Opinion: God help us
Written by Laurence Boyce on 31st October 2007 – 11:05 pm
“In my business, asking people to risk their lives is part of the job, but doing so without giving them the chance to understand that there is a life after death is something of a betrayal … inspiration best comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ … the example of his life, the purpose of his death and the hope that comes from his resurrection brings that special dimension to leadership and to life itself.” Isn’t it reassuring to know that the commander in chief of the British Army is more than just a few of rounds short of a full ammunition belt?
For those were the reported comments of General Sir Richard Dannatt, who managed to take time off from fighting two wars, in order to address a recent conference for evangelical Christians in Swanwick, Derbyshire. To my ears, it would have been scarcely less bizarre had he been extolling the virtues of the goddess Aphrodite, discussing his private conversations with Elvis, or perhaps suggesting that every soldier be equipped with a voodoo doll of Osama bin Laden as a key weapon in the war against terror. And yet, with one notable exception, the General’s remarks produced barely a murmur in the press; while our politicians, fearful as ever of losing the God vote, maintained a strict radio silence – such is the absurd degree of respect we routinely afford those who would order their lives (and indeed everyone else’s given half a chance) around the delusions of one or other of the ancient mythologies.
But what makes this latest public display of deranged thinking at once astonishing and deeply disturbing, is Sir Richard’s explicit invocation of a metaphysics of life after death. Failing to explain to our brave soldiers that this life is but a trivial prelude to the eternal life to come, would in his words amount to a “betrayal.” Has he forgotten so soon the apocalyptic events (if you pardon the expression) which brought on our disastrous misadventures in the Middle East? When the 9/11 hijackers ploughed into the World Trade Center in 2001, they did so with a huge grin on their faces. For they believed with chilling certainty that they were merely seconds away from entering a paradise flowing with milk and honey, scented wine and delicious fruits, and never forgetting of course the seventy-two dark-eyed rechargeable virgins (or whatever it is that devout Muslims actually believe). So it was that 16 acres of Lower Manhattan were duly demolished in the name of the “religion of peace.”
Yet now we learn that Sir Richard himself holds beliefs which, though arising from Christian culture, are qualitatively no different to those held by the 19 gentlemen who managed six years ago to upend our world in such spectacular fashion. So, whilst it seems most unlikely that the General will soon be perpetrating a terrorist atrocity of his own, do we really think that he is a fit person to be commanding the British Army?
I submit that no-one with a talent for such monumental self-deception should be allowed anywhere near our levers of power, whether they be political, military, educational, medical, or judicial. For the “afterlife,” it must now be stated plainly, is nothing but a vain and ignorant superstition born out of a natural fear of death – a fear that religions have been exploiting for millennia in the furtherance of their respective kingdoms, which appear to be very much of this world, not of the next.
Of course when it comes to public manifestations of religious stupidity, we’ve got a little way to go before catching up with our friends from the United States of America. Yes, welcome to the “land of the free” – so free in fact that only 28% believe in evolution, while 68% believe in Satan, and around 44% think that Jesus will in all likelihood return sometime within the next fifty years. Hilarious, isn’t it? So naturally you might expect the US military to contain a few fruitcakes of its own. You wouldn’t be disappointed. Here’s a great quote from top Pentagon official Lieutenant General William Boykin in 2003: “Why is this man [Bush] in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him.” (so far, so good) “He’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.” Shortly after making these remarks, Boykin got the promotion he was angling for when he was put in charge of “stress and duress” techniques at Abu Ghraib – just the job for a nice Christian gentleman.
You’d think that with God on our side, the military interventions of the last few years might have proved to be a great success. In fact, virtually none of our foreign policy objectives have been achieved. In Afghanistan, bin Laden was allowed to skip over the hills, leaving us to fight a protracted battle against the Taliban which Lord Ashdown now considers to be a doomed enterprise. Meanwhile, Iraq is fast mutating into the most ghastly theocracy imaginable, and the world is without question a far more dangerous place than before, (when it should have been perfectly obvious that an Iraq invasion would end in tears: “If you fight against the Babylonians, you will not succeed.” – Jeremiah 32:5). The correct lesson to be drawn from all of this, is that if the problem is radical Islam, then the solution is emphatically not a Christian President Bush and his crazy sidekicks, taking orders from God to wage a “Crusade” against the Muslim world. It just doesn’t sound good.
The trouble with religion is that it promotes a fundamental double standard in our thinking and behaviour – between the domains of faith and reason, between the natural and the supernatural, between evidence-based knowledge and divine revelation – and we are now paying a terrible price for this duplicity, as we find ourselves inhabiting a world fractured along sectarian lines and balkanised into separate moral communities. The religious violence we witness around the globe today, invariably attributed to “extremists,” is nothing less than the guaranteed consequence of a struggle between competing and unfalsifiable ideologies – one in which differences may be settled by one means and one means only: with a fight to the death. May I suggest that we dismiss General Dannatt, pull our troops out tomorrow, drop the “special relationship,” and then spend the rest of the century attempting to cure our own collective insanity before we ever presume to be capable of fixing anyone else’s?
* Laurence Boyce is a Liberal Democrat member.
Posted in Op-eds
1st November 2007 at 1:16 am
I thought that as Liberal Democrats we we were in favour of freedom of religion? And of at least trying to represent fairly other’s beliefs even where we do not share them.
1st November 2007 at 5:00 am
This article is a disgrace. Richard Dannatt is highly capable, talented, brave and no doubt a decent man. he is not the same as a suicide bomber and to suggest that is appalling. So is suggesting that no-one religious should hold office, which is to say that no one who disagrees with your world view should hold office. That is fundementally illiberal. We live in a free society and people can hold whatever views they like, and no one can be a lib dem and disagree with that statement.
I would also remind you that many lib dems are Christians and other are Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. several MP’s, including Simon Hughes and Steve Webb are Christians. Should they be banned from office? What about the 250+ members of the Lib Dem Christian Forum. Or the many hundreds more in the party, or the millions in the country?
You are an embarrassment.
1st November 2007 at 5:19 am
A modern Test and Corporation Act?Anyone with a religious belief should be banned?
People should have freedom of religious belief.
The true question is the separation of church and state.
The Church of England should be disestablished.
1st November 2007 at 5:59 am
Richard Dannatt is highly capable, talented, brave and no doubt a decent man.
Maybe so. But in this article he displays nothing but vanity and self-delusion.
He is not the same as a suicide bomber and to suggest that is appalling.
Oh dear, I thought I had made that quite clear. Let me try again. Sir Richard holds beliefs which are QUALITATIVELY no different to those held by . . .
So is suggesting that no-one religious should hold office, which is to say that no one who disagrees with your world view should hold office.
That’s not really what I’m saying. Rather I am questioning whether someone with really quite appalling judgement should hold high office.
That is fundamentally illiberal.
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .
We live in a free society and people can hold whatever views they like, and no one can be a Lib Dem and disagree with that statement.
That is the best self-destructing sentence I have seen for a while.
I would also remind you that many Lib Dems are Christians and other are Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.
In other words, a large number of Lib Dems hold views which are completely contradictory and incompatible with the views held by other sections of Lib Dems. Is that supposed to be a good thing?
Several MP’s, including Simon Hughes and Steve Webb are Christians. What about the 250+ members of the Lib Dem Christian Forum? Or the many hundreds more in the party, or the millions in the country?
Please don’t use that argument. A hundred years ago, everyone was racist, sexist, and homophobic. Would it have been “illiberal” to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy of the day? A million people can be wrong. Indeed they very often are.
You are an embarrassment.
Thanks “mindstar.” I’m mortified.
1st November 2007 at 9:16 am
Laurence,
Well done for standing up to the moral relativists who have posted here.
Leaving to one side the issue of soldiers fighting in the middle east who apparently take their guidance from Jesus, to say that it is liberal not to challenge a spurious belief is just wrong. By the same token we’d never challenge honour killings, or accept racism, or any number of issues that a progressive ought to challenge.
1st November 2007 at 10:08 am
Religion is and has been used time and again to take people to war, to kill, discriminate and persecute. Surely most Christians can recognise that sad fact.
Not believing in life after death makes me value my life and other people’s all the more. This life is the only one that they, and I have.
What angers me about General Dannatt is that he thinks he can use his position to sell his religion. He says:
“In my business, asking people to risk their lives is part of the job, but doing so without giving them the chance to understand that there is a life after death is something of a betrayal … inspiration best comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ”
What if he had said ‘inspiration best comes from a personal relationship with the prophet Mohammed’? Imagine the links that people would then have made to 09/11.
Or what is he had said ‘inspiration best comes from believing that this life is the only one we’ve got’. Imagine the outrage of some Christian posters here.
Our party has a strong and humanist and secularist tradition. There is an active Lib Dem Humanist & Secularist group http://hsld.wordpress.com.
Members of HSLD in our parliamentary party include Evan Harris, Martin Horwood and Paul Holmes. Party members are welcome to attend our one day conference in London on Saturday 8th December. Guest speaker is Lord Dick Taverne on ‘Dignity in Dying’.
1st November 2007 at 10:36 am
Some Christians are warmongers. Some Christians are pacifists. Some Christians are conservatives. Some Christians are Liberals.
The Liberal party itself was invented by Christians. A lot of Liberal beliefs are rooted in Christian morality. The fable of the Good Samaritan supports our belief in anti-racism. “It is as difficult for a rich man to go to heaven as a camel to go through an eye of a needle” supports our committment to redistributing wealth. “Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone” supports Liberal opposition to the death penalty. “Turn the other cheek” in contrast to “An eye for an eye” which Jesus refutes despite coming from the Old Testament provides the pacifist tradition in the Liberal Democrats.
Liberals should be comfortable that they are a coalition of many faiths and of none. Those who have faith have a liberal interpretation of that faith.
Religious fanaticism can cause war, but the same applies to secular fanatics such as Stalin.
1st November 2007 at 10:47 am
Lawrence provides no evidence that General Sir Richard Dannatt is “more than just a few of rounds short of a full ammunition belt”. We can and should judge Dannatt by his ability as a military leader.
Dannatt has the absolute right as a human being to tell of his belief in an afterlife, and as a Christian he (and I) have a responsibility to do so. And equally, his troops, and those who come across his writings have an absolute right to ignore him, just as many ignored Christ himself.
Lawrence is also wrong to say that Dannatt’s views are qualitatively no different to those of suicide bombers and those who commanded them. Dannatt believes in an afterlife, but does not - to the best of my knowledge - believe that killing people or dying increases your chance of going to heaven. The example of Christ’s life and death, cited by Dannatt, was not violence and destruction, but peace and healing. How much more different can Dannatt’s teaching be to that of those who brainwash young men to blow up aeroplanes?
1st November 2007 at 10:50 am
Manfarang @ 3 has it right. For a leading military figure to publicly invoke one particular religion as his inspiration in doing what is basically a political job is unacceptable - as unacceptable to British Muslims as to British secularists. Freedom of one’s own personal religion is not the issue here.
Yes, this is an evangelical atheist rant. It should not be considered more morally shocking than any other kind of rant, and I cannot help feeling (correct me if I am wrong) that Mindstar is a little bit morally shocked.
The only knotty point is on people with “such bad judgement” being allowed to hold office. This is where I make some common cause with relativists. Who is to say what religious view is bad judgement? That’s not moral relativism as such, it’s more to do with neurological conditioning. No-one thinks their own view is bad judgement. I would prefer it if the bad judgement Laurence refers to consists in actually speaking out on this view rather than holding it.
But of course the reality is you are all missing the point, because we will never be Truly Enlightened until we have Embraced the Pastafarian Way and been Touched by his Noodly Appendage:
http://www.venganza.org/
1st November 2007 at 10:56 am
There have of course been hugely dangerous Christian fundamentalists who have overthrown accepted values through subversive activities
If only we had done something to stop Elizabeth Fry and William Wilberforce in their tracks.
Of course religious fundamentalism carries dangers - and suggested British soldiers are wondering around the middle east as fulfilment of their personal relationship with Jesus is among the more stupid suggestions ever made.
But so does any fundamentalism, be it political (Stalin, Mao), or scientific (the guy who put lead into petrol)
Liberalism and religion are perfectly compatible - no-one has ever seriously questioned Roger Roberts liberal commitment for example.
1st November 2007 at 11:55 am
Laurence Boyce wrote: “Oh dear, I thought I had made that quite clear. Let me try again. Sir Richard holds beliefs which are QUALITATIVELY no different to those held by . . .”
The beliefs held by Laurence Boyce are qualitatively no different to those held by Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and Comrade Enver Hoxha (and Ian Brady). All were militant atheists and all believed in the materialist theory of mind.
Life after death is a fact based on evidence. And if Laurence wants me to show him some of that evidence (I’m sure he doesn’t) then I will happily do so.
The materialist theory of mind, by contrast, is conceptually incoherent and evidentially false.
If it were true, there would be no free will, no consciousness, no mental events of any kind. There would be no point in anyone trying to persuade anyone of anything on Lib Dem Voice.
I note that Laurence and his fellow materialist cult fetishists share an intense dislike of homeopathy. Clearly, they are quite happy for people to die rather than acknowledge the reality of the paranormal. Such is their pathological vanity.
At least Laurence is honest enough to admit he has personal issues with religion. Others in his camp (eg, Dawkins) are less candid. They sanctimoniously and spuriously pose as “rationalists”.
I have no idea if God exists, so I am not in the business of defending any particular religious creed. What I do defend is peoples’ right to believe whatever they like and not be subjected to persecution and exclusion by rabid sectarians like Laurence.
In 1821, my great geat great grandfather had to obtain a licence from the state before he could hold a Quaker meeting in the farmhouse he owned. Do we want a return to those days?
1st November 2007 at 12:08 pm
“Life after death is a fact based on evidence. And if Laurence wants me to show him some of that evidence (I’m sure he doesn’t) then I will happily do so.”
I’ll buy. Go for it.
1st November 2007 at 12:09 pm
I don’t think this article is a “disgrace”. It is part of the process of free speech and Laurence has rapidly become a “party treasure” with similar punchy contributions.
The key is in the words “without giving them a chance to understand”. The Army has been giving soldiers the “chance to understand” the after-life since it was established. That doesn’t change the fact that most squaddies according to the site linked below, don’t give a monkeys about religion.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/military/religion.html#Religion
Army Chaplains as of 2006 Jul 01:
Church of England 84
Roman Catholic 22
Church of Scotland 20
Methodist 12
United Board 9
Other (see below) 4
Total: 151
Source: DASA, 2006
Tri-Service appointees (from 2004): 1 Moslem, 1 Hindu, 1 Buddhist, 1 Sikh and a tri-service Jewish Rabbi act as advisors to the Forces, and are known collectively as the Ministry of Defence Religious Advisory Panel.
1st November 2007 at 12:13 pm
Laurence, we do not want the state to judge whether anybody’s beliefs are acceptably undeluded before they are permitted to stand for public office. You are an embarrassment to the secularist cause.
The truth will out, not by the enforcement of correct doctrine on anyone, but by the free exchange of ideas.
1st November 2007 at 12:17 pm
To say that it is liberal not to challenge a spurious belief is just wrong. By the same token we’d never challenge honour killings, or accept racism, or any number of issues that a progressive ought to challenge.
Thanks “Liberal Hammer.” Well said.
Our party has a strong and humanist and secularist tradition. There is an active Lib Dem Humanist & Secularist group. Members of HSLD in our parliamentary party include Evan Harris, Martin Horwood and Paul Holmes. Party members are welcome to attend our one day conference in London on Saturday 8th December.
Hey, thanks Richard. Bit unfortunate you being called “Church” what? I shall definitely try to make the conference. But in the meantime, we need to establish a Facebook group. Please join Facebook and give me a poke. In fact I’ll send out invites to all the committee.
Some Christians are conservatives. Some Christians are liberals.
In fact Christians tend to be more conservative than liberal. Indeed what could be more conservative than sticking with stuff that is thousands of years out of date?
I don’t think this article is a “disgrace.”
Thanks Paul. A true liberal!
1st November 2007 at 12:17 pm
There’s a vitriol in the article which I think fits uneasily with liberalism.
I don’t think that it’s acceptable to ridicule people’s beliefs, but equally some of the public statements being cited here are probably inappropriate given the roles concerned.
As a passionate liberal (agnostic) I think that we should make efforts to attract people of all religious persuation, rather than to box ourselves in a corner with somewhat unnecessary attacks.
Live and let live, rejoice in our differences, respect other people’s opinions, etc. We do ourselves a great disservice as a party by spending too much time snarling at things that we don’t like but which we should be tolerant of and letting into our tent. If only we were so snarling and condescending towards illiberalism maybe we’d be getting somewhere.
1st November 2007 at 12:33 pm
Hywel,
If only we had done something to stop Elizabeth Fry and William Wilberforce in their tracks.
If only the Bible had condemned slavery in unequivocal terms, instead of actually endorsing it.
Suggesting British soldiers are wondering around the Middle East as fulfilment of their personal relationship with Jesus is among the more stupid suggestions ever made.
Well to say that is just to gloss over what is actually going on in the minds of the inhabitants of the White House and the Pentagon. These guys really are motivated by biblical prophecy, and the consequences could prove catastrophic. Of course individual soldiers will most likely not be so crazy.
1st November 2007 at 12:43 pm
Angus,
Life after death is a fact based on evidence.
Then why do you need “faith”?
If [materialism] were true, there would be no free will.
Well there is no free will. That is one of the major blind spots in religion.
There would be no point in anyone trying to persuade anyone of anything on Lib Dem Voice.
Which would be to commit the fallacy of fatalism.
I note that Laurence and his fellow materialist cult fetishists share an intense dislike of homeopathy.
Yes, I dislike any con or rip off.
1st November 2007 at 12:54 pm
Laurence asks: “Then why do you need “faith”?”
I don’t need faith and I don’t have it.
Laurence goes on to say: “Well there is no free will.”
Right. So shut up, go home and get drunk.
And: “Yes, I dislike any con or rip off.”
Right. So shut up, go home and get drunk.
By the way, a psychic healer cured the problem I had in my arm and my neck, and he didn’t charge me (or anyone else) a penny.
1st November 2007 at 1:13 pm
Tim Leunig,
Laurence provides no evidence that General Sir Richard Dannatt is “more than just a few of rounds short of a full ammunition belt.”
Yes I did. see the “monumental self-deception” link.
Dannatt has the absolute right as a human being to tell of his belief in an afterlife, and as a Christian he (and I) have a responsibility to do so.
Oh dear.
And equally, his troops, and those who come across his writings have an absolute right to ignore him, just as many ignored Christ himself.
We hardly know the first thing about this “Christ” of which you speak.
Dannatt believes in an afterlife, but does not - to the best of my knowledge - believe that killing people or dying increases your chance of going to heaven.
How many Christian churches in Britain do you think are named after “Saint XXX, martyr”?
The example of Christ’s life and death, cited by Dannatt, was not violence and destruction, but peace and healing.
“I come not to bring peace but a sword.”
How much more different can Dannatt’s teaching be to that of those who brainwash young men to blow up aeroplanes?
Qualitatively, they are no different. The difference is that Dannatt has had the benefit of a decent education, and this makes him in a sense more culpable than many an unfortunate jihadist.
1st November 2007 at 1:18 pm
I do not think there are more conservative Christains than liberal ones.
The archbishop of Cantabury is clearly a liberal. Many Christians are a mixture of conservative and liberal. Just like the electorate as a whole.
1st November 2007 at 1:25 pm
I do not think there are more conservative Christians than liberal ones.
Yes there are. Go to the Facebook UK Politics application and click on Statistics/Religion. It’s quite funny really. And Lib Dems do really well among pagans!
1st November 2007 at 1:26 pm
Laurence Boyce wrote: “The difference is that Dannatt has had the benefit of a decent education, and this makes him in a sense more culpable than many an unfortunate jihadist.”
Mohammad Atta had a masters degree in town planning.
It is not true to say that religious fanatics are necessarily stupid and poorly educated. Many are extremely bright and highly educated. Indeed, religious groups are notoriously keen to recruit the intellectually gifted. Which is why they target university campuses.
By the way, what does Laurence think of his fellow militant atheists in the SWP (socialism is inevitable, so no free will) buddying up with Islamists, and the practicing Roman Catholic, George Galloway?
Odd that Laurence should behave as if he does have free will, even if he thinks he doesn’t.
Oh, I forgot. Lawrence says he doesn’t mind hypocrisy.
And he can’t think either. That’s a mentalistic concept.
1st November 2007 at 1:27 pm
Laurence Boyce wrote: “And Lib Dems do really well among pagans!”
Great! That’s what I like to hear!
I prefer most Pagans to most Christians and virtually all atheists.
1st November 2007 at 1:35 pm
Mohammad Atta had a masters degree in town planning.
In fact all the 9/11 hijackers were highly educated which is very scary. I was thinking more of the street suicide bombings which are now a daily occurrence.
What does Laurence think of his fellow militant atheists . . . ?
You can no more be a militant atheist than you can be a militant non-believer in Father Christmas.
Odd that Laurence should behave as if he does have free will, even if he thinks he doesn’t.
That’s because determinism does not imply fatalism. No, the future is fixed. In fact, according to relativity theory, it’s already happened!
1st November 2007 at 2:39 pm
Hitler/Stalin/Mao etc are often used in an ‘atheists can create war and suffering as well’ argument. For me the fundamental problem is unquestioning adherence to any ideology (that includes Liberalism). In that respect Stalinism/Maoism/Nazism are at one with religion in that they seek to indoctrinate the young with a single ‘true’ usually messianic and ‘final’ ideology, suppress free thought and encourage unquestioning ‘faith’ in the leadership and apparatus of control. They also employ complete sanction against apostasy - i.e. if you leave you are as good as dead.
In these respects as well as the cult of leadership, strong use of symbolism, a credo and rigid rules of behaviour I see Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism as 20th century religions as discredited as their bronze age equivalents.
Having said Lawrence’s views do not IMO reflect those of the large majority of atheists, humanists and agnostics in the party in one important respect - we respect the views of, and welcome the membership in the party of all Liberals whether Christian, Muslim, Pagan or Angus !
1st November 2007 at 2:56 pm
“Life after death is a fact based on evidence. And if Laurence wants me to show him some of that evidence (I’m sure he doesn’t) then I will happily do so.”
Angus, if you’ve got evidence for it, then I think you should be sharing it with the world’s scientists, who’d no doubt be interested. That’s assuming it’s evidence in the form of observable phenomena, rather than just ‘this book I’ve got says it’s true.’
And I wonder what the reaction would have been if Dannatt had been an Iranian or Pakistani general saying similar things about Islam?
1st November 2007 at 3:21 pm
Laurence,
From your distinctly real-echelon position I am sure religion and soldiering may not seem to go together. I used to hang out in military circles quite a lot and was frequently reminded that the regimental chaplain might seem like a bit of an indulgence in peacetime, but when the bullets start flying his stature suddenly rises considerably.
If you are going to send soldiers out to die then some of them are going to ask why, and what for, and religion can provide an invaluable framework for addressing these questions.
1st November 2007 at 3:21 pm
Nick Barlow wrote: “Angus, if you’ve got evidence for it, then I think you should be sharing it with the world’s scientists, who’d no doubt be interested.”
Many of the world’s scientists have produced it, including several Nobel laureates.
The fact that Nick Barlow is unaware of any of it is testimony to the effectiveness of Dawkins and his gang in suppressing it.
Take a look at the following links:
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/
http://www.near-death.com/
1st November 2007 at 3:22 pm
oops. rear-echelon. but very real.
1st November 2007 at 3:43 pm
Passing Tory: “If you are going to send soldiers out to die then some of them are going to ask why, and what for”
I think most soldiers are asking Blair, Brown or Bush that question, not an army chaplain.
1st November 2007 at 3:46 pm
In these respects as well as the cult of leadership, strong use of symbolism, a credo and rigid rules of behaviour I see Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism as 20th century religions as discredited as their bronze age equivalents.
I totally agree. The Hitler/Stalin/Mao argument is so tired and irrelevant. It’s not as if those tyrants still have millions of followers to worry about, is it?
Laurence’s views do not IMO reflect those of the large majority of atheists, humanists and agnostics in the party in one important respect - we respect the views of, and welcome the membership in the party of all Liberals whether Christian, Muslim, Pagan or Angus!
Oh I welcome them. In fact I brought a Christian into the party only the other day. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to give them a really hard time over their beliefs. Neither am I going to “respect” beliefs deserving only of contempt.
If you are going to send soldiers out to die then some of them are going to ask why, and what for, and religion can provide an invaluable framework for addressing these questions.
No it can’t because the claims of religion are false. But of course troops need moral support, so it’s just another example of where religion is acting as an obstacle to a more enlightened approach.
I think most soldiers are asking Blair, Brown or Bush that question, not an army chaplain.
Good one!
1st November 2007 at 4:03 pm
Peter Bancroft,
There’s a vitriol in the article which I think fits uneasily with liberalism.
I really don’t see how vitriol directed against the illiberal notions of religions can be incompatible with liberalism. Of course it may be bad tactics, but that is another question.
I don’t think that it’s acceptable to ridicule people’s beliefs.
Not only is it acceptable, it is imperative in my view that we attack and expose deluded thinking of dangerous consequence.
Live and let live, rejoice in our differences, respect other people’s opinions.
I’m sure the occupants of the World Trade Center on September 11 were thinking exactly that.
1st November 2007 at 4:06 pm
Ahh, how do I love the pure comedic entertainment to be had from listening to repeats of all the set positions on this old subject again?
At the limit of their knowledge and experience, when the situation is no longer in your comfort zone, everyone has to start believing something.
Admittedly, not everyone gets there (even Laurence gets side-tracked by this juvenile preoccupation of his), as circumstances usually never get so extreme - at least, not until you get confronted with the reality of your own existence, like in a war, for example (or through the media, but that’s an argument for a different time).
I have a belief in imperfection, which forces me to recognise that there are things I don’t see and must accept regardless (like other people). The consequence of not, or of not being able to agree to disagree, is worse than bears thinking about.
Religions are problematic for some, but they offer reassurance for many to help them do what they need to do. Yet that’s true of any belief system, all of which, at the bottom of it, are based on some contestable foundation. Even political ones.
The attack on religions is similar to recent attacks on our party (cf what are they for?).
For those that perennially predict and encourage the demise of the Liberal cause it must be disheartening to see that we continue, that even after a lifetime out of government, even after leadership-ousting scandals, and even after the retreat of Ming, that there is life everlasting in this party.
There is a point that parallel cases always help because they set an example and a reference guide by which evaluation becomes possible.
See: “For the common populace it [religion] is true, for the wise it is wrong, and for rulers it is useful.”
Like experience, like history. Like footsteps in the snow.
1st November 2007 at 4:15 pm
Religions are problematic for some, but they offer reassurance for many.
Has it ever occurred to you that the former are in some sense paying for the latter?
1st November 2007 at 4:24 pm
Richard,
They might indeed want to ask Blair and Brown (and indeed I would love to see Blair embedded in the front line for a week or two) but operationally chaplains are rather more accessible.
Although joking aside (and closer to the point that the general was trying to make) is that politicians are not in general the best people to be discussing matters of life and death with. Chaplains are usually rather good, however.
1st November 2007 at 4:30 pm
Laurence, I have and I agree they are.
I also think the reverse is to some extent true. Have you considered this?
1st November 2007 at 5:21 pm
No. How is the reverse true?
1st November 2007 at 5:43 pm
The latter are praying for the former…
1st November 2007 at 5:58 pm
If you are going to send soldiers out to die then some of them are going to ask why, and what for, and religion can provide an invaluable framework for addressing these questions.
No it can’t because the claims of religion are false. But of course troops need moral support, so it’s just another example of where religion is acting as an obstacle to a more enlightened approach.
Laurence, that simply isn’t true. Whatever you think about the existence of God(s), over the ages many extremely wise people have used religious frameworks to ponder the meaning of life and death. The fact that they expressed their thoughts in the philosophical orthodoxy of the day does not make them without value. It is arrogant in the extreme to think otherwise.
In short, I think you are missing the distinction between believing in religion, and looking at (and maybe accepting) what religious thought can teach us.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that if you were in a position where every day you had a significant chance of returning from work in a bodybag that some doubt in your position might suddenly creep in.
1st November 2007 at 6:09 pm
The latter are praying for the former.
Bridget, prayer doesn’t work, as numerous studies have shown. That’s why when you’re ill, you go to a doctor, not a priest. Moreover in today’s hospitals, you will find daily “miracles” occurring which make the tricks of “Jesus” look silly by comparison.
1st November 2007 at 6:09 pm
not that this adds anything else to the argument, but I’d rather be led by a general who is a competant atheist/humanist than an incompetant Christian and vice versa.
1st November 2007 at 6:10 pm
Laurence, we do not want the state to judge whether anybody’s beliefs are acceptably undeluded before they are permitted to stand for public office.
Did I say that Joe? Whenever I use the strong language which I like to deploy, I’m invariably met with an accusation that I am anti free speech or in favour of draconian state intervention. But on this occasion, I’m pleased to see that at least some commenters have noted that I am in fact promoting a debate, not shutting one down. The truth is that I want as little legislation as possible, though I do want to see the abolition of faith schools which are as ridiculous as having Marxist schools, say, would be.
And therein lies the problem. We tolerate such a colossal double standard when it comes to religion, and it is absolutely vital that we should now endeavour to break its stranglehold. Lib Dem Voice, as you might expect, contains may articles attacking Conservative and Labour in strong terms. These writers are not accused of being “illiberal.” It is a regular occurrence for a politician to claim that someone is unfit for office and call for a resignation. But when I call for General Dannatt’s resignation (a call which is most unlikely to be heeded), then I’m off on one of my Stalinist purges again.
Ridicule is deployed, often to devastating effect, every week at Prime Minister’s questions. But apparently I am not allowed to ridicule religious belief. And here’s the thing: there is actually some rational basis to the political views of our opponents, where there is precisely none for religion. Religion rests instead upon the cheap con-trick of “faith.” It’s the equivalent of Tony Blair saying, “trust me, I’m a reasonable guy.” Religious views, insofar as they are not grounded in reason and evidence, are not deserving of respect – only mockery.
Many of you seem to think that General Dannatt has every right to his private beliefs. But I put it to you that if he had made a speech in which he had said that he was reading the tea-leaves to determine his next move, he would already be gone by now. But Dannatt would never believe in anything so stupid as reading tea-leaves. No, he just believes that Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, turned water into wine, died, stayed dead three days, and then rose up from the dead prior to shooting off into the sky. A man of sound judgement, if ever there was one.
Well I’m sorry if you don’t like the way I say it, but nobody else seems to be saying anything at all. I’m not aware of any Lib Dem blog which has touched this story, though I will happily stand corrected. My tone may be offensive to some, but on this issue, the tone of Lib Dems in general is quite inaudible. Look at the noise we make about climate change; we go on and on about it. But what do we hear of the threat posed to the world by religious ideology? Not a sausage. It’s double standards all the way down the line.
From a philosophical perspective, belief in God is no different in character from belief in the tooth fairy. This cannot be stressed enough. It is a grave fallacy to suggest that we should be respecting such beliefs, just because in one case they happen to be held by millions of people. On that basis, if I can find a million racists (which wouldn’t be too difficult), then we have to respect racism too. Liberalism in no way implies that we should embrace the absurdities and contradictions of cultural or moral relativism.
We can no longer ignore the elephant in the room. We’ve tried being nice and respectful; the result was 9/11. It’s time now to step the conversation up a gear. It would be so wonderful to see Liberal Democrats leading the way on this, but I can see that we’re just going to keep banging on about climate change, even though pretty much everyone gets it now. How fitting that we should gloss over the baleful and destructive influence of religion on world affairs, in favour of discussing the weather!
1st November 2007 at 6:14 pm
Blimey, I didn’t know Basil Fawlty was a real character!!
1st November 2007 at 6:15 pm
Staying-on-the-Sofa Tory, if religion is a force for good and a thought framework for pondering deep questions, why not just use exactly the same basic Judaeo-Christian concepts, modified and evolved for modern society and shorn of the stuff that conflicts with observable phenomena? That would make sense, and in practice it’s what a lot of post-enlightenment thinking is about.
Your last para is the most revealing thing I have read in a long time on the subject of individual inclination to religiosity. Your statement is so unaffected, I really believe that you believe that people in mortal danger are inclined to get religion.
Obviously your argument is open to the charge of religion as humanity’s invented comfort blanket. But more damagingly to your assertion, I just wouldn’t respond like that. Lots of people wouldn’t. There’s nothing anyone trying to spread any divine word can do about that.
1st November 2007 at 6:19 pm
Blimey, I didn’t know Basil Fawlty was a real character!
Yes, Basil is risen! Alleluia, Alleluia!
1st November 2007 at 6:24 pm
I also have a sneaking suspicion that if you were in a position where every day you had a significant chance of returning from work in a body bag that some doubt in your position might suddenly creep in.
Well yes that’s true. I only have an average chance of returning home in a body bag on account of the outspoken attacks I have made, and will continue to make, on the vile religion of Islam.
1st November 2007 at 6:32 pm
“Many of you seem to think that General Dannatt has every right to his private beliefs. But I put it to you that if he had made a speech in which he had said that he was reading the tea-leaves to determine his next move, he would already be gone by now.”
Quite. The two are not incompatible. Please read again my post @ 10. I am agreeing with you.
You do the cause of secularism no favours @ 44 by taking such an obvious pride in your ability to wind people up. By avowing yourself as a truculent commentator you run the risk of making your arguments dismissable. If you truly want secularism to get anywhere in the party, you’re going to have to abandon the egotism and learn the gentle arts of (a) persuasion and (b) reading people’s posts properly.
1st November 2007 at 6:43 pm
Dare I say it, blaming 9/11 on “organised religion” exposes more than a casual disconnection from the real world and a worrying gap in judgement.
1st November 2007 at 6:48 pm
Alix,
I am amused you find my last paragraph revealing, although if you had pondered it a little longer you might even have reached the correct conclusion.
But first things first. Yes, of course you can take the moral framework from religion and apply it in a secular society, and of course that is what the vast majority of people do. Why you instinctively choose Judeo-Christian values rather than any other religion is interesting, of course.
The thing is, that while I am very comfortable as an atheist, I am also very aware that squaddies under fire are a far more devout bunch than you might expect if you were to meet them in the bar in the UK, and there are very good reasons for this. To lampoon the General for what he said demonstrates a singlar lack of awareness of what soldiers go through.
And here, I am afraid I cannot resist a political dig. Laurence is extremely keen to impose his moral framework on everyone else. A typical Cambridge Lib Dem, and one of the prime reasons I remain a Tory.
1st November 2007 at 6:55 pm
Alix,
If religion is a force for good and a thought framework for pondering deep questions, why not just use exactly the same basic Judaeo-Christian concepts, modified and evolved for modern society and shorn of the stuff that conflicts with observable phenomena?
Well said. This is the “religions do lots of useful charity work” argument. Well why not just do the charity work anyway?! The good actions of a religious believer can be separated into two components: the humanistic component, and the theistic component. The humanistic component is the bit they would do anyway, because they are good people. The theistic component is the bit specifically predicated upon them believing in things which are not true. It’s this latter part, that I don’t think works out at all well in the long run. And all of that is before we consider all the ghastly stuff that religion is responsible for: the misogyny, the homophobia, etc.
You do the cause of secularism no favours by taking such an obvious pride in your ability to wind people up.
Hey, just think if I were a religionist of old, I might be winding people up on a rack!
By avowing yourself as a truculent commentator you run the risk of making your arguments dismissible. If you truly want secularism to get anywhere in the party, you’re going to have to abandon the egotism and learn the gentle arts of (a) persuasion and (b) reading people’s posts properly.
Well I think this may be the first time I have specifically responded to you. But listen mate. When we’ve got creationism being taught in our City Academies 150 years after Darwin, no-one but no-one is going to tell me that I’m not “doing it right.” This one example, and there are many others, prove that in fact we weren’t “doing it right” before. The creationism thing amounts to a shocking betrayal of our children’s education, and I’m not aware that any Lib Dem MP has made an impact on this issue since Jenny Tonge challenged Tony Blair at PMQ’s, oh years ago now. By all means show me the way to do it. Nothing would please me more if your methods proved to a great success. But please don’t talk as if the Liberal Democrats have any secular policies at present worth boasting of, because we haven’t.
1st November 2007 at 7:00 pm
“Yes there are. Go to the Facebook UK Politics application and click on Statistics/Religion. It’s quite funny really.”
Oh well, that’s a fact then. Done and sorted.
Facebook? Cross section of the community?
It’s funny how those nautical rowlocks crop up in most discussions isn’t it?
I haven’t got a clue whether “most Christians” are liberal or conservative. Political views aren’t on the census so how the heck would anyone know unless there has been a specific survey on this subject.
1st November 2007 at 7:17 pm
Dare I say it, blaming 9/11 on “organised religion” exposes more than a casual disconnection from the real world and a worrying gap in judgement.
Ah, you must be one of those people who even after watching the video of suicide bombers carefully explaining and justifying their actions with reference to Koranic verses, then sticks their fingers in their ears and cries, “no, no, no, it’s got nothing to do with religion, it’s all down to socio-economic factors!” Well yes, of course there are other factors at work. But it’s religion – and specifically this doctrine of the afterlife – which takes the sting out of death, and turns it into one of the deadliest weapons know to man. It’s why we will never beat the Taliban if we were to stay there for 100 years.
No religion; no 9/11. It’s as simple as that.
1st November 2007 at 7:51 pm
It isn’t simple at all. That’s a meaningless causal relationship.
Religion is part and parcel of the human condition for some people, and always will be, cf Pascal Boyer. That doesn’t make the events related in the Bible historically true and it doesn’t mean we’re not on a cooling rock whirling pointlessly through an unknowing universe. But it does mean we can’t “get rid” of religion which is what you’re implying should happen. I have major problems with the God Delusion on this - I don’t think Dawkins has a proper answer to Boyer. We’re stuck with religion. What we have to do is stop it interacting formally with the state.
1st November 2007 at 9:08 pm
Laurence, without wishing to pry, what was this personal thing with you and religion? Can you share it in broad terms? I am sorry if it is painful - please forget I asked the question if so.
1st November 2007 at 9:24 pm
Facebook? Cross section of the community? It’s funny how those nautical rowlocks crop up in most discussions isn’t it?
Hi Paul. Feeling the heat a bit? No? Damn! But I’ve noticed that when anyone produces a statistic, you do a good trade in debunking it using the word “rowlocks.” Well, statistics provide indicators, not reliable facts, but in the case of the Facebook data, I think it’s reasonably compelling. So perhaps I should set it out for the benefit of the non-Facebook people. (What??? You’re not on Facebook??? What are you DOING???)
As I write, 5130 people have signed up for the Facebook UK Politics application – a pretty big sample, but granted not fully representative. The overall voting figures at present are:
Con 34.7%, Lab 33.0%, LD 18.6%
Now look how this changes, when we sort by religion. Inevitably, the categories are a somewhat arbitrary. (The number in brackets in the sample size.)
Atheist (343) : Con 22.8%, Lab 35.7%, LD 26.6%
Christian (209) : Con 45.2%, Lab 29.1%, LD 16.5%
Agnostic (168) : Con 36.9%, Lab 26.7%, LD 26.2%
None (111) : Con 35.9%, Lab 30.5%, LD 20.3%
Catholic (99) : Con 49.1%, Lab 30.0%, LD 10.9%
Anglican (93) : Con 59.2%, Lab 20.4%, LD 15.3%
Protestant (67) : Con 52.0%, Lab 24.0%, LD 13.3%
OK, the sample figures are not huge, but I think there is a pretty clear indicator here that Christians are more conservative than the average. But, more importantly, they show a general skewing which gives the lie to the idea that religion is a purely private affair which has no bearing upon public life. There is an obvious correlation here, and doubtless one could spend a while arguing over the causes. But please don’t say that religious beliefs are not relevant to politics when they so manifestly are. The bods at Cowley Street should be studying figures like this with interest.
1st November 2007 at 9:45 pm
It isn’t simple at all.
I know it’s not quite as simple as that.
That’s a meaningless causal relationship.
No it isn’t. You don’t fly a plane into a building unless you believe in the afterlife. This, for me, is what has placed the General’s remarks beyond the pale.
Religion is part and parcel of the human condition for some people, and always will be.
Oh sure, if we carry on “respecting” it, then it will be around for ever.
We can’t “get rid” of religion which is what you’re implying should happen.
Why so absolute? We should simply be seeking to diminish and erode the influence of religion. And in Europe, religion has indeed been in decline for about the last 100 years. Unfortunately, radical Islam is very much on the rise, and liberal religion is going to do absolutely nothing to counter this. Because the corrective to a literal reading of the Koran, is not to suggest a watered down reading of the Bible as an alternative. The corrective is to point out that all these “holy” books are misogynistic, homophobic, cruel, flagrantly immoral, historically false, the writings of some ancient nomad with a psychological disorder as Pat Condell puts it.
1st November 2007 at 10:06 pm
Laurence wrote: “You don’t fly a plane into a building unless you believe in the afterlife.”
Don’t you?
So all the people who jump off Beachy Head believe in the afterlife?
Sorry, Laurence. The afterlife is a fact based on abundant evidence. You may not like it, but the facts won’t go away just because you and your allies in the scientific and academic elites suppress them.
What the evidence shows is that someone who dies in such circumstances (violent, self-inflicted death) is likely to become earthbound and exist in limbo for decades and sometimes centuries. Not an attractive prospect.
Hiding the facts isn’t going to help your cause, Laurence. What it does is drive people into the arms of organised religion.
The way to destroy the organised one-god religions is to show people that we all survive the deaths of our bodies whether or not we grovel to priests. Once you do that, religion as we know it is finished.
You, Laurence, are the best recruiting sergeant for the priests and mullahs you effect to despise.
1st November 2007 at 10:18 pm
Angus, who the hell are you? Do you have a website or Facebook profile? I enjoy tangling with you, but sometimes I think you’re just taking the piss.
1st November 2007 at 10:46 pm
Laurence, without wishing to pry, what was this personal thing with you and religion?
It’s no secret Paul, though it’s not entirely relevant either. I was raised a Catholic. I was taught a pack of lies from the moment I could walk. All this was reinforced by the Church and Schools I went to. I believed every word of it. Now missing out a few intermediate steps. Lots of problems in my early twenties. Finally ended up psychologically damaged. (In case you hadn’t noticed!)
But there are two important points to make here. First of all, I have far more respect for my parents, who were honest Catholics, than I do for all the liberal watered-down incoherent bollocks that goes by the name of “moderate” religious belief. Secondly, the reason I was damaged, was because I really believed the lies I was fed. Now what does it say about any field of human endeavour if the most damage is done by the truest believers, whether it be my insignificant example, or 9/11? It’s not flattering for sure.
But as I say, while this may help explain why I’m blogging this stuff, it’s not wholly relevant. Because my principal argument is not that religion does damage (though I think it does). My principal argument is simply this: that the claims of religion are false. You wouldn’t believe how much follows from that simple insight.
1st November 2007 at 10:46 pm
Laurence, take a look at the links I posted further up the thread.
I bet you won’t. And that’s because you’re afraid of what you might see there.
Like Nelson at the Battle of Copenhagen, you prefer to look through your telescope with your blind eye and see no ships.
What is Facebook anyway?
1st November 2007 at 10:58 pm
Facebook (facebook.com) is a social networking site where you can actually see who you are talking to, up to a point. Most of the Lib Dem bloggers have an account. And it’s totally free.
Sure I’ll take a look at those links and report back later, assuming I don’t get sucked into a vortex or something. But as others have pointed out, the truly amazing thing would be how this “proof” of the afterlife has managed to slip under the radar for so long.
I have a strong suspicion that the reason is simply because it’s all just a load of old bollocks. But, in the spirit of free inquiry, I’ll take a look.
1st November 2007 at 11:59 pm
29.
OK Angus - I have had a good look at these sites - they are reports of subjective reports/opinions in relation to claimed supernatural experiences and statements along the lines of ‘if an eminent person says X you cannot ignore it’ even if there is no other reason to believe it. There is no objective evidence presented here and nothing worthy of serious scientific thesis.
2nd November 2007 at 12:22 am
Laurence, speaking as a (Jewish) agnostic, I must say that I strongly disagree with you. What is wrong wioth a general choosing to address a confernce of evangelical Christians? To compare a major religion, with thousnds of years of intellectual histroy, with Greek mythology is positively sixth-form. One might as well compare JS Mill’s essay On Liberty with an editorial in The Sun.
How can you say that Sir Richard has views no different “qualitatively” from the 9/11 bombers. It is the content of a person’s belief that matters, not whether or not those beliefs are religious. A secular fascist has more in commomn with the 9/11 killers than Sir Richard does. By your logic, liberalism and Nazism are “qualitatively” no different from each other, as they are both political philosopies, just as the 9/11 killers’ ideology and Sir Richard’s views are both based on religious philosophies.
The rest of us see these as deeply complex spiritual and intellectual issues that have been debated by great minds for thousands of years, but you see it all as being so simple. Like the worst kind of religious fundamentalist, you appear to believe that you have a privileged insight which means that you don’t have to wrestle with the subtleties perceived by the rest of us. Your article demonstrates a peurile hostility religious believers.
2nd November 2007 at 12:24 am
Ha, you beat me to it! Here are my findings:
One of the sites seemed to specialise in “near death experiences.” This is now fairly well understood at the level of the brain. The psychologist Sue Blackmore had an NDE when she was at university doing drugs. She then spent several years investigating the paranormal, but could find no scientific basis whatsoever for the claims being made. I believe that it is now possible to generate an NDE by stimulating the relevant part of the brain. It’s all completely natural.
Another of the sites seemed to be mostly about “mediumship.” It contained a number of fuzzy black and white photos, perfectly typical of the sort of fraudulent stuff you would expect. Moving swiftly on.
The final site was about digging out memories of the “past lives” of children under hypnosis, which sounds totally unethical to me. You can convince people of just about anything under hypnosis (a fact incidentally which should give religious folk considerable pause for thought).
The bottom line Angus is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence for religion and the paranormal is invariably of the calibre which would only ever convince the gullible or highly suggestible. But if one day, the “paranormal” is finally elucidated, we’ll all know about it because people will be getting Nobel prizes. We won’t need to get the information from a dodgy website.
2nd November 2007 at 12:38 am
Lively rant chaps!
I’ve always wondered why those claiming near death experiences never seem to glimpse a warm welcome from Old Nick at the end of the tunnel. The law of averages says there should be a few.
Get some rest!
2nd November 2007 at 12:49 am
The two leadership contenders have posted their views on the nuclear deterrent on this site today. They have had less than a dozen responses apiece.
And we are arguing into the night about paranormal phenomena.
Good god (and I’m not taking the piss) I love this party.
2nd November 2007 at 1:01 am
Peter Dunphy said: “OK Angus - I have had a good look at these sites - they are reports of subjective reports/opinions in relation to claimed supernatural experiences and statements along the lines of ‘if an eminent person says X you cannot ignore it’ even if there is no other reason to believe it. There is no objective evidence presented here and nothing worthy of serious scientific thesis.”
I’m looking at my watch. The entire Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research stretch along three walls - then you come to the Journals. You’ve been through the lot? Even the websites would take you several days to study properly.
Laurence Boyce wrote: “I believe that it is now possible to generate an NDE by stimulating the relevant part of the brain.”
You believe wrongly. No-one has ever done this, and no-one ever will.
Laurence Boyce also wrote: “The psychologist Sue Blackmore had an NDE when she was at university doing drugs. She then spent several years investigating the paranormal, but could find no scientific basis whatsoever for the claims being made.”
Susan Blackmore suppressed (ie, lied about) positive results from her own experiments. She also made totally baseless allegations against her colleague, Dr Carl Sargent, having tricked her way into his office and having searched his desk while he was out at the coffee-machine. She wrote a “confidential” “report” for the Council of the Society for Psychcial Research but leaked portions of it selectively to colleagues. Blackmore denied this, but the numerous affidavits collected by the Parapsychological Association committee set up to investigate the matter proved Blackmore was lying. Can this unethical individual be trusted in any matter whatsoever?
Laurence further wrote: “The final site was about digging out memories of the “past lives” of children under hypnosis, which sounds totally unethical to me.”
You haven’t even bothered to read it, Laurence. Dr Stevenson NEVER used hypnosis. All the memories he studied were conscious memories.
“The bottom line Angus is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Quite right, Laurence. Let’s have some evidence for the materialist theory of mind, and for the absence of free will. And Hanratty’s guilt.
“But if one day, the “paranormal” is finally elucidated, we’ll all know about it because people will be getting Nobel prizes.”
Quite a few of them have won Nobel prizes. The most recent being Professor Brian Josephson, who lives up the road from you, Laurence. You might bump into him on your way to the off-licence. Ready with some snide comments about Brian, Laurence?
Some people cannot be convinced because they don’t want to know, others cannot be convinced because they already know but don’t want to acknowledge.