From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Possible bases for taboos on anal sex (was Re: Homophobes...)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:05:32 GMT

exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    That's certainly the conclusion that I would reach, however I would 
>>also follow a little farther along that premise and note that under your 
>>premise the definition of sin is something which was created by humans 
>>and which evolved over the passage of time as some behaviors were observed 
>>to place the individual or group in jeopardy. That sounds more like  
>>secular humanism than the usual Judeo-Christian idea that sin is something 
>>which was determined by the Almighty.

>Many Judeo-Christian types believe that God gave these laws knowing about
>the consequences of breaking them.

    Perhaps so, but I believe that the point I was trying to make is that 
regardless of who made the laws of how things work, it was humans who 
codified the understanding of those laws and went through the long painful 
process of translating empirical observation into social taboo. The process 
is far from perfect, and there are possibly some "sinful"/dangerous 
behaviors which haven't yet been accounted for. Thus, the Bible may make 
a great moral guide, but it makes a lousy medical text (as many louse-
bitten typhus victims could probably appreciate, albeit posthumusly).

>> The next significant 
>>step along the road was probably the development of antibiotics in the 
>>1940s. At that point it became clear that disease was not simply an "Act 
>>of God", and the contagion of disease was not simply punishment for sin.

>You miss the point that believers in God would say "that is simply the
>method he has used".  Just because you have found physical evidence of
>some agent involved does not mean that God is not responsible for the
>authorship of the situation.

    True, however if I suddenly noticed that my society's religious norms 
did little or nothing to protect people from a newly discovered biological 
agent then I'd be in favor of updating those norms toute suite. Also in 
some cases it's really tough to invent a moral rule for avoiding infection.

    For instance, malaria and yellow fever are both very old diseases 
which are transmitted by certain types of mosquitos. Morality has very 
little to do with who gets bitten by a mosquito. To make matters even 
more complicated, the mosquitos which carry malaria prefer the blood of 
cattle to the blood of humans, so communities which keep dosmesticated 
cattle have historically had less incidence of malaria. What sort of moral 
lesson could have been drawn from that sort of disease? Was it a sin to be 
bitten by mosquitos, and if so then why were dispensations given to people 
who kept cattle? IMHO it's obvious (at least to me) that traditional 
concepts of morality and sin are not an adequate basis for the study and 
understanding of disease.

>>>   I'll stick with Judeo-Christian tradition thank you.  They figured  
>>>   it out 3,000 years ago.  Others are condemned to repeat history...

>>    They may have had some things figured out 3,000 years ago, but rather 
>>than stick with what they had all worked out back then I'd say that it's 
>>fortunate that our society has the ability and willingness to adapt and 
>>establish new traditions to deal with new diseases like cholera (which was 
>>apparently unknown outside India prior to the 1820's and 30's).

>Hmm.  I recall something in the OT about how to keep your drinking water 
>pure.

    Very true. In China and across central Asia there are old cultural 
taboos on hunting certain species of rodents (which just happen to also 
be carriers of bubonic plague). I certainly don't want to deny that some 
disease avoidance strategies are old (or even ancient), but one of the 
lessons of history is that the occasional arrival of new diseases can be 
disastrous unless the society is able to quickly implement new policies 
to combat the new infections.

    That's why I stand by my position that the Bible is all well and good, 
but it's guidance is not sufficient to address the epidemiological needs 
of our society.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh