'Brain Dead' Man is now Trainee Accountant

An article published by The Christian Institute highlights the case of Steven Thorpe who was declared 'brain dead' by doctors and his family advised to switch off his life support machine. Doctors said he would never recover from his injuries sustained in a car crash aged 17.

They chose to get a second opinion. Steven, now 21, said:

“I think the doctors wanted to give me three days on the life support machine and the following day they said they wanted to turn it off. The words they used to my parents were ‘you need to start thinking about organ donations’. I think that’s what gave my dad energy, he thought ‘no way’."

Steven is currently training to be an accountant. He has had four operations to reconstruct his face so far since leaving hospital.

The University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust said:

“The injury to Steven’s brain was extremely critical and several CT scans of the head showed almost irreversible damage. It is extremely rare that a patient having suffered such extensive trauma to the brain should survive.”

This raises lots of questions about the switching off of life support machines. Often families are reluctant to 'let go' of loved ones, and often claim to see flickers of life. Sometimes these are genuine, other times wishful thinking. Steven's family had to go private for a second opinion, should this be standard on the NHS? Just because a recovery is 'rare' and damage is 'almost irreversible' should families be given 3 days?

The article links to other stories of 'miralce' recoveries: http://www.christian.org.uk/news/%e2%80%98brain-dead%e2%80%99-man-stuns-docs-with-his-amazing-recovery/

Catholic school teaching Catholic ideas?!?

Stop the press! Catholic schools teach Catholic ideas about gay marriage!  

There has been much in the press over the last week about how Catholic schools are wrong in their promotion of the conventional and traditional form of marriage. Some schools have taken up the Bishops' request to promote a petition against the change in law that would allow same-sex couples to call their legal union a 'marraige'. This issue has been discussed on TalkingDonkeyRE before, here and here.

However this weekend, the Daily Telegraph published a blog which got a lot of online interest. It basically said, in a slightly tongue-in-cheek fashion:

"What is the world coming to when, in the 21st century, in daylight hours, in an educational institution, the offspring of Catholics can openly be taught Catholic values? This madness must end!"

It goes on to urge a sense of calm, and non-sensationalism... is this really a surprise to the general public?

"This open-mouthed alarm at Catholic schools for promoting the virtues of traditional marriage is a bit like being shocked to discover that a Friends of the Earth summer camp teaches children BS about the eco-End of Days or that a Jewish school says the Torah is a good read."

However the section which got a lot of criticism, particularly from the secular and atheist readers was this one:

"Catholic schools have a certain amount of leeway to teach the Catholic view on life, sex and relationships. If they didn't, then they wouldn't be "Catholic schools" – they'd just be "schools". Maybe that's what the Catholic-bashing set wants – the evacuation of every smidgen of Catholic ideology from Catholic schools, so that they end up being indistinguishable from your average state school, and so that Catholic parents are denied the fundamental liberty to send their children to a school that embodies their values."

Many would like to see the closure of Catholic schools, in fact all faith-based schools. They perhaps forget that it was Christians who first started free schooling for the British population, or that over the last 150 years Christians have built schools, funded schools, supported schools... They also forget that it would be impossible to purchase all the land, buildings etc that Christians have donated for the use of education. Never mind fund the 10% of budgets that faith-based schools have to pay themselves.

There was also great issue with the fact that this 'fundamental liberty' of parents, is in fact some kind of abuse of parents to their children. I'd suggest that students of faith-schools get a wide ranging education of their parents' faith and can then decide whether or not they choose to believe. A reader that comments that in France, faith-schools are illegal and that this is a better way. France a country that continues to have rising tensions, particularly in ethnically diverse and economically poor areas.

It concludes by highlighting the irony of the secularists:

The irony is that while secularists accuse Catholic schools of "politically indoctrinating" their pupils, the real political indoctrination taking place here is the never ending attempt to prevent Catholic schools from imparting their values to their pupils. It is this intolerant desire to force Catholic schools to bend their knee to every mainstream political idea – whether it's on "safe sex" or "same-sex marriage" – which smacks of indoctrination, of attempting to cleanse institutions of the "wrong" way of thinking and make them repeat chattering-class catechisms.

As discussed on here before, I'm still undecided on the campaign against same-sex marriage. However, one thing I am sure of , is that Catholic schools increasingly need to fight for their identify under increasing pressure.

Is it really that shocking that Catholic schools are teaching Catholic ideas? Do you think Catholic schools should be reduced to just schools? Is Gove right to start investigating?

Read original article: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100153623/stop-the-press-catholic-schools-teach-catholic-ideas-about-gay-marriage/
Read subsequent story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/29/gay-marriage-catholic-schools-petition?newsfeed=true

Y9 Assessment 3: Life After Death

“If the Church believes in life after death, surely a funeral should be a joyful occasion.” Discuss this statement.

 

Mr Lewis' Essay Plan:
1. Introduction
–What do Christians believe?
–What happens at a funeral?
2. Agree – Some people would agree with this statement (funerals should be joyful) because…
3. Disagree – Some people would disagree with this statement (funerals should NOT be joyful)because…
4. Conclusion – After careful reflection, I think…


Download a copy of the Green instruction sheet <here>

 

Useful Links:

• What does the Bible say about Heaven? - http://www.bible.ca/su-heaven.htm
• The Catholic Funeral - http://www.facingbereavement.co.uk/catholic-funeral.html
• Christian Beleifs About Life After Death - http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/death/chbeliefrev1.shtml
• Christian Death Rites - http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/death/chdeathritesrev1.shtml
• Funerals: Joyful or Depressed? - http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=1711&grupo=Lifestyle&canal=Relationships

If you find any other good links, please add them in the comments box!

PowerPoint Slides:

#YOLO: A Christian Outlook?

Having heard students use the phrase #YOLO, I noticed a Catholic blog writing about the phrase. It raised the questions:

• What kinds of things would this life philosophy encourage?
• What kinds of choices are made by those who really do plan on living only once?

Does it mean we should live in a wasteful, reckless way? If we live as if everyday could be our last, that would determine a lot of our lifestyle choices. Indeed, why bother turning up for school this morning?

The author of the blog post suggests that actually, for those who have no belief in the Resurrection, no Christian faith, life becomes restless and individuals try to find meaning in meaningless things. He says:

"A man who doesn’t believe that he has anything to look forward to or that he’ll ever have to pay his debts – either because he doesn’t believe in an afterlife or because he isn’t mindful of it – is a fool at best and a danger to himself and others at worst."

He then goes on to quote St Augustine who before becoming a committed Christian lived a 'wasteful' life, gives a contrast of the YOLO philosophy to the life of a Christian:

"Belatedly I loved thee, O Beauty so ancient and so new, belatedly I loved thee. For see, thou wast within and I was without, and I sought thee out there. Unlovely, I rushed heedlessly among the lovely things thou hast made. Thou wast with me, but I was not with thee. These things kept me far from thee; even though they were not at all unless they were in thee. Thou didst call and cry aloud, and didst force open my deafness. Thou didst gleam and shine, and didst chase away my blindness. Thou didst breathe fragrant odors and I drew in my breath; and now I pant for thee. I tasted, and now I hunger and thirst. Thou didst touch me, and I burned for thy peace." – St. Augustine, Confessions, Book 10, Chapter 27

The blogger does conclude, that despite his seeming rejection of the YOLO philosophy, there can be a Christian version. One that links to the ideas of St Francis, who encouraged total commitment to God: ”Hold back nothing of yourselves for yourselves so that He Who gives Himself totally to you may receive you totally.”

This, it is suggested, that maybe Christians need to just 'add' a bit to YOLO.

Have a visit to his site - http://truthandcharity.net/yolo-a-christian-outlook/ - and you can vote in the poll...

• #YOLO + #ILFTTROTD - I Look Forward To The Resurrection Of The Dead
• #YOLO + #MementoMori - Remember your death
• #YOLOL4G - You Only Live Once - Live For God
• Dude, leave it alone. You Catholic bloggers have to ruin everything!

View Results

What do you think? Can we live life as #YOLO if we are Christian? Do you use YOLO and mean it? How does it effect your life?

AS Philosophy Revision Sites

Pisp.co.uk:
This site hopes to get people interested in Philosophy. Unfortuantely they seemed to loose interest themselves a few years back. However there are some excellent resources available online still:
Learn - http://www.pisp.co.uk/learn/ - including PowerPoints on design and cosmological arguements

Campbell College:
Another school site that has collected lots of great links: http://rewebsite.moonfruit.com/#/introducing-philosophy/4535566441

AS/A2 Revision Games

To improve your knowledge (AO1) there are some useful online games to help!

Arnewood School Site:
These are largely ethics based - http://www.rsrevision.com/contents/games.htm

PISP.co.uk:
Guess the Philsopher - http://www.pisp.co.uk/interact/quizzes/guesswho.htm

Philosophers Net:
There is a vareity of philosophy and ethics based games here - http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/
Ones that I think are interesting are

• Looking at logical arguements - http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/wason/
• Philosophical Health Check (more ethics actually!) - http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.php
• Do-It-Yourself Deity - http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.php

Do you know any more good games websites?

Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?

In January, Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and Director of the Origins Institute at Arizona State University, published A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing, a book that, as its title suggests, purports to explain how something---and not just any something, but the entire universe---could have emerged from nothing, the kind of nothing implicated by quantum field theory.

This article contains an interview with Krauss who seemingly blows apart the theory that there needs to be a 'first cause' to the universe and that that cause needs to be God, as put forward by countless theists.

He caused controversy when he claimed that, unlike science, philosophy "hasn't progressed in two thousand years.". However when challenged on this in the interview claimed that "To me what philosophy does best is reflect on knowledge that's generated in other areas." and he categorises different parts of philosophy into other disciplines, effectively reducing the subject to maths, literature, history, political science etc.

He later claims that "scientists are really happy when they get it wrong, because it means that there's more to learn", but doesn't clarify if this means he thinks philosophers, and potentially theists, don't like it when they get something wrong. Indeed will philosophers or theists actually admit to getting things wrong? Perhaps not.

When asked about the religious nature of his work he says:

"The religious question "why is there something rather than nothing," has been around since people have been around, and now we're actually reaching a point where science is beginning to address that question...  I didn't write the book to attack religion, per se. The purpose of the book is to point out all of these amazing things that we now know about the universe. Reading some of the reactions to the book, it seems like you automatically become strident the minute you try to explain something naturally."

Richard Dawkins wrote the afterword for the book and claimed that this book was on a par with "The Origin of Species", although Krauss pushes away such claims.

When challenged on the actual claims of his work, he states:  "I don't think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing; physics has shown how plausible physical mechanisms might cause this to happen."

The articles then goes on to discuss some of the more scientific aspects of his work and how 'something' could be 'created' out of nothing.

Potentially this kind of science could provide big question marks to Aquinas' first three 'Ways'. There could indeed be an uncaused cause, and that it may not be God.

The article begins, "Science is meant to make people uncomfortable." - yet in many ways this is exactly the same as philosophy. Certainly Krauss is raising many philosophical questions and states he is always focused on the 'why'. Maybe he was right when he said these disciplines are linked? Maybe his love for philosophy has lead him to question whether something can be created out of nothing, although at this stage it is still largely hypothetical...