to be called an ethicist, is, like Quilter, also a member of other Australian government quangos such as the National Health and Medical Research Council, and is a vigorous pusher of Vatican policies becoming Australian law. Very active in Vatican outreach and other Catholic programs, she is Director of the Plunkett Centre for Ethics at St Vincent’s & Mater Health Sydney and Australian Catholic University. I won’t go into other members of the panel, as I shouldn’t need to. The sponsor is what I was talking about, anyway.

   2) Ford is not the only winner to push a theological agenda, but even if he were, that shouldn’t be the issue. The issue should be whether this prize is promoting seriously the ethical questions that science face in our age, of which there are so many that the winner I mentioned when I spoke up last year, whose winning work let rich people feel okay about their wealth–make the prize as it is into a sad joke, even if not all winners deserve to be laughed at in the context of prize-deserving work.

   The fact is, the prize being sponsored by Australia Catholic University should come under the same depth of ethical judgment as tobacco companies sponsoring sport, or funding studies that get published in science journals.

   This year, we in Australia will be granted our first saint, due to miracles she accomplished long after her death, proven by a medieval process that forbids outside scrutiny or proof. This saint malarkey should be enough to excommunicate anyone who seeks to promote this anti-science as truth. Instead, this is ignored by the Eurekas, meaning that saying science is bullshit and saying bullshit is science, is not only scientific, must be ethically moral.

   As to other issues that are still outstanding, such as the ethics of death and the role of the Catholic church in spreading lies about the efficacy of condoms, that was last year’s joke.

   1. I agree with all this.

3. I agree with most of what Anna says, though Neil is right that some excellent people have won this prize. I think Justin Oakley, who was my PhD supervisor, even won it one year, but I haven’t checked the list. There’s sure no way I’ll ever win it with Tobin there.

   I’m not sure what the problem is about Quilter being on that list of philosophers of religion, though. The sample of his work may show that he’s a Vatican apologist, but the list of Australasian Philosophers of Religion includes some very reputable people indeed, among them our host. And also among them, some high-profile atheists such as Graham Oppy and Jack Smart. Hey, I probably should join that organisation myself.

4. Live in hope, Russell!

   And I’m sorry, John, for what is probably my lack of specificity about what I find most appalling. Sponsorship of a prize is a form of promotion, a very popular one. There are two ways this prize does that. First, in the simple sponsorship. Second, in the narrowing of the issues and stances in consideration. The Judging Criteria as listed on the Eureka site says clearly in bold type, in point 5. Consistency with the Australian Catholic University ethos. The ethos of this institution is indistinguishable from that of the Vatican, as it is essentially an organ of the Vatican, as is the Plunkett Centre for Ethics.

   This doesn’t mean that think all the winners of this ethics prize are unworthy, but that the nature of the prize sponsor is unworthy, as it imposes its own restrictions as to what it considers both ethical and worthy of consideration.

   This sponsorship in this prestigious group of prizes from this world-class institution supported by the Australian government, also says something powerful. That scientists don’t really care that in this age when there is growing ignorance of science and scientific principles, that scientists at the heart of what should be the evangelism of science and knowledge are docile and accepting when their role is usurped by an institution that promotes anti-scientific thinking and is not shy at all in its attempts to make people believe anything it says, as if there had been no reformation. Even though the last Papacy and this one have both tried to lead the world back to pre-reformation sensibilities, that doesn’t mean we need to help light their way.

5. Hi, Jonathan Speke Laudly here,
   I have to admit sympathy with Anna.
   I am for separation of church and state–
   along American lines—and find odious this linkage of an official Australian state institution with the Catholic Church.
   Having said that, I have nothing against
   the event itself, keeping in mind it takes place within the conceptual confines of the Catholic “ethos”. Some interesting work has been produced–by Augustin and Aquinas and others–within such limits.
   And, after all, the ethics of the Old Testament (Laws of Moses) and the New
   Testament (Sermon on the Mount etc.)
   has underpinned western ethics for two thousand years–for better or worse, or I should say for better and worse—
   400 years of the Inquisition!
   As for science, the church has generally made peace with science since it
   threatened to burn Galileo along with his books. The church does not dispute evolution, for instance.
   Given 2000 years of philosophically slicing and dicing dogma, the church is pretty sophisticated (and I do mean “sophist”) about arguments and issues –though, of course, in its own bigoted way.
   The church is in many ways a venerable dinosaur–an historical relic that lumbers on. I condemn its dogma on sexuality and
   praise its work for social justice–it’s a mixed bag.
   I just wish the state had rejected having anything to do with this event. For philosophers it may be a good thing generally–but it bodes ill for the people’s
   government.

6. Anna, I yield to no one in my disdain for the Cult of Misery. I just couldn’t see what Quilter’s membership in an organisation that Dr Wilkins also belongs to, along with JJC Smart, Graham Oppy, etc., has to do with it. I’d hate things to reach a point where being a philosopher of religion in itself makes you suspect in the eyes of rationalists. One of the things that I’m trying to do, in a small way, is to get more bright young people who are NOT religious to do work in philosophy of religion. That field should be a powerhouse of intellectual critique of religion.

   1. Wow, I’m listed with Smart and Oppy? That goes on the CV, for sure…

      I think that the Humean distinction between religious philosophy as being anchored in reason (traditional philosophy of religion) and in human nature (modern cognitive science and philosophy of religion) is worth bearing in mind here. Little of interest seems to occur in the former these days, while quite a lot is happening in the latter, and it is that kind of philosophy of religion I think worth doing.

7. Russell, I was responding to Neil’s statement, “But the judging is done by philosophers (I know several people who have been on the panel, and all are atheists).” There is, as John Wilkins himself shows, a vast difference between his scope as a philosopher, and that of many who call themselves philosophers, especially those who are “philosophers of religion.” So I’m not denigrating John Wilkins’ knowledge and curiosity about life. Rather, I would like to hold it up as a model (see his books, for instance, to see that he spends his life not gaining wisdom and teaching it from the writings of a leader of the Inquisition, as that other philosopher of religion and noted “scholar”, the present Pope). Wilkins’ interest in religion is part of his overall interest in life–to find out why any organism acts the way it does.

   But Wilkins is no dogmatist. He looks at religion just as much as everything else, as a scientist. There is indeed, a long list of scientist reverends, one of whom, the Rev. H.M.R. Rupp, inspired my first novel, Spotted Lily. Rupp and his colleagues of the soiled knees, spend their intellectual energy and their dreams, exploring and trying to learn from the natural world. In dealing with the world, they could not have been dogmatists. Of Wilkins, there is no truth that he just accepts. He bows to no authoritarian culture, even a scientific theory, as there is no theory that is sacrosanct in science, which would die without new discovery and thought–both anathema to the Catholic Church and to the other regressive religions thriving around the globe today. We do need people to understand religion, especially the history of it, as we need people to understand all history so that we recognise and reject despotism.

   But while Wilkins has a wide interest in the world and his curiosity is vast, many “philosophers of religion” use the term “philosopher” as a pneumatic label, to stretch the picture of their narrow minds. They aren’t upfront about their religion and proselytising any more than the anti-evolution right has been in the US when they run for election to public school boards. I wasn’t denigrating philosophers of religion but showing that it is not true that the term “philosopher” means that the person using it isn’t using it from a specific point of view, a narrowly prescribed one. I gave an example in Quilter to show that “philosopher is disingenuous unless one understands the context. And the context is of one who not only accepts catechism, but spreads it. Science should be an inoculation against catching catechism. By the way, Quilter’s profile on the ACU website lists him under “Community” as Chair, National Acoustics Laboratories Research Ethics Committee, Member, NSW Institute of Psychiatry Research Ethics Committee, Member, NSW Department of Health, Committee on Ethical Guidelines for the Treatment of Patients Under Restraint and Transport, Member, NSW Board of Studies Review Forum, Studies in Religion Curriculum, Marker, HSC Studies in Religion.

   That Neil found it necessary to say that some judges are atheists, shows he missed what I am trying to say. I don’t care whether someone knows that some god exists or that he doesn’t exist. If he does, I would think that institutions like the Catholic Church have enough work on their ethical-studies plate, in trying to understand why he’s such a psychopath. But for those of us interested in the issues that need addressing in our age–issues that affect the public good, issues that demand we look to each other to make our minds up about instead of abdicating responsibility, as self-actuating humans with both will and judgment–it isn’t worth wondering whether a god’s acts are caused by nature or nurture, because we can’t lock him up or kill him. What is of crucial importance, is how we act, what we laws we impose on each other, what quality of life we wish to help foster, and what level of hypocrisy we tolerate.

   Finally, I wonder what the response would be if, instead of the Catholic Church taking up all the oxygen in the room with this Science Ethics prize and many other quangos that rule how we live and how we die here in Australia, it were Saudi Arabia’s Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, or the Institute for Creation Research.

   1. Okay, now I don’t recognise this Wilkins guy you are talking about. Do you mean Bishop John Wilkins in the 17th century? He was all the things you ascribe here…

8. Er, no. I was meaning you, you spawn of the Renaissance, though I probably confused matters when I veered from you to those naturalists whose sermon-composing interrupted their true passions.

   1. Then, as I said, I fail to recognise that John Wilkins. He’s some kind of moral exemplar, while I am just some guy, you know?

9. John, I’m sure that the other JW had his faults, too, and I only held you up as an example, not an exemplar. I hope you don’t think I’m abusing your fallibility by not counting it the foremost aspect of your character. But you are an excellent example of a philosopher who uses your brain to work rather than as a receptacle. Another is Oliver Sacks, who also has a healthy attitude to dogma and discovery. So don’t swell your head thinking I worship you. I only worship two gods: Alexander von Humboldt and a restorative cup of tea.

Comments are closed.