Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46 (2):219-237 (2021)

Authors
Jeffrey Bishop
Saint Louis University
Boaz Goss
Azusa Pacific University
Abstract
Full-Blooded religion is not acceptable in mainstream bioethics. This article excavates the cultural history that led to the suppression of religion in bioethics. Bioethicists typically fall into one of the following camps. 1) The irreligious, who advocate for suppressing religion, as do Timothy F. Murphy, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. This irreligious camp assumes American Fundamentalist Protestantism is the real substance of all religions. 2) Religious bioethicists, who defend religion by emphasizing its functions and diminishing its metaphysical commitments. Religious defenders empty religion of its theology to present its feel-good functions in a way that is acceptable to the irreligious. However, religion reduced to its functions dissolves into a counter-culture that may counteract materialism but lacks the power to motivate much more. This article criticizes both camps, as both presume Enlightenment myths and consequently neuter religion. Both irreligious and religious bioethicists commonly presume Enlightenment myths about secularity and religion. Secularity is presumed neutral and rational. Religion is presumed divisive and irrational. This myth provides built-in value-judgements; we have already judged secularity as good and religion as bad. Much of the debate over religion in bioethics is arguing over false stereotypes of religion. Consequently, mainstream bioethics neuters religion, while the irreligious are gifted political power to define the field.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/jmp/jhaa035
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,949
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Principles of Biomedical Ethics.Tom L. Beauchamp - 1979 - Oxford University Press.
After Virtue.A. MacIntyre - 1981 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 46 (1):169-171.
Critique of Pure Reason.I. Kant - 1787/1998 - Philosophy 59 (230):555-557.
The Birth of Bioethics.Albert R. Jonsen - 1998 - Oxford University Press.

View all 33 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Whose (Ir)Religion? Which Bioethics?Benjamin N. Parks - 2021 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46 (2):147-155.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

In Defense of Irreligious Bioethics.Timothy F. Murphy - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics 12 (12):3-10.
Whose (Ir)Religion? Which Bioethics?Benjamin N. Parks - 2021 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46 (2):147-155.
Homo Religiosus: The Soul of Bioethics.William E. Stempsey - 2021 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46 (2):238-253.
Religion and Bioethics: Toward an Expanded Understanding.Howard Brody & Arlene Macdonald - 2013 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (2):133-145.
A History of Religion and Bioethics.Albert R. Jonsen - 2006 - In David E. Guinn (ed.), Handbook of Bioethics and Religion. Oxford University Press.
The Public Debate on the Religiosity of the Public Debate of Bioethics in the USA.Lehel Balogh - 2009 - Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 8 (23):3-12.
Theorizing Religion in Its Meanings for Bioethics.Timothy F. Murphy - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (12):47-49.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-04-03

Total views
2 ( #1,386,945 of 2,433,251 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #293,577 of 2,433,251 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes