Recently, James Graham has called me a bigot on Lib Dem Voice. (gasp!) As James is a blogger whom I admire and respect – blogger of the year no less – I have been stung into writing a riposte to this scurrilous charge. It was in the context of yet another debate on religion and the problem of Islam, that James essentially accused me of tarring all religious believers with the same brush. According to the big man, “religions are ultimately what you make of them.” When pressed as to whether Marxism, say, is also ultimately what you make of it, James replied, “I would have thought that is self-evident.” Excuse me?
Let us get one thing straight: Marxism is not simply what you might choose to make of it. While the task of nailing down the principles of Marxism might not be entirely trivial, we can nevertheless be clear in the main about what Marxism does and does not entail. For instance, it is surely uncontroversial to assert that Marxism comprises a belief in the common ownership of property and the means of production (a terrible idea by the way). Now I suppose there is nothing to stop somebody from saying, “I’m a Marxist, though I don’t believe in the common ownership of property and the means of production.” But on the whole, I prefer the simpler, “I’m not a Marxist.” It’s brief and to the point, and has the compelling advantage of not stretching the meaning of words beyond the bounds of reason.
Likewise, we can be clear about what religious belief entails, and what its consequences might be. And yet whenever I assert that the claims of religion are false, I know that I am bound to be met with the stunning insight that there is no homogenous object called “religion,” that religion comprises many different strands and styles of belief (no shit Sherlock!), and that I am therefore making a sweeping, and indeed bigoted, generalisation. I am not. Having been raised a Catholic, and having observed religion in its many forms, I think I know roughly what the deal is, and it is this: That there exists a supernatural deity who exerts a causal influence upon the natural world though scripture, prophets, prayer, and miracles. He wishes us to praise him, obey him, and love him unceasingly. Essentially, this life is a test. If we get it right, then he will reward us in Heaven. Otherwise… you know what to expect.
This, I submit, is a reasonable definition of monotheistic religion which pretty much covers the faiths that are causing all the trouble at the present moment. Too broad a definition to be useful maybe? Not at all. Already we see some disturbing elements: Why, for instance, does God require constant praise and worship, more reminiscent of Stalin than of a “loving father”? Then there is the obvious scope for abuse when one is claiming to be in possession of a divine and unalterable revelation. Finally, there is the belief in an afterlife – the killer doctrine that, whichever way you cut it, has the effect of utterly diminishing the value of life on earth. And yet for some reason we continue to allow these simple tenets of faith, now largely debunked by science and philosophy, to impose their terrible burden upon humanity.
Why is it so hard for us to speak plainly about the absurdity of religious belief? Why is Nick Clegg already brown-nosing faith groups when he is barely out of the traps? Why is it quite beyond any of our politicians to draw a connection between belief in the “afterlife” and the practice of suicide bombing? Why, when the terrorists are patiently articulating their theology on homemade videos, do we search desperately for the “root causes” in order to exonerate the role of faith? Why are we constantly being assured that “Islam is a religion of peace,” when a cursory inspection of the Koran tells a completely different story? Why do we stay silent when millions of women worldwide suffer under the yoke of clerical oppression? Why are we still fiddling while the Middle East burns?
And why, in the face of all this carnage, do we imagine that an acceptable response is simply to water down the beliefs a bit and call ourselves “moderates”? Think how this might work in the political context. Suppose that the Liberal Democrat election manifesto contained a proposal to the effect that homosexuals should be put to death (as the Bible clearly stipulates in Leviticus 20:13). What would be an adequate restitution for allowing this hateful line into party policy? How about a spot of artful sophistry to patch things up? “Look, you really mustn’t take the manifesto so literally you know. It’s the interpretation which matters more than the actual words. Ultimately, it’s what you make of the policy that counts.” Happy now? In fact, nothing less than a total recantation would do, in the bid to salvage a political reputation which would in all likelihood be damaged beyond repair.
So please, at least on this occasion, spare me the mealy-mouthed justifications: that not all Christians take the Bible literally; that jihad is really about personal fulfilment, not the subjugation of infidels; that the struggle over the “Holy Land” has nothing to do with religion (there’s a clue in the name if you look closely); that it is important to distinguish between nice Christians, and nasty Christians; nice Muslims, and nasty Muslims; (and presumably nice Nazis, and nasty Nazis?) I’ve heard it all before, and frankly I’m not impressed. I know that you are nice – hey, some of my best friends are Christians! But your religious “moderation” – at once intellectually and theologically bankrupt – serves only (in the words of Sam Harris) to “provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.”
So my message to religious fundamentalists is … not a lot. There’s really no point in talking to you. To my nice moderate Christian friends: I beg you to find some honesty before the Armageddon so longed for by the aforementioned fruitcakes finally comes to pass. And to James, I say: Marxism is not just what you make of it, neither is religion, and calling a spade a donkey buys us precisely nothing.
* Laurence Boyce is a Lib Dem member and occasional contributor to Lib Dem Voice.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
My tweets
Four East Devon Independent councillors to stand for the Lib Dems in May
Partygate excuses just don't wash
Another seedy scandal hits Liverpool Town Hall
Are the Metropolitan Police in denial?
Path from Tait's Lane to Peddie Street #dundeewestend
Joe Bourke
Fiona
Andrew Hickey
Richard Gadsden
David Garlick
170 Comments
1. Have you really given up your job to blog?
2. You are a bigot! You stated not long ago on a Question Time that you thought poverty should be ‘bred’ out of society…implying that it is a genetic issue rather than a social issue.
3. Even so, I’m very proud to have you as one of my facebook friends.
Sorry – should be ‘question time thread’ – I know you haven’t been on question time!!!
Do we really have to have Lib Dem Voice used as a repeated platform for these bizarre views?
Peter Bancroft, why don’t you write something to Lib Dem Voice? I think you seem to have some very interesting views, and I’d rather read more about them than the endless whining of Laurence Boyce. It seems that LDV has a serious shortage of guest articles, when they publish staff like this.
Actually, Jo, he has. I seed it.
Peter, I don’t think Lawrence’s views are bizarre. Strongly-worded, maybe, but not bizarre.
… And one day I’ll learn to spell Laurence.
3 – Peter, LDV is for members (and others) to voice their opinions. The comments thread allows readers to take the author to task, and those who feel motivated are welcome to contribute. That we published Laurence’s article, btw, is no reflection on the number of contributions we have coming in (just look at the recent Archive!) – what would be your reason for not publishing it?
LDV is committed actively to inviting contributions from all ranges of opinion, and we have asked Lib Dem members of different faith communities to write for the blog.
No I did not say anything like that Jo. My exact words were, “I’m going to try saying something that may be unpopular: the way to end child poverty is not to give birth if you are poor.” Notwithstanding the fact that I was in one of my provocative moods, there’s a sense in which this is self-evident. I’m certainly not advocating any Stalinist type control over people’s lives – it’s just a matter of personal responsibility. I don’t have a job, and I don’t have a great deal of money. Consequently, I think it would be the height of irresponsibility for me to father a child at this moment. But it’s obvious that not everyone thinks like that, and that to some extent the system is being abused. None of this is to advocate a punitive stance towards young girls who have accidentally got a bun in the oven. Quite the opposite. The state must help out first, and ask questions later. It’s just a case of balancing the assistance on the one hand, with, not a disapproving rhetoric, but perhaps some sort of urge towards greater responsibility. A bit vague I know.
Now what did you think of the article?
Well, if Laurence’s views are bizarre, I’m happy to join him in Bizardom (bizarridge…?)
I don’t find Lawrence’s views bizarre either. What I find bizarre is the complete refusal to genuinely engage with religious claims, which so many people cleave to in the name of not “going on about it”.
We must all be a bit cross eyed at the moment.
Marxists don’t believe in religion.
Even in todays China a person can get into a lot of trouble for preaching religion.
“So my message to religious fundamentalists is … not a lot. There’s really no point in talking to you.”
Religous fundamentalists and Mr Boyce seem to have this feature in common. Let’s move on.
7 – It doesn’t raise the quality or the respect of the LDV, if it publishes complaints of certain individuals against others who said something about them in the comments thread as “Opinion” articles. Please let not LDV descend to a scene of showdown. If it happens in the comments thread, well, that probably can’t be helped much, but don’t let the quarrels contaminate the actual articles.
13 – If the article was just a retort I would agree with you, but I think Laurence reaises some interesting points. To be honest, I’m slightly suprised at the tone of the comments here (maybe there is history with the author I am unaware of?). I think the relationship between politics and religion is both fascinating and important. And something which we should be prepared to talk about as a responsible political party.
I think a number of commentators want to have things both ways. On the one hand they wish to allow religious individuals to pick and choose their own ‘interpretation’. Yet they also don’t want us to offend religious leadership. So we have to listen to the ‘Christian Community’ or the ‘Muslim Community’ as if there exists such homogenous defined communities.
If we are accepting people’s individual right to be a ‘Christian’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Jew’ or a ‘Hindu’ by dint of their own interpretation and definition, then the ‘community’ we would lazily ascribe them too no longer has any resonance. If individuals have their own interpretation, then Bishops, Immams etc DO NOT speak on their behalf and they should have no higher status in a democracy than you or me. But we all know that they do.
There is fascinating issue here which has been rolling on for centuries. And one it would serve us well to talk about.
That said, one thing I must pick up Laurence on is his reference to Clegg’s alleged ‘brown nosing’. I think the story he has provided as evidence of this is a well balanced and responsible piece which says a hell of a lot that religious groups would not to want to hear, least of all on religious schools. I went to a Catholic primary school and as such spent the first decade of my life with only a passing awareness of other religions. This must not be how any children are educated in our country anymore.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
15 – If its that boring to you, just don’t read it.
Laurence’s views aren’t bizarre. Far from it, they’re as mainstream as can be.
The Lib Dems could make substantial gains with a more strident stance on secularism. It’s most unlikely the other parties would be willing to follow. At least to begin with.
If individuals have their own interpretation, then Bishops, Imams etc DO NOT speak on their behalf and they should have no higher status in a democracy than you or me.
That’s an excellent point. I’d never thought of it like that. Who’d have thought that religion would try to have it both ways, eh?! Thanks for your support Kev, and everyone else.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Isn’t it telling that none of my detractors have thus far been able to counter a single point from the article? If you don’t address the argument, then you’ve lost the argument. Religion is inherently problematical. It’s not “just what you make of it.”
The Lib Dems could make substantial gains with a more strident stance on secularism. It’s most unlikely the other parties would be willing to follow.
We are so missing a trick here.
Lawrence wrote: “Essentially, this life is a test. If we get it right, then he will reward us in Heaven. Otherwise… you know what to expect.”
Actually, that isn’t what mainstream Protestants believe. If Lawrence only knows about one religion, then he needs to stop pontificating about all monotheistic religions.
He also wrote: “And yet for some reason we continue to allow these simple tenets of faith, now largely debunked by science and philosophy, to impose their terrible burden upon humanity.”
Sorry Lawrence, perhaps I was asleep at the time. Which science experiment demonstrated there was no afterlife and that God was not a loving father (or a mean father, or a loving mother, etc)? And which philosopher has managed to debunk these claims?
And, while we’re on science, quoting snippets from the Bible without understanding the faith you are criticising is like quoting randomly from an advanced physics textbook with no more than the shakiest understanding of GCSE theory.
Evan Harris (I think it was Evan — if not, Evan, forgive me) was on much sounder ground on Saturday when he agreed that evangelicalism was not the same as fundamentalism, and fundamentalism was not the same as extremism.
The purpose of the joint Lib Dem Christian Forum, Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats and Lib Dem Secularist and Humanist meeting on Saturday which you were at, Lawrence, was to explore issues of faith, non-faith, politics and society in a constructive way. For most people, I think it was a success. But perhaps you didn’t see it that way — if what you took away from it was “I’m right, they’re wrong, we need to get them out of our party” Which, unless I’ve read it wrong (all a matter of interpretation, perhaps) is what your article does seem to be saying.
Sorry Laurence, I’ve been spelling your name wrong. My apologies.
Laurence has given us quick and easy definitions both of Marxism and of (monotheistic) religion. There are points where I might want to quibble, but it is another word that seems to be in greater need of clarification.
What do we mean by ‘secularism’? The word is often used, especially recently in Lib Dem blogs, but what exactly it entails is more difficult to pin down. If it means removing the historical privileges of the Christian faith in the political arena then I agree. Disestablish the Church of England? Yes. I am a Baptist Christian, and disestablishment has long been something Baptists have argued for … which is one reason for the historical link between Baptists (and other free churches) and the Liberal Party. In fact the first recorded argument in English for religious freedom for all (including those with whom we fundamentally disagree) was penned by Thomas Helwys, a Baptist minister in the early seventeenth century.
Should people systematically be discriminated against (or towards) because of their faith or lack of faith? No. We want no more Test Acts or similar discriminatory legislation, be they establishing privilege for Christians, for other faith communities or for those who reject theism.
Should religious language be allowed in the public arena, with people using religious language and justifications for or against particular policies? Of course! It is an aspect of freedom of speech. It might pursuade some and antagonise others, but it has to be allowed.
Should Laurence and others be allowed to argue strongly against the beliefs and influence of religion(s)? Of course.
Wherein lies the essence of ‘secularism’? Under some definitions I can be counted a supporter. Under other definitions, I am not.
8 – I didn’t read it! I already decided what you were going to say before I got past the first paragraph…then went to bed.
You need to learn how to edit! I’m not one for huge articles online – apart from being very slightly hyperactive and unable to read huge chunks of writing – I just never feel in the mood when I’m online.
Also my ears go numb whenever someone starts talking about religion after being brought up catholic…which is a shame really as I’ve probably missed out on some really fantastic lively debates.
Sorry!
Thanks Jo, that made me feel really good.
Bill, secularism in the strict sense of the word means separation of church and state. I’m going much further than that, but all I’m doing is making an argument. While some legislation might be necessary, principally I want conversation, not legislation.
Actually, that isn’t what mainstream Protestants believe. If Laurence only knows about one religion, then he needs to stop pontificating about all monotheistic religions.
Well go on then Martin. Tell us what mainstream Protestants do believe about the afterlife.
Sorry Laurence, perhaps I was asleep at the time. Which science experiment demonstrated there was no afterlife and that God was not a loving father (or a mean father, or a loving mother, etc)? And which philosopher has managed to debunk these claims?
OK, that’s a big one. I’ll try to make a proper response later on, but I guess that Hume and Darwin are the key figures. But in the meantime, do remind me which science experiment has proved the non-existence of Father Christmas?
Quoting snippets from the Bible without understanding the faith you are criticising is like quoting randomly from an advanced physics textbook with no more than the shakiest understanding of GCSE theory.
Well that’s true. I shouldn’t really criticise what I don’t understand, seeing as I have no qualifications in theology – an entirely made up subject.
For most people, I think [the workshop] was a success. But perhaps you didn’t see it that way – if what you took away from it was “I’m right, they’re wrong, we need to get them out of our party.”
No, I thought it was OK – a bit cramped maybe. I only got one chance to speak, and I made what I thought was a reasonably constructive point which Simon Hughes repeated in his summary. But tell me this: if religious folk don’t think, “I’m right, they’re wrong,” then why don’t they send their kids to a faith schools of a different faith, in the interests of community relations? And no, I definitely don’t want you drummed out of the party. Who would I wind up then? 🙂
I must say – I’m struggling to find any reasonable contradiction of Laurence’s article in the above comments.
Lots of people accuse him of ignorance and bloody-mindedness, but none really pick up on the main points and even come close to criticising them.
If he has misunderstood religion to such a gross level, then why not succinctly explain where and how he’s wrong?
Laurence,
I was going to wade in and attempt to defend religion here, but I really can’t with any great veracity. I mean, the general thrust of your argument is that “religion makes people do stupid things” and that is undoubtedly true.
However, I can’t help feeling that there is a bit of simplification going on here: picture a world with no religion in it. Does it have no violence? No hatred or oppression? Or is religion partly being used today as a tool by those who want to commit violence and oppression without reference to religious belief? Of course it is.
Picture a world with no religion in it. Does it have no violence? No hatred or oppression?
I’m not promising Utopia. That’s what religion does.
Or is religion partly being used today as a tool by those who want to commit violence and oppression without reference to religious belief?
Of course that is true to a certain extent. But it’s a bit like the argument over guns. “It’s not guns that kill people, it’s people that kill people.” Well no, it’s both in fact – and religion, like guns, is simply lethal.
Laurence, I think that you are being a trifle simplistic here. Religion can, and does, inspire loonie to commit atrocities in the name of faith, and this seems to apply to the majority of religions, whether monotheistic or not.
However, and I didn’t detect this from the article, religion – however spurious you may see it as being – can also inspire people to acts of great kindness and humanity.
As no one will ever know whether there is an afterlife during their (physical) lifetime I think a little ‘live and let live’ should apply. Science will also never be able to prove what happened at creation, the human mind does not appear to be able to understand what happened before the Big Bang or when.
Gosh – like the google ad entitled ‘Jesus loves you’ – always used to think that was highly patronising…and what if I don’t love him back?!
Sorry Laurence don’t take it personally!
I know these ads are self optimizing, but just now as I looked one of the Adsense panels after comment 20 had “Jesus Loves You” on one side and “Customer Opinion Surveys” on the other. Very good.
Hayek wrote:
“Unlike the rationalism of the French Revolution, true liberalism has no quarrel with religion, and I can only deplore the militant and essentially illiberal antireligionism which animated so much of nineteenth-century Continental liberalism. That this is not essential to liberalism is clearly shown by its English ancestors, the Old Whigs, who, if anything, were much too closely allied with a particular religious belief. What distinguishes the liberal from the conservative here is that, however profound his own spiritual beliefs, he will never regard himself as entitled to impose them on others and that for him the spiritual and the temporal are different sphere which ought not to be confused.”
And I reckon got it pretty much right.
15 Yes, whilst you are free to worship as you please in China, it is my understanding that it is illegal to try to convert others to your ‘faith’.
14 I agree with Kev that Clegg was not really brown nosing – saying that faith schools are important could be interpreted as a statement of current fact, rather than that HE thinks they SHOULD be important….
Liberal Hammer, I know there is good and bad in religion, but the two are linked. One group benefits at the expense of another. In this sense (and indeed in just about every other sense), religion is a profoundly conservative enterprise.
Laurence, you know I basically agree with you that religion – in all its forms – is a load of… well, I am atheist to my bones. But I still fail, after reading probably thousands of words from you on the subject, to understand what it is you are so angry about. We’re all secularists here – religious or not. You have *not* demonstrated in this article or in any other that one group *is* consistently benefiting at the expense of another. The argument is highly qualitative – this case here, that example there. The very fact that it *is* arguable ought to at least give you pause for thought as a self-styled rational. And so long as it remains arguable, we *cannot* as a party take any sort of “action” or “stand” against religion (whatever that would look like) further than we already do – by being secularist and disestablishmentarian.
And I still don’t understand how you square your trenchant line with the most basic tenet of liberalism. This is basically another rant telling people how they should think. And it does begin to look, after a while, as if you’re an uncritical Dawkins footsoldier who has heard the cry for evanglical atheism and taken it to heart in order to satisfy a yen for dramatic self-image. Your anger begins to look like posturing. I say this in the probability that it’s what others are thinking. It is therefore potentially damaging to the whole cause of secularism.
I know you will absorb this attack with your usual good humour. I’ve been trying for a while to put my finger on why I keep disagreeing with what you write when I hold exactly the same position as you, and this, personal though it may sound, is unfortunately it.
Thanks Laurence for clarifying your understanding of secularism as separation of church and state, and also for making it clear that you are going much further than advocating mere secularism in your argument.
As a Christian, I am in favour of the separation of church and state. However, quite what separation of church and state entails in practice is in itself controversial and involves matters of interpretation where advocates of separation may disagree. And separating church and state is different from separating religion and politics. (Stephen L. Carter’s book “God’s Name in Vain: The Rights and Wrongs of Religion in Politics” addressing the situation in the USA is illuminating on this.)
I am a manure and ice cream man. Ice cream is good for eating. Manure is good for fertilising. But mix them up and they become good for neither. Separating church and state actually helps maintain the integrity of both! But even with separation, religious convictions will continue to influence political decision-making. If a faith-commitment involves the whole of life, and not merely private religious practices, then what else could you expect? And, of course, if I understand Laurence correctly, it is precisely this influence that he considers to be so malign.
I am a manure and ice cream man. Ice cream is good for eating. Manure is good for fertilising. But mix them up and they become good for neither.
Wise words indeed for a man of God.
Separating church and state actually helps maintain the integrity of both!
Yes, it’s obvious really. So why hasn’t it happened? The very fact that we are having argument at all tells us that there’s something very odd going on.
I read this carefully several times and am not clear what practical point is being made. Laurence doesn’t like religion and is clearly very angry about. That’s much I had gathered from previous discussions. There is no balanced discussion of the contribution that Religions have made to art, literature, social reform, architecture, political philosophy or indeed liberalism. Just a blanket condemnation of all fundamentalism. The idea that all believers aren’t fundamentalists is dismissed with a rhetorically referrence to “Nice Nazi’s”.
I welcome the article being published at I don’t think it does laurences case much good but at heart its a prime example of the thoughtless, self reinforcing and blinkered fundamentalism that he seeks to critique in the first place.
Except David, that not one single person, including you, has actually addressed the argument I am making. I am arguing that religion is inherently problematical. I repeat from paragraph four:
Already we see some disturbing elements: Why, for instance, does God require constant praise and worship, more reminiscent of Stalin than of a “loving father”? Then there is the obvious scope for abuse when one is claiming to be in possession of a divine and unalterable revelation. Finally, there is the belief in an afterlife – the killer doctrine that, whichever way you cut it, has the effect of utterly diminishing the value of life on earth.
Répondez!
But I still fail, after reading probably thousands of words from you on the subject, to understand what it is you are so angry about.
Basically, this.
You have *not* demonstrated in this article or in any other that one group *is* consistently benefiting at the expense of another.
That particular argument is more of a metaphysical hypothesis, albeit one that I am particularly fond of. But where does the energy for all this “goodness” come from, if it doesn’t come from God? Of course a religious person might say, “ah but there is a God.” Except that they very rarely do argue that. Instead, they tend to argue – as David has just done – that religions produce lots of fine art and literature or do lots of charity work, which I find very telling. Perhaps it’s just too embarrassing to admit that you really believe in an invisible man in the sky.
And I still don’t understand how you square your trenchant line with the most basic tenet of liberalism. This is basically another rant telling people how they should think.
Because, Alix, I don’t blindly follow any tenets. I try to think things out from first principles. And yes I am telling people how they should think. We do it all the time. “Don’t be racist.” And the punishment for disagreeing with me is . . . nothing! Beats eternal hell fire any day.
And it does begin to look, after a while, as if you’re an uncritical Dawkins footsoldier.
No, I’m much more of a Sam Harris fan. I’ve actually become a bit frustrated with Dawkins of late.
Your anger begins to look like posturing.
Well I’m certainly not opposed to a spot of theatrics.
It is therefore potentially damaging to the whole cause of secularism.
Now listen up darling, because I’m going to say this only once. When we have a situation, as we have in this country, where kids are being taught creationism, 150 years after Darwin – nobody, but nobody, is going to tell me that I’m “not doing it right.” If you don’t like the way I say it, then you had better start saying it the “right way” whatever that is – nothing would please me more. But I have heard absolutely nothing from Liberal Democrats on this, since Jenny Tonge challenged Tony Blair at PMQs about a million years ago. It so frustrates me how we can’t see the way the wind is blowing. We will come to the party very late, doubtless claiming to have been secularists all along, which is true in a sense – but only in a sense, as we make absolutely nothing of our secularist credentials.
One of Laurence’s key arguments is that the good that religion does is necessarily counterbalanced by the evil that it does. While it is possible that this may be true it is also possible that it isn’t, and as it is not really susceptible to proof one way or the other it isn’t much of an argument. What is objectively true (though I’m sorry, I don’t have the references) is that those who profess a religious belief give a higher proportion of their income to good causes and spend more of their time on voluntary work than those who do not have such a belief. I have made this argument before and Laurence dismisses it without making serious points to counter it.
“I read this carefully several times and am not clear what practical point is being made.”
I think the point is that Laurence quite reasonably objects to being labeled a “bigot”.
A quick glance at dictionary.com gives me the definition: “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion” (there are others).
That may seem to cover Laurence’s opinion regarding religion. But it seems to me that “bigot” is a pejorative term, implying a prejudicial even irrational opinion that is unsupported by logical argument.
And it does seem that people (and I mean this in general so I apologise to James Graham, as it appears to do him a disservice) would like to use the term to shut down debate: Laurence wishes to express a forceful condemnation of – in the instance quoted – Islam; the reply comes “you’re a bigot, end of.”
The case set out above certainly shows that Laurence has reasons for his opinions, that people of religion do have some case to answer, and that no one should merely dismiss him with a word.
“give a higher proportion of their income to good causes”
If we’re going to look at charitable-giving trends then we could also note that Tories give more money to charity than LD or Labour voters.
I can cite this, too – http://tinyurl.com/2tdfv4
“What is objectively true (though I’m sorry, I don’t have the references)”
As a completely non-religious person who has volunteered LOTS of time for CAB, I, for one, am not accepting this without references.
I would also suspect that, if it IS true, it’s to do with /disposable/ income and time. Those who are at the bottom of the food chain tend to be more worried about what’s happening in this life to worry about the next; religious people tend to have higher incomes, hence the noxious American Neocon belief that richness is caused by religiosity (rather than the fact that it’s the rich who have time to be religious).
Laurence, you are right I’m not really engaging with your arguement because it think your “Nice Nazi” comment really destroys, holes beneath the water line, the whole argument you are making. Its so cheap and offensive ( Remember Bonhoffer?) I just can’t be bothered.
You previously published an article on here arguing that the party become a champion of secularism and that there was a political market to be cornered here. Thats a much more interesting line. Why don’t you dust that off and pad it out with some policy proposals. But at the moment you are just acting like a athiestic Ian Paisley.
“Why are we constantly being assured that “Islam is a religion of peace,” when a cursory inspection of the Koran tells a completely different story?”
Precisely! A literalist interpretation of the Qur’an (see Wahhabism) typically underpins the fundamentalist view of Islam espoused by radical islamists like Bin Laden and Qutb.
The fact remains that the mainstream interpretations of Islam are peaceful, as is the case with Christianity. The theological merits of Islam as a religion are something else altogether, and as an agnostic i would naturally disagree with much of it.
The fact remains, however, that it is simply Lazy to effectively assume, on the basis of a literalist reading of the Qur’an, that Islam is an inherently violent religion. The current problems of fundamentalism and terrorism have a plethora of socio-economic and geo-political causes which are far more important in understanding the terrorist threat.
44. I would be most surprised if there was a positive correlation in most countries between greater income and religiosity: in fact both the Catholic church and Islam attract the majority of their adherents from the less well off. In Britain the C of E has tended to be ‘the Conservative Party at prayer’, but the Catholic and nonconformist churches have historically attracted the greater part of their support from those with less wealth.
I bet you a tenner that the research you are carefully not citing was conducted in either the UK or the US, though, Tony, because poor countries exploited by, er, I mean saved by Catholicism et al generally can’t afford to conduct academic studies of this nature. We don’t need to consider world religious adherence, only the adherence in the country in which the research was conducted.
Sure, religion is used by the ruling classes in third world countries to keep a grip on the masses, but I don’t think that invalidates what I am suggesting about this country (I don’t know about the USA). I am an atheist too, but I don’t think that allows me to look at the argument in a biased way, and the facts as I understand them (perhaps someone can prove me wrong) show that those with religious beliefs are more likely to be engaged with their communities in altruistic ways than those without.
And, as I say, you may be right, but I’d like to see a citation before I’m prepared to believe it. I want to to know who did the research, who sponsored it, what the sample size was, etc, before I’m prepared to accept it as fact.
And I’m not an atheist.
Mmm…I can find out why ‘Jesus loves me’ or call a call centre to participate in a dull customer survey on my consumer satisfaction…know what gooogle ad I’ll be clicking in that instance then…
Jo, I have “50% of luxury handbags” and “What is progesterone?”
OFF luxury handbags, even.
Laurence, I’m not convinced by many of your arguments here.
Taking my cues from liberalism as much as possible, I come to the following conclusion: religion is a private matter and people are entitled to believe in whatever the hell they want. Not you, nor anyone else, can tell them otherwise. And in ‘anyone else’ I also include, in fact especially emphasise, the government. It as absolutely not the business of politicians to tell people what they should or should not believe, and belief in that principle is one of the many reasons why I’m a Lib Dem.
“Why is it quite beyond any of our politicians to draw a connection between belief in the “afterlife” and the practice of suicide bombing?” – because it is not and hopefully never will be the business of politicians to legislate on the existence of the afterlife. This should be patently obvious and I can only assume that you’re being obtuse in asking the question at all.
“Why, when the terrorists are patiently articulating their theology on homemade videos, do we search desperately for the “root causes” in order to exonerate the role of faith?” – because, if we observe the statistics, there is only the weakest of correlations between religious faith and terrorism, if any at all. I’m sorry, but it’s the truth. Stupid people have been doing stupid things for a lot longer than Islam, Christianity or any other religion has been in existence, and they’ll carry on doing stupid things long after the last church and the last mosque are nothing but archaeological sites. Your very phrase contains within it the evidence of its incorrectness: you are quite clearly under the influence of the availability heuristic – you’re making your judgements based on a handful of extremely salient examples which were extremely well-publicised, not least by the efforts of the terrorists themselves in making the videos. Do the actual sums and work out the number of Muslims (say) who are terrorists compared to the number who aren’t. Then correct for economic and social factors, access to education and so on. I highly doubt that you would produce any evidence suggesting that religion causes terrorism. I’m sorry to come to that conclusion myself – I don’t have any love of religion at all and think that following religion is a particularly stupid thing to do, but that doesn’t entitle me to any great sense of superiority over the religious. It certainly doesn’t entitle my views to primacy in law.
This is where you are both right and infuriatingly wrong at the same time. You’re entitled to your views on religion, but I don’t think that you’re entitled to elevate them to political principle, any more than a Christian would be entitled to elevate his beliefs to political principle either. You’re going to hate this, but from the point of view of a liberal, there’s no difference between you and a Christian: you’re just two people with views. Neither has the power to assert their views over the views of the other. Most religious people have no problem with secularism. We are a broadly secular society and can happily remain so without the need to lambast religion and the religious. Campaign for secularism and I’ll gladly agree with you on the basis that it’s a good idea in its own right. Campaign for it on the basis that you want to bash religion and I (and quite a few others, I’d imagine) will be unable to follow you. And, for your own sake, I suggest that you think more carefully before assuming that you’re right. In more than a few of the comments you’ve made in follow-up to the original post, you’ve made points without backing them up by particularly rigorous logic (name-dropping Hume and Darwin does not an argument make), and this only damages your case. Nobody likes to be told that they’re biased and getting carried away with themselves, but I fear that you are.
Blimey, thanks Rob! I’m going to have to look at that tomorrow.
[email protected], I think it would be unfair to Richard Dawkins to describe Laurence as his uncritical footsoldier.
Anyway, on to the main point…
To see whether Laurence is bigoted, I think we would need to observe his dealings with actual religious people. I don’t think finding someone’s beliefs laughable is sufficient.
However I would like to add my name to the list of people who are sick of Laurence banging on about this on LDV.
What is particularly galling is that Laurance is siding with the theocrats, in trying to convince believers that they cannot be liberals. What a stupid thing to do.
Yes, it would be nice if other people agreed with my choice of “faith identity” (secular humanist) and it is all well and good to try to convince people who are willing to listen. But it is not an activity that I would bring into the Liberal Democrats or any party because we are here to build a coalition around liberalism not around atheism.
Whether society is liberal matters a great deal more than what other people believe about the supernatural.
I think the point is that Laurence quite reasonably objects to being labelled a “bigot.”
Thanks for the support Richard. Actually I don’t really care what anyone calls me. It just seemed like a good excuse for a bun fight!
The case set out above certainly shows that Laurence has reasons for his opinions, that people of religion do have some case to answer, and that no one should merely dismiss him with a word.
Don’t be too hard on my detractors. They’re on particularly bad form today. 🙂
Laurence, you are right. I’m not really engaging with your argument because I think your “Nice Nazi” comment really destroys, holes beneath the water line, the whole argument you are making. It’s so cheap and offensive.
Oh I’m sorry David, but I’m afraid I was trying to make a serious point. You see the debate kicked off because James said that religion is “what you make of it.” So I asked, “is Marxism what you make of it?” – thinking that would be checkmate. But James amazed me by saying that Marxism is “self-evidently” what you make of it. Of course I now realise my mistake. I should have said, “is fascism what you make of it?” Or in the abstract, how faulty does an ideology have to be before it ceases to be just “what you make of it.” Does James think that fascism is “what you make of it,” or does he think that fascism is inherently evil? And does holding the latter viewpoint make you a “bigot.” I suppose James could always come and tell us himself, but then he’s never commented on any of my articles so I’m guessing that he’s not about to start now.
What is objectively true is that those who profess a religious belief give a higher proportion of their income to good causes and spend more of their time on voluntary work than those who do not have such a belief. I have made this argument before and Laurence dismisses it without making serious points to counter it.
I don’t dismiss it Tony. In fact I think that’s probably true. But please explain how the proportion of income donated to good causes can have any bearing upon whether Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, turned water into wine, died, stayed dead three days, then rose up from the dead prior to shooting off into the sky. It doesn’t. It can’t – for a reason that is so elementary that it aptly demonstrates how far from the shady groves of reason we have strayed. It is because the future cannot influence the past. The “religions do lots of useful charity work” argument simply betrays a lack of commitment to the truth.
What is particularly galling is that Laurence is siding with the theocrats, in trying to convince believers that they cannot be liberals. What a stupid thing to do.
Well yes, I happen to think that religion is antithetical to liberal values. So is it then “stupid” to speak the truth as I see it?
The current problems of fundamentalism and terrorism have a plethora of socio-economic and geo-political causes which are far more important in understanding the terrorist threat.
Oh yes, of course. Socio-economic causes. Poor old Osama bin Laden is so oppressed, he must be down to his last few billion by now.
If we’re going to look at charitable-giving trends then we could also note that Tories give more money to charity than LD or Labour voters.
And of course Tories are more religious too. It’s all starting to make sense!
Sorry, I haven’t had the time to plough all the way through this thread. There are so many other things I have to do (sleep being one of them).
But I cannot let mention of Richard Dawkins pass without directing readers the following link:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Examskeptics/Dawkins.html
A trait which materialists of the Marxist persuasion and those who favour a market economy share is their fraudulent claim to stand for “science” and “reason”.
Look at the link and see how “scientific” Dawkins is being here.
Meanwhile,at the Burning Bush- just in case
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Image:FireExtinguisher.jpg
Rob, one comment you made struck me as quite eccentric.
“It as absolutely not the business of politicians to tell people what they should or should not believe, and belief in that principle is one of the many reasons why I’m a Lib Dem.”
Generally you’re correct. Politicians banging on about the generic evils of religion has little benefit and is more likely to be counterproductive. Russian state oppression of the orthodox church has not exactly boosted the cause of secular reason in that country.
The absolutism of your statement though is not right. It’s implying that politicians should suspend all critical faculties the moment something is invoked as a matter of faith or religion. Something they certainly do not do when religion is not involved. And secularists are surely right to argue that religious should not have special status against other forms of argument and philosophy.
Politicians, for example I believe are right to say that female genital mutilation in the name of some cultural or religious practice is wrong and will not be permitted, and they want other people to understand and share that belief.
I don’t think Laurence’s implication that a politically sponsored moral war between secularists and theists would be a good thing is at all right. However he’s right to suggest that on matters like education reform, some invocation of secular principles would be no bad thing. The school system for example really should not still being used to promote one religion against another or none, these are surely matters for personal choice when you reach the age of maturity?
That is a good example of a secular principle worth shouting about.
And to those of you attacking Laurence for saying what he thinks on this forum, or just the way he says it…
Good grief, get over yourselves. This isn’t an official party publication and Laurence isn’t an official party spokesperson. Nor is he saying something so appalling that it’s unfit to print. His articles get by far the most engagement and commentary on this site and I for one am grateful to see Liberal Democrats who can write in the provocative manner of the Daily Mail or Mirror rather than always the reasonable monotone of the Guardian and Economist.
“Politicians, for example I believe are right to say that female genital mutilation in the name of some cultural or religious practice is wrong and will not be permitted, and they want other people to understand and share that belief.”
Female genital mutilation is an act, not a belief. Opposing it has absolutely nothing to do with secularism and everything to do with far more fundamental principles of people’s rights over their own bodies.
Politicians can’t criticise people for thinking that FGM might be a good idea, but they can criticise people for (and legislate against) carrying out the act.
I don’t think Laurence’s implication that a politically sponsored moral war between secularists and theists would be a good thing is at all right.
Thanks for the support Andy. But I don’t really want a moral war – more of a custard pie fight. In fact, at the breakout group I meant to propose that in the summer the Lib Dem Christians and secularists organise one on College Green. We could get the Daily Politics to cover it which would help bring these issues out into the open. The trouble is that if I had suggested this, everyone would have thought that I was joking. But I’m not. I’d really like to see this happen.
[email protected] said:
“Well yes, I happen to think that religion is antithetical to liberal values. So is it then “stupid” to speak the truth as I see it?”
Well yes, that is what I said.
And much but not all religion is antithetical to liberal values. That which isn’t, perhaps, isn’t in your mind religion at all. However it may still be religion in the mind of the believer.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, some particular liberal believer is living a paradox, and you awaken them to this sufficiently that they are moved to choose between their liberalism and their religion. What are the possible consequences? The number of believers will go down or stay the same. Fine. However the number of liberals will go down or stay the same. Ouch. Thus your argument, ought to be (and is) one that our political opponents make and we oppose.
Rob Knight wrote:
“Politicians can’t criticise people for thinking that FGM might be a good idea”
I hope you’re kidding. This is rather like arguing that we shouldn’t criticise thieves for thinking stealing is o.k., they’re just unlucky to get caught. That’s not exactly a robust rehabilitation programme.
Complete moral relativism is just as unatrractive in politicians as narrow absolutism.
“This is rather like arguing that we shouldn’t criticise thieves for thinking stealing is o.k.”
Should we punish people who are not thieves but think that stealing is ok? I’d say obviously not – they’ve done nothing wrong, they just hold an opinion. Go over what you said again: “This is rather like arguing that we shouldn’t criticise thieves for thinking stealing is o.k.”. The reason they are valid targets for criticism is because they are thieves. It’s because they’ve done something which causes harm to others. I make an argument saying that actions are a different category from beliefs, and you rebut this with an example based on a category of people defined by their actions!
Returning to your earlier point, let me try to clarify what I mean: “Politicians, for example I believe are right to say that female genital mutilation in the name of some cultural or religious practice is wrong”.
Female genital mutilation is wrong, full stop. I really do not care why people do it, I care about making sure that they don’t and punishing them if they do. It is beyond our capabilities to investigate people’s beliefs; it may be entirely impossible for us to fully understand the workings of the minds of others. For this reason, we should act based on observable evidence: the actions people carry out. Certain actions are banned, we call these ‘crimes’. It doesn’t matter why someone does them, what matters is that we punish them for it when they do and, by so doing, we demonstrate society’s view of these actions.
“Should we punish people who are not thieves but think that stealing is ok?”
No Rob, we should educate them, or disagree with them if they make that point in public.
I’m minded as an example to cite the Vicar on Thought for the Day who argued that shop-lifting from supermarkets is o.k. as it amounts to a form of redistribution from the rich to the poor.
He’s entitled to hold that view, I’m entitled to disagree with him and suggest he’s encouraging criminal behaviour with his ill-judged and irresponsible remarks.
“I make an argument saying that actions are a different category from beliefs”
Of course, but criticising daft views, which is what Laurence is arguing for in respect of religion to give it equal treatment other forms of opinion, is different to punishing someone for holding a daft view and then acting on it. I think that’s pretty clear isn’t it?
“Certain actions are banned, we call these ‘crimes’. It doesn’t matter why someone does them”
Um yes it does for two key reasons. Firstly so you can act to prevent criminal behaviour before harm has taken place. Second so you can rehabilitate offenders.
A good example of that is how you deal with someone using the Bible as justification for gay-hate crimes. Sure the crux of their punishment would be based on what crime they actually commit. But it would be rather better if there had been education in advance to make it clear the Bible has got this wrong in the view of our secular society in the hope of prevention. And some education in prison afterwards about respecting others regardless of whether your religion defines them as evil.
So in that respect I disagree with your assertion that “what matters is that we punish them for it when they do and, by so doing, we demonstrate society’s view of these actions.” That is only half the picture, unless you defining education and rehabilitation as punishment.
Understanding why people commit crimes is really very important.
Rob & Andy, I’m not sure you two are really disagreeing much.
We should oppose words with words and actions with actions. Neither of you is arguing for the use of force or law against the belief or expression of bad ideas. And neither is arguing that you shouldn’t disagree with people who express bad ideas.
The possible disagreement is over the appropriateness of moral condemnation of holding bad ideas. I suggest that error is not contemptible unless that error results from recklessness. So believing, say, in the literal truth of one of the nasty bits of the bible should not necessarily be condemned, but should be disagreed with. “Criticise” unfortunately is a loaded and ambiguous term, where I think we need a clearer distinction between disagreement and condemnation.
And while I think recklessly endorsing wicked moral principles should be condemned, I don’t think it should be prohibited. Politicians need to be triply careful condemning things they don’t want to prohibit because people will misunderstand.
Laurence @ 40
“Basically this.”
The whole does-religion-make-people-do-bad-things argument is being rehashed constantly, on this thread for a start. It’s not a given. What I mean when I say I don’t understand why you’re angry is I genuinely don’t understand what you want to *happen*. If you have a way forward for secularism, let’s hear it. Did I miss a critical article in which you said something more constructive than that all religious people are cretins and the party should repeatedly tell them so for their own good?
“That particular argument is more of a metaphysical hypothesis…”
That whole para is misplaced slightly I think; I take it you have interpreted my “benefits” in the sense of “the benefits that have arisen from religion”. Actually what I meant was that it is impossible to prove that religous people of any stripe *benefit* over non-religious people in society as a whole *as a result of their religion*. There are too many qualitative arguments in both directions. You can’t throw it all into a sort of cosmic balance and decide which side is “winning”. The only real sticking point is secularism, which as you say somewhere above, is no longer what you’e really concerned with.
“Now listen up darling…”
Right, this is where you start to make a bit more sense. Creationism we can have an argument about. Needless to say I loathe the idea that it might be taught, and tend, when I think this may impinge on “pure” liberalism, to fall back on the little bit of the preamble that talks about no-one being “enslaved by ignorance or conformity”. I don’t know whether, in the People’s Republic of Mortimer, this would lead to the teaching of creationism being unconditionally banned, but I am open to discussion on the point.
Andy @ 61, this isn’t a question of whining about having our widdle feelings hurt by the big bad Laurence. It’s a question of practicalities. Whatever it is Laurence wants the party to do, he is incapable of expressing it without surrounding it with fire and brimstone (as it were) which takes the focus off secularism and onto, well, Laurence. If he focussed the admirable qualities you point out more on, say, how to practically achieve a liberal policy that limits the teaching of creationism, and less on being the Great High King of All the Atheists, we might might even have got somewhere by now.
Rob Knight said: “Certain actions are banned, we call these ‘crimes’. It doesn’t matter why someone does them, what matters is that we punish them for it when they do and, by so doing, we demonstrate society’s view of these actions.”
Wrong. A crime is usally more than an action. Most crimes (and all crimes that are punishable by imprisonment) have a mens rea component. Crimes of strict liability, or quasi-crimes, may lead to a fine, but not a stain on one’s character.
It most certainly DOES matter why someone does them. Crimes of specific intent can only be committed intentionally, while crimes of basic intent may be committed recklessly. So the “why” is of paramount importance.
Conversely, ALL crimes must have an actus reus. I was taught at Sunday school that thinking of doing something naughty is just as wicked as doing something naughty, but English law has never recognised a pure thought crime.
Female genital mutilation is contrary to section 18, Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which is a crime of specific intent. It is necessary to prove that the defendant intended to do the act, but his religious motive is no defence.
Jomo Kenyatta regarded female genital mutilation as a precious symbol of African moral and racial superiority over Europeans. And it seems that Germaine Greer and others on the left who support female genital mutilation agree with this analysis. It is something that people with dark skins do for religious and cultural reasons, so it is not for secularists with white skins to criticise it. A similar rationale leads Greer and her fellow relativists to uphold the right of Moslems to murder Salman Rushdie.
I think we’re running the risk of disagreeing for the sake of it here – I suspect that we don’t disagree nearly as much as it appears. Having said that…
“No Rob, we should educate them, or disagree with them if they make that point in public.”
Well, yes. But they still have a right to disagree back. I think there’s a big difference between saying “you cannot commit the following acts” and saying “you cannot hold the following beliefs”. I think that Laurence comes too close to the latter for my liking, though I have no problem with the former. You might say that I’m splitting hairs, and perhaps I am, but I do think that these distinctions matter (if not in this case then in others).
“Of course, but criticising daft views, which is what Laurence is arguing for in respect of religion to give it equal treatment other forms of opinion, is different to punishing someone for holding a daft view and then acting on it. I think that’s pretty clear isn’t it?”
Yes, and we entirely agree on that. But where I differ with Laurence is in the identification of religion as the main problem. People do bad things for any number of reasons, and focussing on religion is misguided. We might end up lambasting ‘religion’, an abstract concept, instead of engaging with the very real issues that cause people to behave in certain ways. Religion is not the main cause of bad behaviour, and it’s possible for people to be religious and also model citizens. It’s not religion per se that is the problem.
“But it would be rather better if there had been education in advance to make it clear the Bible has got this wrong in the view of our secular society in the hope of prevention.”
But there already is! I mean, there are laws against assault and hate crimes, and plenty of initiatives both inside and outside of official education to combat hate crimes. Statistically, how many crimes in this country are caused by people having read the Bible? Enough to make this a major focus of policy?
If you can assure me that you’re not interested in going after people for ‘thought crimes’ then I’ll happily agree with you. If you’re happy to accept people having all manner of weird and objectionable views so long as they are not harming anyone then I’ll happily agree with you. I’m just very wary of saying that religious people are a dangerous influence in society; it’s something I just can’t accept and I’m quite surprised that it’s a view which has such wide currency. I don’t expect people to hold views I find acceptable, I just want them to behave acceptably.
Being virulently anti-religious will definitely lose us votes. That is all.
Rob, Joe’s summary of the similarlity of our position is accurate.
“Neither of you is arguing for the use of force or law against the belief or expression of bad ideas”
Hooray for us…
And being virulently anti-racist would have lost us votes 100 years ago.
Where I differ with Laurence is in the identification of religion as the main problem.
Yes but it’s the easiest problem to solve. All we have to do is stop believing in some stuff that isn’t true. Sorted. Other problems are going to be much less tractable. When we perform this necessary calibration, we may see that religion is far and away the biggest burden that we are carrying around for no good reason.
Rob, I promise I will deal with your earlier post, and everyone else in the fullness of time.
Did I miss a critical article in which you said something more constructive than that all religious people are cretins and the party should repeatedly tell them so for their own good?
I have never ever said that all religious people are cretins, not even in jest I think. However, I do think however that at some level religious people are not being entirely honest.
I loathe the idea that [creationism] might be taught, and tend, when I think this may impinge on “pure” liberalism, to fall back on the little bit of the preamble that talks about no-one being “enslaved by ignorance or conformity.”
Phew. I’m so glad there are some limits to our cherished liberal principles!
Whatever it is Laurence wants the party to do . . .
You underestimate the scale of my ambition Alix. I’m going to change the world, not the party. But I might need a little help from my friends. 🙂
Suppose, for the sake of argument, some particular liberal believer is living a paradox, and you awaken them to this sufficiently that they are moved to choose between their liberalism and their religion.
Are you sort of admitting I’m right?
What are the possible consequences? The number of believers will go down or stay the same. Fine. However the number of liberals will go down or stay the same. Ouch. Thus your argument, ought to be (and is) one that our political opponents make and we oppose.
Sorry Joe, I just don’t understand this. I don’t see our opponents making the argument at all. The Conservatives are wedded to Christian values, and Labour never says anything to upset Islam.
Understanding why people commit crimes is really very important.
Andy, you are right on the money. Great stuff. We have simply got to get away from this false dichotomy between thoughts and actions. Thoughts are actions, and can be just as lethal. N.B. I’m talking philosophy here, not legislation – before anyone accuses me of being a Nazi.
“I am going to change the world”
Well you have got your work cut out.In this part of the world, S E Asia, most people cannot conceive of a person NOT having a religion.
Outside of Europe religion is on the increase.China will be a bastion of Christianity by the end of this century.
[email protected]
What I am saying is that the argument that religion is inherently illiberal is used by authoritarians to persuade the religious to oppose liberalism. You also make a similar argument, to a different purpose. You cannot both have sound tactics.
And “Suppose for the sake of argument” means I’m not admitting you are right. What you say is true of some kinds of religion (and therefore some believers) and false of others. It may also be true of some kinds of non-religious philosophy.
[email protected],
“You cannot believe X” is also a problematic usage. It may imply some restriction on freedom of thought, or it may simply refer to the logical force of truth as opposed to error.
The latter sense is perfectly acceptable, indeed necessary; without argument over what is true we would be in the Dark Ages still.
But it is a terrible form of words to use in any political context, because prohibition is our business and philosophy isn’t. And so the former sense will typically be understood.
“However, I do think however that at some level religious people are not being entirely honest.”
Interesting. Dawkins suggests that religion is a malfunctional psychological by-product of the universal human ability to fall in love – the love bit sort of gets accidentally misdirected at a god. Pascal Boyer in Religion Explained talks about religion satisfying a number of different needs, most primitively the need to invest random events with meaning and symbolism to stop yourself going crazy (i.e. when the harvest fails etc).
I’m more inclined to go with Boyer because if Dawkins was right, surely everyone with the capacity to fall in love (i.e. everyone except psycho/sociopaths) would be religious.
Interestingly, you only get monotheism in more complex, multi-layered societies where people *can’t* clearly see all the consequences for a harvest failing. I.e. a harvest could fail but a population get fed from somewhere else, or wages could increase but spending power decrease. So monotheism, less literal than animism, is perhaps a belief system that arose to deal with these incredibly complex societies and stop people in *them* going crazy.
But the thing is we could chew this over till we’re blue in the face and it wouldn’t change the fact that, whatever psychological/intellectual condition it is that underlies religion, some people just have it. I suppose you could say they’re being dishonest, by our lights, but that’s not very helpful because whatever is subconscious will remain subconscious. We just can’t do anything about that. Some people have psychological conditions that lead them to think killing people is a good idea. That we can do something about because it’s an unacceptable attack on another’s liberty, but religion *of itself* is not.
Well you have got your work cut out. In this part of the world, S E Asia, most people cannot conceive of a person NOT having a religion.
Ha! you forget that the next generation has yet to be born.
I’m more inclined to go with Boyer . . .
I should go with Boyce if I were you.
Let’s say the Lib Dems come out with a commitment to say, phase out (rather than abolish) state-funded religious education. Over a period of 20 years. That’s the time that the Church of England has left, if current trends continue. So it’ll have to happen anyway.
In Scotland too, it would hardly break the bank to pull plug on the absurdity of ‘joint campuses’.
It’ll create clear water between the Lib Dems and the other parties. It may seem populist and seedy, but how long can we pretend that the UK is something it is not?
I totally agree Anax. For a supposedly secular party, we haven’t even taken the obvious first steps.
Anax, I don’t think RE is the issue, at least not in principle. It is typically selective in what is taught, and I have spoken to believers who feel the same way.
And while every school has to perform daily worship, and many actually do, I don’t think faith schools per se – i.e. the issues of governance is the main point either.
No, the policy I would like to suggest is this:
1. That all schools should respect the faith identities of all children who happen to attend. Parents/children will be asked what they believe in and be put under no pressure to pick one option over another.
2. That there should be parallel provision for all such faith identities represented by a reasonable number of pupils, with philosophy and ethics for non-believers.
3. Initially parents make the choice of identity for their children, but as children grow older, they should progressively gain freedom to make their own choices.
4. Parents and children have the right to change their faith identity.
5 (a), (ideally), faith identity shall not be a permitted criterion for selection, or (b), (compromise) where faith identity is a criterion for selection a pupil/parent declaration shall be considered entirely sufficient. [To deal with the clerical gatekeeper problem.]
Such a policy dismantles what is most objectionable about faith-based education while preserving – and in fact increasing – parental choice, and increasing the opportunity for parents to find an education for their children consistent with their own values.
This policy would maximise the cultural diversity within schools, which is far more effective than the sop of links between schools.
In addition to specific provision for each faith identity, some strictly neutral RE and philosophy should be taught to all pupils to promote understanding. I’m not saying how much of either there should be – a matter for the governors perhaps.
I don’t address the question of governance, so in principle faith schools, community schools, academies and so on are equally untouched by this proposal.
Nothing short of this will end the scandal that allows the freedom of (ir)religious conscience to be impinged upon by where you happen to live.
That all schools should respect the faith identities of all children who happen to attend.
I think that should read, “All schools should respect the faith identities of the parents of all children who happen to attend.” But why should they? Give me one good reason.
That there should be parallel provision for all such faith identities represented by a reasonable number of pupils.
I agree. Let’s divert valuable resources into a comprehensive coverage of ancient mythology.
Parents and children have the right to change their faith identity.
Oh yes. Especially when the punishment for apostasy is death.
I assume that your objection to mythology is that it does not represent truth. However, most past thought is now known to be untrue – Isaac Newton had some pretty crazy ideas, so should we scrub him from the curriculum? My principal objection to the way RE is done in schools these days is that it’s not nearly comprehensive enough. Like it or not, any consideration of the past involves a consideration of religion, and we can’t ignore this fact no matter how much we’d like to.
Secondly, teaching of religion strips away the mystique which gives religion its power. Teach the beliefs, the philosophies and most of all the history of religion rather than the silly nonsense about miracles. Explain to people how the Bible was written, by whom, and how it was popularised. Explain that Christianity in Europe is what it is because it was the state religion of the Roman Empire and not because of the miraculous powers of the saints. If the teaching of religious history is limited to religious nutters, then the only religion people will learn is that of religious nutters.
[email protected] said:
“But why should they? Give me one good reason.”
Because the state is not an authority on the truth. It’s called secularism, Laurence.
Rob said: “…most of all the *history* of religion”
Hoorah! 😀 I defy anyone to read an account of how the current canon of the Bible was assembled and still believe it is the Word of God. Four Gospels chosen from an original dozen, two accounts of creation, two slightly contradictory sets of laws, palace chronicles which overlap, a historical novel, erotic poetry… The current canon wasn’t even decided upon until the Council of Nicaea, and even after that some Bible makers were getting it “wrong” for another four hundred odd years.
I am convinced that teaching this kind of stuff really *would* make a difference… Oh, but hold on, we can’t, it’s not twentieth century and in no way involves the Nazis. Oh well.
Because the state is not an authority on the truth. It’s called secularism, Laurence.
So we can have fascist schools if there is sufficient demand? Like Andy says, moral relativism is very unattractive.
I assume that your objection to mythology is that it does not represent truth.
Well obviously that is my objection if it is taught as truth. But it’s not only that. It’s a question of priorities too. Kids are leaving school who can’t read and write. I’m not sure we really have time in the curriculum to cover every last example of the disordered thinking of ancient man. Religion can be such a time waster.
I am convinced that teaching this kind of stuff really *would* make a difference.
Are you sure you’ve thought this through Alix? Take this passage from chapter four of the Gospel of Thomas: “Later Jesus was going through the village again when a boy ran by and bumped him on the shoulder. Jesus got angry and said to him, ‘You won’t continue your journey.’ And all of a sudden he fell down and died!” Don’t you think we have a big enough problem with knife and gun crime without encouraging kids to follow the example of Jesus?
[email protected],
Relativism is not the only alternative to authoritarianism. There is also liberalism. Gosh I thought you might have known this.
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/02/most-irritating-myth-about-relativism.html
– or read the whole book (The war for children’s minds) it is very good.
“Are you sure you’ve thought this through Alix?…”
You’re being SILLY! I was saying one should teach children how the Bible came to be as it is, not slavishly relate its teachings to them. Treating it as the important historical document it is and teaching children effective textual criticism through it will free them from accepting *any* text uncritically. I warned you about SILLINESS when I put you on my FB friend list! 😉
I like Joe’s blueprint for religious studies. I think if these courses were framed with the same techniques normally taught in English and history in mind, you wouldn’t go far wrong.
I believe that Alix is right.
I’d rather abolish faith schools entirely, but if we can’t do that, a good start is to require all schools to teach comparative religion and history of religion.
Teach them about how religions come about. Show them that cargo-cults are the 20th century equivalent to the Jewish cult, or the Christian cults of millennia ago.
Teach them about everything religion has done. The great works of art it paid for using money it taxed from the poorest. The massive wars it encouraged and supported. The stability and peace it inspired by ruthlessly suppressing all dissenting views; philosophical, ecumenical or scientific.
Somehow I doubt faith schools would ever agree to that; they prefer to ignore the horrors done by their faith, because of their messiahs, message when teaching religion.
Boycie, you really are one of those tiresome twats who is just far too fond of the sound of your own voice. . . . If you really are so self-obsessed that you cannot see that a thread running towards a hundred posts full of your asinine ramblings is not what is required on a blog, then can I suggest you just start your own blog and stop polluting this one.
I love it. You manage single-handedly to lose Huhney the election, and then you call me a twat! But, strange to tell, I don’t quite see it that way. What I see is a thread running towards a hundred posts without one serious attempt to refute my core argument that religion is inherently problematical. The only constructive criticism I have received has come from secularists. The religious folk popped in briefly to remind us that religions do lots of charity work, but now they’ve buggered off. In their heart of hearts, I think they know they’re busted.
Secularism is non-sectarian (ie no favorites, no prescriptive pronouncements).
Secularism does not (as Laurence would have it) equate to the establishment of a hegemonic atheistic sect within the state.
Returning to the article, I think it would have been helpful to be a bit more generous in the definitions Laurence gave.
Secularism does not (as Laurence would have it) equate to the establishment of a hegemonic atheistic sect within the state.
Oh, for “God’s” sake! Why are some of you completely incapable of distinguishing between an argument I feel passionately about, and what I think ought to be enacted in legislation? Secularism means separation of church and state. That’s it. I could write articles specifically advocating secularism, but as it’s already party policy there doesn’t seem much point. I want a secular state, not an atheist state; but I also want, as an entirely separate exercise, to hurt religion as hard as I can. Do you get it?
Returning to the article, I think it would have been helpful to be a bit more generous in the definitions Laurence gave.
Eh? What does that mean?
Laurence, you want to be clear about what religious belief entails – you may have some thoughts about roughly what it means, but is that everything? Do you speak for everyone who holds such beliefs, despite not holding them yourself? I don’t think so, I don’t think you can, and nor do I think what you claim to be a reasonable definition is satisfactory in the slightest.
It just doesn’t help your position to back up claims to promote secularism on the one hand by delving into the fray and advocating atheist sectarianism on the other.
If you want other people to recognise that you distinguish between the two as seperate, then I suggest you don’t link them.
Anyway secularism means more than just seperation of church and state, it means seperation of all organs of state from government.
If we look at Pakistan or Venezuela, the constitutional problems there are caused by the head of state also being the head of the military. The wider issue arises from questions about whether any action undertaken by the state is in the general interest or in the interest of the General – it’s a matter of precedence. If we go on to look at various presidential systems, confusion is caused by the head of government also being the head of state. In Kenya currently the conflict is being driven by claims of tribal interest overriding the national interest (let’s leave aside US ructions and the mainly external problems they cause).
In any case where any such confusion arises it is problematic because intellectual concepts of legitimacy are challenged by the non-inclusivity of the decision-making process involved (ie in whose interests is it?). It’s why elections need to be both free and fair.
It is quite simple – if you want to maintain perception that you are a good judge, you cannot be seen to be partial: partisanship is acceptable only where accusations of prejudice can be dismissed.
If a state religion is a matter for public discussion it must be a matter for everyone, so there is no way you can be clear about any definitions of it or exactly what it may entail, whereas if it is a personal subject there is reason for you to raise it in the first place?
Addressing the issue of secularism in practise, it means whatever you want it to mean in the specific instance, thereby freeing you from dogmatic adherence to any doctrine.
Re: state education. Working from first principles it is hard to come to any definitive conclusion about what curriculum the state should formally advocate, other than everything. So, if the market dictates that there is enough demand for any type of school, be it baha’i or ba’athist, then, provided you have the ability to choose to reject that school for your kids and provided your curriculum is met, what is the problem? The challenge is to make sure the balance between supply and demand is met.
Faith schools aren’t a problem in themselves, the issue is about state funding and the level of control over what goes into the curriculum being taught in them – the same as with comprehensives.
The questions about the curriculum stem from the knock-on that this has on the effectiveness of society to satisfy public demands (ie skills for life and employment), which itself is a demonstration of the link between government policy as enacted by the most popular party. Education policy is on the agenda because the social and economic problems of inequality real and relative poverty are increasingly evident around us.
Are faith (sectarian) schools going to solve the secular dilemma? Well, I’d say that they do form part of the solution, but piecemeal they will only exacerbate it. As a liberal, I’d argue that the state should either support all types of school, or all types of school should be private enterprises.
The way I see it, the inadequacies of state education reflects negatively on the present party of government and is another reason to vote against them. Labour is failing to make the link between the education which sections of society want and the education society as a whole needs.
If freedom means anything, it must mean faith in some kind of karma!
Going back to the article, Marxism is a term that can be applied to many fields as it refers to a development of the dialectic method of analysis, not any particular conclusion that may be drawn from it.
So, I agree with James, yes, it is whatever you make of it.
Laurence, I’m afraid that you are overlooking the element of active participation of any individual within any system. If you choose to passive acceptance of imposed sterile structures upon yourself, how do you make claims for freedom?
Thomas,
I think that there is a liberal argument for disallowing religion in schools. Children should be free to choose whatever religious beliefs they like, rather than being pressured into accepting the religious beliefs of their parents.
Furthermore, I think that it is wrong to allow our children to be brainwashed by mentalists of any religious stripe (including atheists: you might believe that there is no God, but you have exactly as much proof as those who do believe in God – deism is designed to be unprovable!) because that too will affect their freedoms – particularly for women in religions like Islam, in which it seems that they are considered second-class citizens.
[email protected] said:
“Are faith (sectarian) schools going to solve the secular dilemma? Well, I’d say that they do form part of the solution, but piecemeal they will only exacerbate it. As a liberal, I’d argue that the state should either support all types of school, or all types of school should be private enterprises.”
Hmm, sorry I don’t follow either of these points. Aren’t faith schools necessarily a piecemealing of the educational system? Aren’t they intrinsically divisive? What do you make of the joint campus school in Scotland which still needed separate toilets for catholics?
And do you really mean to say that the state should support all kinds of school? Rather than those that are a good idea to have and not those that aren’t?
My post 85 contains what is necessary to respect the human rights of all families. If we do that, I don’t see that it matters much what the governance of the school is. By all means lets have diversity in styles of governance. Otoh, if clerics prove to be particularly good governors, why concentrate them all in a few schools, rather than sharing them out more?
@100 – disallowing religion is one thing, but actually removing it is another matter (so now prohibition is liberal?). And children may be free to choose, but again that is different from making an informed decision – being brainwashed is just the other side of the same coin as having limited information on which to base a decision (is Laurence reading?).
There is an issue here about distinguishing between children and adults as unequal beings which is reflected in social expectations with corresponding rights and responsibilities. For when it comes to education needs, no individual is simply a blank canvass for us or the state to project our own ideals or requirements onto – that comes later and is called training.
@101 – Well, the current situation seems to be providing a fudge that attempts to appease all, but is failing to completely satisfy any.
To pronounce upon which schools are a good idea and which aren’t, especially in the abstract, is judgemental and represents a preconcieved notion of what is best.
The way I see it the shame of the current system is in the labelling of some as ‘failing’, which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as resourcing drops and the associated stigma has an impact on the pupil intake – just as no pupil need ever ‘fail’, since any ‘failing’ pupil ‘can do better’, this is a measure that could and should be applied equally to institutions in similar situations.
Pandering to natural constituencies in order to gain a quick investment fix is an admission of a general failure of Labour’s education policy (which also hints at their true budgetary priorities).
As for inference that schools (faith-based or otherwise) could be anything other than divisive, well can I ask, how else would you manage to make any sort of comparison? If you wanted to have a rugby match, would you have everybody picked on the same team?
Thomas,
If economics is not taught in school, does this mean it has been ‘disallowed’ or ‘removed’?
Whether it is a national curriculum or one chosen by the school, I don’t think it is really fair to accuse those responsible for it of banning and censoring everything they happen to have left out.
I agree we should have diversity in school governance so that comparisons can be made. But also, perhaps, alongside that diversity, there should be a level playing field in funding, disciplinary rights, ability to select and so on. (Rather than faith schools typically being privileged on some or all these scores.) How else, again, can a reasonable comparison be made?
But comparability of school performance is a completely different question to that of whether certain kinds of school are divisive. Perhaps different policies could be pursued region by region so that we can try to see the effects on cohesion. But within a locality, if society becomes more or less divided, I don’t see how you propose to attribute blame or credit.
Hi there everybody! As you know, I do like to interact with the commenters – it’s the whole point of blogging really – but on this occasion I have been a little busy. (Facebook users will know what I’ve been up to.) So I’m now going to try to address all the points I have not been able to thus far. Basically, we can either start the bun fight all over again, or you can just ignore me while I witter on for a bit. The choice is yours!
Laurence, you want to be clear about what religious belief entails – you may have some thoughts about roughly what it means, but is that everything? Do you speak for everyone who holds such beliefs, despite not holding them yourself? I don’t think so, I don’t think you can, and nor do I think what you claim to be a reasonable definition is satisfactory in the slightest.
Thomas, you seem to have missed the point of paragraphs three and four of the article. I have deliberately produced a very loose description of religion, and then gone on to show how even such a vague definition ought to set alarm bells ringing. I really think it is time that this argument to the effect that religion cannot be tied down in simple terms, should be seen for what it is – the latest in a long and distinguished line of dishonest survival strategies. Does the omniscient creator, seated upon his heavenly throne, hold his chin while pensively demanding of the angels, “what is this thing called religion?” If you don’t like my definition, then let’s hear yours. But I’m afraid that if religion defies any sort of definition, then it must surely be a bigger load of bollocks than even I had imagined.
It just doesn’t help your position to back up claims to promote secularism on the one hand by delving into the fray and advocating atheist sectarianism on the other. If you want other people to recognise that you distinguish between the two as separate, then I suggest you don’t link them.
I am not advocating any form of sectarianism. I am merely suggesting that the claims of religion are false. But why, pray, should it be my job to promote secularism? Everyone should be in favour of secularism, especially religious people. Why? Because secularism is the guarantor of everyone’s freedoms. That’s the deal: religions give up all the exceptional treatment to which they are currently entitled – special schools, representation in the legislature, tax breaks, etc. – and, in return, we leave them alone. But leaving religion alone does not mean that I am going to stop calling religious belief infantile and deserving only of contempt and mockery because, well, that happens to be what I believe.
Anyway secularism means more than just separation of church and state, it means separation of all organs of state from government.
I guess that, ultimately, secularism is just what you make of it.
If you want to maintain the perception that you are a good judge, you cannot be seen to be partial: partisanship is acceptable only where accusations of prejudice can be dismissed.
Well that rather depends on what is at stake, don’t you think? There are times when remaining impartial would be an act of gross cowardice and betrayal. Debate the issues. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. But I am not wrong just by virtue of being partial.
If [religion] is a personal subject, is there reason for you to raise it in the first place?
Religion is absolutely not a personal matter. That is just yet another a ruse that the faiths adopt on the one hand, while working hard on the other hand to maintain the very public privileges to which they have become accustomed.
Faith schools aren’t a problem in themselves.
Oh. Yes. They. Bloody. Well. Are.
As a liberal, I’d argue that the state should either support all types of school, or all types of school should be private enterprises.
I’m really not sure that it helps our cause if every time the phrase “as a liberal” is deployed, some crazy set of options seems guaranteed to follow. So in order to remain true to our principles, we must either privatise all education, or the state should support all manner of schools, including ba’athist ones if there is sufficient demand? Count me out.
Going back to the article, Marxism is a term that can be applied to many fields as it refers to a development of the dialectic method of analysis, not any particular conclusion that may be drawn from it.
Jeez . . .
So, I agree with James, yes, it is whatever you make of it.
Come to think of it, I reckon everything is pretty much whatever you make of it. All belief is a matter of interpretation, and all words can mean anything you like . . .
Laurence, I’m afraid that you are overlooking the element of active participation of any individual within any system. If you choose to passive acceptance [?] of imposed sterile structures upon yourself, how do you make claims for freedom?
. . . which is just as well really, because I have absolutely no idea what that is all about. I think I’m going to take it to mean, “Laurence is a genius the like of which we have not seen for aye.”
Being brainwashed is just the other side of the same coin as having limited information on which to base a decision (is Laurence reading?)
What information? Please name me one piece of information supplied by religion that is not either platitudinously obvious or downright false.
To pronounce upon which schools are a good idea and which aren’t, is judgemental and represents a preconceived notion of what is best.
Indeed. And to pronounce upon which forms of medical treatment are a good idea and which aren’t, is doubtless also judgemental and represents a preconceived notion of what is best. Though I rather hope for your sake that if you ever find yourself in hospital with a serious illness, they don’t try to treat you with mercury, by blood-letting, or perhaps with a powerful homeopathic remedy.
Laurence, you are trying to have your cake and eat it.
The problem in this country’s education system is not the introduction of faith schools (though these do present some indirect problems), but the situation where state education is failing large numbers of those in the system so that faith schools have come to be seen and promoted as part of the solution.
This is exactly the same as the way the state has failed to set a good example with the values it promotes in a wider context, so that the hope offered by religion is seen as a positive and liberating alternative to state agency in society.
Basically I mean that if the state were succeeding there would be no need for religion, as the aspirations of political idealism were already being met. However, as we haven’t yet got to this stage (and it isn’t something that is advisable to force presumption of), I don’t think you are being helpful in trying to crush the dreams of anyone who wishes for a better world, however they may wish to formulate or express their beliefs (a question of your tolerance of diversity, perhaps?).
It strikes me as particularly insensitive and arrogant to assume there is nothing to learn from people who think differently and/or have a different approach to understanding the world around us, whether you have either specific or general disagreements with someone on any particular topic. Surely in order to move forward it makes more sense to be seeking common cause where possible with all groups with which we have any agreement rather than blocking progress until we have it all on our own terms.
I take it as an admission of failure on behalf of our current government’s education policy that they accept the argument for faith schools, so I don’t understand why you are arguing for the status quo ante. Maybe your view would be more nuanced by incorporating the urgency of your own childrens experience, had you any.
Oh no, Boycie is inflicting his monologue diatribes on a grateful nation.. again..
Yaaaaawwwwnnnn….
zzzzzzzzzzzzz….
Grief! Stop clogging up my email inbox!
I recommend clicking “manage your supscriptions”, Jo, and unticking this thread. Which is what I am about to go do…
Look, I said you could ignore me if you wish. It will all be over this weekend, I promise.
Until the next time . . . 🙂
Laurence, you ask earlier in the thread why people don’t engage properly with your argument.
Perhaps it is because you express yourself with the dogma of a member of the Committee of Public Safety. There is an intolerance and zeal in your tone which is reminiscent of the anti-religious neo-religions of the 19th and 20th centuries.
I do not care on any given point whether you are right or wrong about religion, because your liberalism is hard to find while your obsessive intolerance is all too plain.
Laurence, you are trying to have your cake and eat it.
Moi?
Basically I mean that if the state were succeeding there would be no need for religion . . .
Well I do wish the state would hurry up and succeed.
I don’t think you are being helpful in trying to crush the dreams of anyone who wishes for a better world.
Well I’m afraid that I think religion crushes the dreams for a better world. For a start, (and as I argued in the article), belief in an afterlife has the effect of diminishing the value of life on earth. Just one of many arguments that no-one seems to have been able to address.
It strikes me as particularly insensitive and arrogant to assume there is nothing to learn from people who think differently and/or have a different approach to understanding the world around us.
I can learn all sorts of things from all sorts of people. I know that. But what of the religious teachings themselves? I ask again: what can I learn from religion that is not either platitudinously obvious or downright false? Just one thing? Please? Anybody?
Maybe your view would be more nuanced by incorporating the urgency of your own children’s experience, had you any.
Well I’m quite sure that my view on a whole range of things would be different if I had children. But here’s what I think I would do: If money were no object, I would privately educate my children. Let’s assume I can’t afford that option, and that the only half decent local state school is a faith school. Would I fake a religious belief in order to obtain access to this school, as recommended by David Cameron? No. It might be a bit tricky to carry off after all these articles, but in any case I like to think that I am not wholly unprincipled. Would I accept a place to which I was perfectly entitled because of whatever quota system might be in operation at the time? If all the other options were truly dreadful, then I can’t say that I wouldn’t accept a place at the faith school. But it would turn my stomach.
Kevin, thanks for adding yet another comment to this thread which doesn’t address a single argument I have made, and instead just objects to my tone. Look, forget the comment thread, where I tend to become increasingly crazy as a function of comment number. Go back the article. The article which I carefully wrote, polished, checked over, asked a friend to check over, submitted, had it returned with some suggestions, reworked a bit, polished, checked over again, asked a friend to check over again, resubmitted, before finally being accepted and published.
And then please pay me the courtesy of telling me what you think is wrong with it.
Laurence,
Your tone cannot be ignored. My argument with you is that you seem intolerant, illiberal and unpleasant to read, regardless of your points.
Your zeal is that of a religious fanatic, convinced of your own truth. That you do it in the name of anti-religion does not make it any more attractive – even to a very committed atheist.
Your tone cannot be ignored.
That’s the idea!
My argument with you is that you seem intolerant, illiberal and unpleasant to read.
Thanks Kevin. You sound like a bit of a knob end yourself.
Your zeal is that of a religious fanatic, convinced of your own truth.
The accusation is as laughable as it is predictable. Because I am 100% committed to the scientific method – reason, evidence, falsification. When I throw out a metaphysical abstraction for your consideration, it is clear I hope that it is just that. I try not to make any truth claims where, in my estimation, the evidence is insufficient. I positively want my arguments to be knocked down – this is the key to progress. But despite repeated entreaties, I can hardly get anyone to engage with the arguments. Now compare my approach with that of the Revd Nicky Gumbel, founder of the hugely popular “Alpha Course.” This is from Searching Issues:
The Enlightenment brought enormous progress in science, technology and medicine, but within it were the seeds of its own destruction. Revelation was made subject to reason. . . . It was not until the twentieth century that the full implications and the fruit of the seeds sown were seen in a devastatingly clear light.
To those who have caricatured my position as being “all religious people are cretins,” let me say at once that I have watched Gumbel speak (on video), and he is obviously highly intelligent and thoughtful. All the more reason to pay attention to his astonishing admission here – that subjecting revelation to reason was a fatal error, and one which we (Christians) should not be about to repeat. It’s certainly a message that the Christians on this thread seem to have taken to heart, which I guess is why they turned up to say that religions do lots of charity work, before disappearing into the night.
I’m sure you’re flattered by all this attention Laurence, but I’m not sure that you’re actually helping your stated cause by keeping up the pretence of being open and claiming to want debate when you have already made up your mind and won’t accept any deviation from your own conclusions from anybody else.
You say:
“I can learn all sorts of things from all sorts of people. I know that. But what of the religious teachings themselves? I ask again: what can I learn from religion that is not either platitudinously obvious or downright false? Just one thing?…”
Either you’re not really giving much thought to your ideas, or you’re not reading through what you write: you can’t learn what you already know, but you can revise and expand your understanding, gaining a deeper and more thorough perspective upon truth. There are inumerable forms of analysis by which any example can be used to grow one’s mind, so asking for specific pointers is a waste of time and apears to be a childlike attempt to set a trap for anyone who may wish to attempt to defend an opposing position – perhaps instead you’d like to provide a starting point for any discussion rather than rubbishing any practise in the first place.
It strikes me that, from the outset, you have attempted to create bound definitions (however loose) by which to impose the assumptions of your viewpoint, which rather sets a precondition of limiting the possibility that you may have something to learn, so, I must question your methodology. Instead of generously offering your knowledge into the mix in the hope that a new and improved position may become universally apparent, you selfishly continue to slap down those who would otherwise wish to help you, revelling in some kind of personal quest for self-affirmation and glorification, when by assuming the mantle of a default position you are really subsuming your own individual potential, which I find quite pitiable: you could do so much better.
As for an 100% dependence on scientific method for appreciation of knowledge, this is a worrying admission. Can I point you in the direction of Emmanuel Levinas as a writer and thinker who may be able to give you some enlightenment on how comprehension of Otherness (ie God in traditional terms, objectivity/truth in more modern times) creates a basis for ethics by setting limits on metaphysics. The collection of essays ‘Alterity and Transcendence’ is a good place to start and I heartily recommend it.
For someone with an obvious passion for politics I can only remark on how you seem to lack the ability to see the world through the eyes of another. I know it is a fun game to play devil’s advocate (and it is the only way to participate avoiding vulnerability), but one cannot continue ad infinitum without falling into an endless black-hole where everything becomes alienated and depersonalised.
There is a major concern here, because the loss of values (which is something we currently experience day-to-day in the UK, at least according to some commentators) leads to a desperate pursuit of purpose, and an exaggeration of psychological trauma on a wide scale when this pursuit is percieved to fail. At a political level the loss of values is often viewed as the cause of social incohesion and breakdown, exemplified by many random and seemingly unrelated instances of serious crimes or events (look at any daily news headlines for all the shock and scandal you could wish for as examples) that do indeed express ‘the mood of the nation’ as well as describe aspects of various forms of culture.
Anyway, I digress, this is a stage of normal development processes which shows many correlations between individual and societal growth and usually presages a new transition, but we all take a view on change, how to achieve it and what form is disirable – that’s what we’re here for after all.
If you need such an epiphany (and it certainly sounds like it to me), then I suggest that for you it would help to stop rejecting the possibility of falling in love because you still feel the impact of previous rejection. The responsibility and wisdom that accompanies love is one that anyone who has experienced it will be able to explain, and it will also offer you the chance to act on your information by making a real choice on whether to send any subsequent children to a faith school or not.
To my mind Levinas’ description of the cognitive link between wisdom and love is a serious and positive addition to the liberal tradition that has many practical applications in politics.
I’m sure you’re flattered by all this attention Laurence . . .
Not really. I’m trying to wind the thread up, but I’m not going until I have answered everyone’s points. It seems like the least I can do when nobody has answered any of my points.
. . . but I’m not sure that you’re actually helping your stated cause by keeping up the pretence of being open and claiming to want debate when you have already made up your mind and won’t accept any deviation from your own conclusions from anybody else.
Made up my mind about what exactly? That there is no Father Christmas? Are you still open minded about Santa? As well as Satan? Without any sense of scale or calibration, your plausible sounding assertion is a touch insubstantial. There are in fact a myriad number of ways in which religion could provide startling new evidence which would force a complete reappraisal.
Asking for specific pointers is a waste of time and appears to be a childlike attempt to set a trap for anyone who may wish to attempt to defend an opposing position.
Why so? I am told that religion has many useful insights to offer. So I ask to hear one. Just one. But apparently this is childish. Some days you just can’t win!
Instead of generously offering your knowledge into the mix in the hope that a new and improved position may become universally apparent, you selfishly continue to slap down those who would otherwise wish to help you.
Not at all. I am going to attempt to offer some knowledge! Go back to comment 25, and you will see that I have promised Martin Turner to add some flesh to the assertion that the claims of religion have largely been debunked by science and philosophy. There won’t be space for a full treatment, but hopefully I will be able to sketch out some key ideas and point towards further reading material.
. . . revelling in some kind of personal quest for self-affirmation and glorification, when by assuming the mantle of a default position you are really subsuming your own individual potential, which I find quite pitiable . . .
Yeah!
As for an 100% dependence on scientific method for appreciation of knowledge, this is a worrying admission.
I know, I know. I have a long term goal to switch to faith-based sources of knowledge, and intend to be entirely content-free by the year 2020.
The collection of essays ‘Alterity and Transcendence’ is a good place to start and I heartily recommend it.
OK, it goes on my list. See, I’m open to new ideas!
For someone with an obvious passion for politics I can only remark on how you seem to lack the ability to see the world through the eyes of another.
Well if you mean the religious believer, then nothing could be further from the truth. I was raised a Catholic. I have been a believer, both as a child and as an adult. I know the score. I’ve got the tee-shirt in more than just one colour. You can’t imagine how I wish I didn’t know what I was talking about!
If you need such an epiphany (and it certainly sounds like it to me) . . .
Well there’s no doubt that I could badly use some gold at the moment. But you can forget the frankincense and myrrh . . .
. . . then I suggest that for you it would help to stop rejecting the possibility of falling in love because you still feel the impact of previous rejection.
What are you on about? I rejected religion, it didn’t reject me. Or are you talking about human love, in which case do you really know the first thing about that side of my life? Not sure where this personal stuff is going really . . .
The responsibility and wisdom that accompanies love is one that anyone who has experienced it will be able to explain, and it will also offer you the chance to act on your information by making a real choice on whether to send any subsequent children to a faith school or not.
I think it is most unlikely that I will ever have children. But I have already answered the hypothetical question. I would never send my child to a faith school if I could reasonably avoid it. Why would I? The whole point of school is to educate, not to mislead.
I’ve responded to this article (much later than planned) over on my blog.
Laurence, the more you write, the more you sound like a communist. The aims might be similar to those of liberalism, but the methods are quite different, so if this is the case then it is no surprise you are having the effect you do.
A communist now??? Is there no end to the things I sound like?
Crikey, Is this bloody thread still running ? It has been resurrected. Although I will probably catch a b*!!*cking from Boycie for calling it that…
Shouldn’t these threads be closed off after a week so that we aren’t exposed to the same regurgitated tedium week after week?
Just a thought…
Don’t conflate all your antagonists into one, Laurence. Anyway I only said you sounded like a commie. You’re entitled to your opinions, if we can agree to disagree.
To be fair, in theory (and I can see you only have theoretical experience of faith schools) I can well understand the attraction of communism as a panacea, but it is better suited to the more elitist circles of the academic coffee table discussion as it doesn’t withstand contact or interaction with the real world, much like your revered Dawkins, in fact.
I can see you only have theoretical experience of faith schools.
Eh? I attended Catholic school for 14 years.
. . . much like your revered Dawkins, in fact.
Dawkins is OK, but Sam Harris is far and away my main man.
Crikey, Is this bloody thread still running ? It has been resurrected. Although I will probably catch a b*!!*cking from Boycie for calling it that…
Dennis, you really need to work harder on your jokes. It should have been, “Boycie will probably crucify me for saying that.”
Shouldn’t these threads be closed off after a week so that we aren’t exposed to the same regurgitated tedium week after week?
Hmm, I’d be very much against that as not everyone can participate within a given time period. But I am trying to bring things to a close. I think I’ve just got to deal with James, then Rob, and finally I’ve got to explain to Martin how religion has been debunked by science and philosophy. It will all be over much quicker if you just agree with me. 🙂
Thanks for dropping by James. Here is my response to your article:
First, it should be pointed out that when I originally called him a bigot, I was half-joking.
Yeah, no worries, I don’t really care about that. But the argument is important.
My objection was to Laurence stating that “Islam is a vile, pernicious, and utterly false ideology.”
OK, I accept that “false ideology” is a bit sloppy. But polls have show that around 36% of young British Muslims think apostasy should be punishable by death. As a matter of interest, how high would that figure have to go before “vile” and “pernicious” becomes about right?
However much Laurence might try to wriggle out of it, anyone who practices a “vile, pernicious and utterly false ideology” must themselves be vile, pernicious and utterly without merit.
There’s no need to wriggle out of it, for I maintain that your assertion is comprehensively false. I do not for one minute believe that those 36% are vile people. Look, for instance, at the profiles of the 9/11 hijackers: all college educated, many with PhDs, and by all accounts perfectly polite and charming. You could have shared a (non-alcoholic) drink with one of them, and you wouldn’t have noticed anything odd, save maybe that they seemed somewhat insular. They were not vile, quite the opposite in fact – they believed their mission to be noble and heroic. When making my argument, I try so hard to distinguish between the ideology and the individual. Wherever possible I talk about Islam, not Muslims. Of course if a poll shows that 36% of Muslims believe something bad, then I have to state it plainly. But the problem is not Muslims. The problem is Islam, and Muslims are foremost amongst its victims – especially Muslim women who are suffering an oppression around the world today that doesn’t bear thinking about.
If religion is truly “vile, pernicious and utterly false ideology” then we surely have a moral imperative not merely to establish a secular state, not merely to try and stop people from being exposed to it and to “convert” people away from it, but to ban or at least severely restrict it.
We can’t ban religion any more than we can ban racism. But we can certainly do all the other things you suggest, and attack religion for the deadly virus that it is. And that is exactly what I am about. If only a few more of you would join me, we might actually get something started.
If Laurence truly believes his description, then surely he feels the same way about Sufism, Bahaism and the Society of Friends?
In a sense, I do. There’s a paradox here, but not one which I hope is insurmountable. At heart, I believe that all religion is equally crazy. But that should not stop us from observing the differences between religions – that not all religions are the same (as people keep reminding me). At this moment, radical Islam is posing us a major problem (in my view, a problem way more pressing than climate change, say, but that is a matter of opinion). So yes, we should certainly be attacking radical Islam but, to some extent, that goes without saying. Everyone knows that Osama bin Laden is a bad man. What is less obvious, and is not being adequately articulated, is the extent to which people of moderate religious persuasion are providing really useful cover for the extremists. For me, it’s a perfect example of the double standards that religion seems to inspire at every level – because when this happens in the political context, we are right onto it like a ton of bricks. For example, we abhor racists (obviously), but neither are we particularly impressed with intelligent politicians who appear to be playing the race card. Yet if a religious moderate espouses a belief that we perceive to be of disturbing consequence, we just keep quiet about it. This has got to stop.
Indeed, both Lambeth Palace and the Vatican have, individuals aside, had very little problem adapting to the theory of evolution.
Maybe so, but not everyone is quite so “enlightened.” For instance, there is one part of the world where (according to polls) 28% believe every word of the Bible to be literally true; where 53% are full blown creationists who think that evolution should not be taught in schools; where 65% believe in Satan; where 44% think that Jesus will return sometime within the next 50 years. Which country am I talking about? The United States of America, where evangelical Christianity dominates the political landscape. And do you know what really cracks me up? Whenever I raise these figures, the response invariably goes something like, “Oh yes, well, America (snigger, snigger) – we know that they’re completely crazy.” As if America were some tiny backwater and not the country which rules the world. (Ken Clarke did this to me last year on Question Time (@ 50:00). He didn’t quite say that America is crazy, but then James Rubin was sitting a couple of places to his left.)
Fundamentalism (which I would broadly accept as being pernicious in character) is a modern phenomenon: Christian fundamentalism is a 20th century creed while Wahhabism only dates from the 18th.
Now that’s a novel way of putting it. Fundamentalism only came into being against the backdrop of the Enlightenment – I like it! And of course you’re right. There was nothing fundamentalist about the Inquisition at all. It was merely a logical expression of the prevailing mainstream Christian theology – one which lasted for 500 appalling years.
And while we’re on the subject of modernity, can we really excise religion from all progress in science and philosophy? These spheres didn’t just evolve despite religion but frequently under the patronage of it.
I can’t say this any better than Sam Harris, so I’m just going to quote him (from The End of Faith): “Of course, like every religion, Islam has had its moments. Muslim scholars invented algebra, translated the writings of Plato and Aristotle, and made important contributions to a variety of nascent sciences at a time when European Christians were luxuriating in the most abysmal ignorance. It was only through the Muslim conquest of Spain that classical Greek texts found their way into Latin translation and seeded the Renaissance in western Europe. Thousands of pages could be written cataloguing facts of this sort for every religion, but to what end? Would it suggest that religious faith is good, or even benign? It is a truism to say that people of faith have created almost everything of value in our world, because nearly every person who has ever swung a hammer or trimmed a sail has been a devout member of one or another religious culture. There has been simply no one else to do the job. We can also say that every human achievement prior to the twentieth century was accomplished by men and women who were perfectly ignorant of the molecular basis of life. Does this suggest that a nineteenth-century view of biology would have been worth maintaining? There is no telling what our world would now be like had some great kingdom of Reason emerged at the time of the Crusades and pacified the credulous multitudes of Europe and the Middle East. We might have had modern democracy and the Internet by the year 1600. The fact that religious faith has left its mark on every aspect of our civilization is not an argument in its favour, nor can any particular faith be exonerated simply because certain of its adherents made foundational contributions to human culture.”
You don’t have to be Tristram Hunt to acknowledge the important role that Protestantism has played in the development of liberal democracy.
Now who was it who described reason as being “the devil’s greatest whore”? Was it Martin Luther perchance?
I think Laurence defines [Marxism] rather poorly.
I didn’t attempt to define it at all. I just picked out one tenet, central to Marxism, in order to make the point that I don’t think the meaning of the word “Marxism” (or indeed any other word) can be stretched beyond a certain point.
Laurence’s definition leaves most Marxist academics out in the cold.
Good. That’s where they belong. And the “theologians” can join them.
It is possible to believe in common ownership of property and not feel compelled to take up revolutionary struggle in order to achieve it.
But that’s not the point. I’m not against revolutionary struggle per se. In apartheid South Africa, I happen to believe that it was very necessary. My argument is about the ideas themselves. Just as I have endeavoured to show that religion is inherently problematical, so I would maintain that the ideal of common ownership of property is also inherently problematical. It runs counter to human nature so dramatically, that it is wholly unreasonable to think it could work in practice. (E.O. Wilson summed it up beautifully: “Wonderful theory, wrong species.”) Indeed, it never has worked anywhere on a large scale. It would only ever work if everyone simultaneously put their faith in the idea, (in this sense, Marxism is very much a religion also). Stalin may have been a bastard of the highest order, but responsibility for the monumental disaster of the Soviet era cannot be laid entirely at his feet. Rather, it stemmed fundamentally from some really bad ideas.
If you’re a secularist and a liberal what matters fundamentally is what people do, not what they think.
No, there’s no difference. Thoughts are actions and can be just as lethal. It really matters what people think, as Andy Mayer argued decisively above.
But it is plain ignorant to label religion as a whole as evil. In doing so we perversely absolve the responsibility of those individuals who do evil in its name.
Why so? Why can’t we come down hard on the ideology and on some of the trouble-makers? Who’s being black and white now?
I am more comfortable with theists who do those logical backflips . . .
You may be comfortable with them James, but whether the generations of the future will thank us for tolerating this abundance of religious duplicity, remains to be seen.
Laurence (128), any particular ideology that is wrong is wrong because it is illogical, so it is no ideology. Likewise, your argument is flawed because it uses conflicting logic and assertion – therefore it is only an opinion easily dismissed (although by the length of this thread, much grudgingly).
Quickly, one be one:
Does 14 years of Catholic school qualify you to pontificate about all present versions of faith schools??
One may believe one’s mission to be noble and heroic, but nothing in that stops you from being vile and having a pernicious influence.
And while you may find it hard to ignore the difference between religions, do you also see the difference within each – if you take any congregated audience then you will be hard pushed to find two people who agree on everything if you listen to them rather than their preacher.
Does the traditional flaw of polls also need to be regutgitated here? You are presenting Master Purnell’s case that there is such a thing as ideological neutrality, which is a load of old rot, and to which the Martin Luther quote can also be applied quite handily.
Simply, there are no bad ideas, only ideas – some of which cohere while the rest fall apart as their consequences conflict.
Without spiritual discipline there is no ethics, and without any mental discipline you can build no argument, as you haven’t – you have only assumed a default position, which you are defending tooth and nail.
This equates with prejudice, not necessarily wrong in practice, but wrong in principle – I don’t necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but by your method there is no way I can ascertain it’s validity.
Whether I or anyone else agrees with you, or not, Laurence, simply isn’t relevant to this discussion. This is about standards and how to raise them, because I don’t see how anybody (you, me or a fundamentalist) can improve any situation by dragging others down to their own level.
Calling someone a bigot is wrong, as is trying to destroy buildings or lives or belief systems, because this undermines the people and institutions that support us as a whole. You might wish them to fail and fall, but you are wasting your time if you actively pursue this cause.
“[Sam] Harris draws on insights from neuroscience, philosophy, and Eastern mysticism in an attempt to provide a truly modern foundation for our ethics and our search for spiritual experience.”
This made me laugh: he’s a New Age polemicist, he’s his own God!
This is a further response to James who obviously doesn’t want to lengthen this thread any further. Understandable I suppose.
Laurence, you’ve outdone yourself. Absolving the “noble and heroic” 9/11 terrorists of blame while pinning it all on the religion itself is remarkable, even by your standards.
. . . when what I actually said was, “Why can’t we come down hard on the ideology AND on some of the trouble-makers?” This is going to be really tough if everyone just ignores what I am saying. But yes, of course the hijackers were heroic in their own terms. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard 9/11 described as a “cowardly attack.” Cowardly??? Christ, those guys had balls of steel.
What I don’t get is, how is attributing religion such quasi-mystical abilities to control people’s minds any different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden?
Well you say it’s quasi-mystical, but I see it as all too mundane really. Religion does control people’s minds – just like a drug. If you don’t get it, then it’s probably because . . . you don’t get it! And you’re not alone. It happens to be a massive blind spot with both secularists and moderate religionists. Hardly anyone seems to be able to credit that the extremists really believe the crazy stuff that they say they believe. People just don’t accept this to be possible, (maybe because they could never imagine themselves believing six impossible things before breakfast), and so the fatuous search for “root causes” begins.
I would also suggest you need to look up what a Christian fundamentalist actually is. I don’t think your case that the Inquisition were a bunch of Protestants actually holds much water.
. . . and if somebody could show me where I said that the Inquisition was a Protestant thing, I would be most grateful. Not that Protestants haven’t spilled a lot of blood too, of course.
Whether I or anyone else agrees with you, or not, Laurence, simply isn’t relevant to this discussion. This is about standards and how to raise them.
Which discussion are you talking about Thomas? If you mean faith schools, then that wasn’t the topic of the original article. We just got onto that, as so often happens. The article was about whether or not religion is inherently problematical. Got any useful thoughts on the subject? Because nobody else has.
This made me laugh: [Sam Harris] is a New Age polemicist. He’s his own God!
I’m guessing you don’t really know the first thing about Harris.
Boycie, go and take your ‘argument with your shadow’ over to Rupa Huq’s excellent blog – she’ll soon put you right.
And it will give us a bit of peace and quiet over here…
http://rupahuq.wordpress.com/
Laurence, it is short-sighted and dangerous to concentrate on the negative aspects of religious institutions as a divisive element in society.
Institutions provide the glue to society by giving individuals values to measure themselves by and raise us all out of the swamp of inhumanity.
Without the building blocks of group identity to create order in life we are left with incohesion and violence, so the neglected consequence of attacks on organised structures actually provides a form of intellectual support for the random attacks of gang violence and criminality which many of us witness and read about ocurring on inner-city streets with increasing regularity.
It is a simple conceit of the complacent middle-classes that the vacuum of values can be filled without any authority other than that of the gun or knife, so criticising all establishments because you are educated and have other things to involve yourself in fails to address the wilderness that society’s underclasses exist in and the chaos and unpredictability of the social problems that are inherent in it where even the most basic of institutions (ie religions) fail to reach.
I suggest, Laurence, that your prejudiced generalisations about Islam, in particular with relation to women, would benefit by learning about the diversity that exists, such as regarding the secular Alevis of Turkey and the Balkan Bektashis.
Unless you can at least acknowledge the importance of religion then you are offering an open goal to conservatives the world over – from David Cameron to Moqtadr al-Sadr – to provide an analysis that answers questions of social breakdown. But I guess you find it easy to promulgate your ignorance far away from the frontline.
You make the grossest of category mistakes in attempting to classify and outlaw religion on the basis that ‘it’ is ideology, and a false one at that.
You also compound your error by distinguishing your own analytical method by it’s godlessness – even you (as I recall) cite the destruction of the WTC as ‘undeniable proof’ of the inherent evil of religion, which is an interpretation of an atheist miracle as awesome as any biblical prophecy made real!
I suggest, Laurence, that your prejudiced generalisations about Islam, in particular with relation to women, would benefit by learning about the diversity that exists, such as regarding the secular Alevis of Turkey and the Balkan Bektashis.
What? You mean not all Muslim women have to dress like this in the high heat of summer? Oh, well that’s all right then.
Unless you can at least acknowledge the importance of religion . . .
The very fact that I am here means that must I acknowledge the importance of religion. But I fear that I will never be able to acknowledge the truth of religion.
Even you (as I recall) cite the destruction of the WTC as ‘undeniable proof’ of the inherent evil of religion, which is an interpretation of an atheist miracle as awesome as any biblical prophecy made real!
There were doubtless many causes for 9/11, (possibly even some “root causes”), but there was also one essential prerequisite ingredient – belief in an afterlife. Without that simple belief, shared by all the major faiths, I suggest that there would have been no 9/11. I suggest that the hijackers were certain that death would not be the end for them. I suggest that the as the 767’s slammed into the twin towers, the final thought running through their minds was, “72 virgins, here I come!” I suggest that some of them were even smiling.
Some more replies for doubting Thomas:
Does 14 years of Catholic school qualify you to pontificate about all present versions of faith schools?
No, and I don’t do that either. Mostly, I talk about principles and ideas. But I can confirm that we did have a great ethos at Catholic school. I suffered a fair amount of bullying, and someone even got murdered. (This was Wimbledon College in the eighties.)
If you take any congregated audience then you will be hard pushed to find two people who agree on everything.
Yes, it’s a shame really that God’s message comes through with such a low signal to noise ratio.
Does the traditional flaw of polls also need to be regurgitated here?
No, because some of the figures would be appalling at one tenth of their present level.
Simply, there are no bad ideas.
Now that really is a load of old rot. The world is awash with bad ideas.
Without spiritual discipline there is no ethics.
No ethics? None at all? OK, if you say so.
And without any mental discipline you can build no argument, as you haven’t – you have only assumed a default position, which you are defending tooth and nail.
I don’t need to defend my position tooth and nail, because nobody has mounted a credible assault on what I have said. Every time somebody adds another comment which does precisely nothing to address my argument, my position is strengthened. In fact I’m so desperate now for somebody to convincingly knock down my case, that I’m going to restate it one last time! It’s really very simple: I have argued that religion is inherently problematical. I have done this by producing a deliberately loose definition of religion, which covers most if not all bases. I have then proceeded to highlight some philosophical difficulties even with such a simple definition. Here is the kernel once more: “Already we see some disturbing elements: Why, for instance, does God require constant praise and worship, more reminiscent of Stalin than of a “loving father”? Then there is the obvious scope for abuse when one is claiming to be in possession of a divine and unalterable revelation. Finally, there is the belief in an afterlife – the killer doctrine that, whichever way you cut it, has the effect of utterly diminishing the value of life on earth.” Do you have anything to say about that Thomas? Or are you just going to come back one last time to skewer me with a paperclip?
You are wasting your time if you actively pursue this cause.
It’s never a waste of time to argue passionately for what you believe in. Sometimes you achieve your goals directly. But more likely, an indirect shift in the framing of arguments is obtained. I don’t know what the end result of my efforts will be, if anything. But I do know this: that if our politicians and wannabe politicians were taking an active lead on the question of religion, rather than being utterly supine for fear of losing the God vote, then I wouldn’t need to be here. We wouldn’t have creationist schools if our leaders had been prepared to say the harsh words about religion that so desperately need saying. So now for your sins (and they are grave sins of omission), you’ve got me to put up with. If as a result of my ravings, liberals eventually wake up to the fact that it is imperative to be mounting these arguments, (albeit in a “better way” than I do), then I will have achieved something. But sadly at present, I am far more likely to hear the Vardy and Edmiston schools defended byreference to “liberal values,” than I am to hear them attacked for the educational travesty which they so manifestly are.
I’m sorry that I seem to have made myself unpopular with my religious friends, and half of my secular friends to boot. But I’m afraid that I care more for the mind of just one child currently being stuffed with a pack of religious lies, than I do for the good opinion of every single adult politician, blogger, or voter who may have chanced upon this site.
Right, I’m now going to respond to some points raised by Rob at comment 54. I feel like I’m really getting on top of things! By the way, I should apologise in advance because I’m always at my most facetious first thing in the morning.
Laurence, I’m not convinced by many of your arguments here.
Not convinced??? What’s the matter with you? Are you some kind of moron? 🙂
Taking my cues from liberalism as much as possible . . .
My heart is sinking . . .
. . . I come to the following conclusion: religion is a private matter . . .
Yes, of course. Completely private. Just like picking the fluff out of your navel really.
. . . and people are entitled to believe in whatever the hell they want.
Nope. Nobody is “entitled” to be racist, for instance.
Not you, nor anyone else, can tell them otherwise.
Just watch me.
It is not and hopefully never will be the business of politicians to legislate on the existence of the afterlife.
Why ever not? If the Pope can abolish Limbo at the stroke of a pen, why can’t we go one better and abolish Heaven and Hell? That would soon wipe the smile off his creepy face.
If we observe the statistics, there is only the weakest of correlations between religious faith and terrorism, if any at all.
Why don’t you just listen to what the terrorists our patiently telling us on their homemade videos? Why do you think they would lie? Lying is forbidden by the Koran.
Stupid people have been doing stupid things for a lot longer than Islam, Christianity or any other religion has been in existence, and they’ll carry on doing stupid things long after the last church and the last mosque are nothing but archaeological sites.
Actually, we’re getting less stupid all the time. Notwithstanding all the religious lunacy I see around us, I’m actually quite optimistic about the future. The grip of these ancient superstitions weakens with every passing generation. It’s called human progress – something the religions have always been very uneasy about.
Do the actual sums and work out the number of Muslims (say) who are terrorists compared to the number who aren’t.
Well I would have to concede that the actual terrorists are in a minority, but that’s hardly anything to write home about. But if now you ask about the number of Muslims who support terrorist activity in defence of Islam, then once again we have the data and the figures are truly shocking.
Then correct for economic and social factors, access to education and so on.
*Slaps forehead.* How on earth could I have overlooked poor educational standards as being a key factor? And don’t forget that in some parts of the world, if you are lucky enough to go to school, then typically you’ll end up memorising the Koran instead of learning useful stuff. No, I think we can safely rule out the role of religion.
I highly doubt that you would produce any evidence suggesting that religion causes terrorism.
Simply stunning.
[I] think that following religion is a particularly stupid thing to do, but that doesn’t entitle me to any great sense of superiority over the religious.
I don’t feel superior over the religious. I just feel ashamed that those of us who have had received the full benefit of a post-Enlightenment education are allowing this betrayal of the less fortunate to continue. However, I must confess that I do feel slightly superior towards condescending atheists.
You’re entitled to your views on religion, but I don’t think that you’re entitled to elevate them to political principle, any more than a Christian would be entitled to elevate his beliefs to political principle either.
But Christians do enjoy special privileges in our society. In the political arena (as opposed to my conversational stance), I’m just arguing that we should strip away those privileges. That is secularism.
You’re going to hate this, but from the point of view of a liberal . . .
No actually, I think I’m going to love it.
. . . there’s no difference between you and a Christian: you’re just two people with views.
There’s a vast difference. For a start, I don’t have “faith.”
Most religious people have no problem with secularism.
So they say. But where are the leading religious advocates for a secular Britain? I’m beginning to get a sense here that religion is trying to have it both ways. Actually that’s not true. I’ve got a crushing and overwhelming sense that religion is trying to have it both ways.
I suggest that you think more carefully before assuming that you’re right.
I don’t. I just love falsification. Can’t get enough of it.
In more than a few of the comments you’ve made in follow-up to the original post, you’ve made points without backing them up by particularly rigorous logic (name-dropping Hume and Darwin does not an argument make), and this only damages your case.
But I’ve promised to add flesh to those bones, and that is what I intend to do next on this thread. Of course then I’ll be told that I’m getting tedious. But frankly, I couldn’t give a shit.
Nobody likes to be told that they’re biased and getting carried away with themselves, but I fear that you are.
Yes, I fear that I am too. After reading the lamentable responses on this thread, it’s hard not to.
Phew, we’re getting there! All that remains for me to do now is to show off my stunning grasp of science and philosophy. Except of course that I won’t really be showing off at all. The arguments are so basic – banal even – and yet to my knowledge they have never been satisfactorily refuted at any time or in any place. Despite that, I was taught none of what is about to follow at school, while simultaneously being fed a constant diet of religious drivel. I’m quite angry about that. Does it show?
I think I’m going to do this in bite-sized chunks. I’ve got no overall plan, so we’ll just see how it goes. Make sure to give me plenty of feedback! 🙂
Before embarking on my grand philosophical sweep, I’m just going to deal with a few points from James’s latest update:
There’s no way I can even attempt to offer a line by line rebuttal in the way he seems to have infinite time to do.
It’s because I don’t have a job mate. Give up the think tank, and then you’ll have time to do this properly. If you need money, then just rob a bank. We atheists have no morals, so we may as well make the most of it.
There is something slightly bizarre in arguing with a “secularist” who lobs his own sacred texts by Dawkins and Harris at you rather than engaging in the debate itself.
Oh come on James. One lengthy quote from Harris, and a few odd links because . . . well, I like links – and I’m not “engaging in the debate.” You used to be so much sharper than this.
For all its faults, the idea underpinning Protestantism was intensely democratic.
I’ll concede that up to a point. Protestantism was about putting the Bible in the hands of ordinary people in their own language so that they could (shock horror) make up their own minds about it. It’s just such a shame they got the Bible, and not something actually worth reading.
It is notable that Laurence has avoided answering my fundamental charge . . .
I know the feeling.
. . . that he deals in the language of absolutes which is one of the main things that is wrong with the religion he criticises.
But in fact I will deal with this because it’s important. I am not a moral or truth relativist in any way whatsoever. I believe there is right and wrong, and that there is truth and falsehood. But there is one sense in which I, and indeed everyone else in the world, is a relativist about the truth. It is than I believe some things for certain, other things with a fair degree of certainly, other things I sort of half believe, other things I think are most unlikely, and other things I don’t believe at all. (To keep things simple here, let’s just restrict the concept of truth to “facts” – things that happened, or didn’t happen.)
So rather than talk about truth and falsehood, I suppose we should really be talking about a probability spectrum from 0% to 100%. In principle. So when I say “the claims of religion are false,” perhaps you should translate it as follows: “religions make claims that would make Holocaust denial seem reasonable by comparison.” So why do I just say that “the claims of religion are false”? Brevity is one reason. Also there comes a point where it is silly to haggle over the last 0.001%. Absolutely nobody on this thread (I hope) would deny the Holocaust, even though there is a miniscule chance that it didn’t happen at all (which would of course leave a hell of a lot of people with a hell of a lot of explaining to do).
My Holocaust example compels me to highlight the double standard once again. Imagine the outrage if schools were found to be denying the reality of the Holocaust. Complete justifiable outrage. But when schools deny evolution? Muted and uncertain criticism. Do we go with our liberal instincts, or the bit in preamble about being enslaved to ignorance? Hmm, a tough one. But why is it a tough one? The answer in one word: religion. Always religion – acting as though the normal rules of rational discourse don’t apply to them, and getting away with in on account of our supine complicity.
So anyway, I hope that’s clear. Things either happened or they didn’t happen, but we may only know they happened according to a probability spectrum. The thing is to be honest and make sure that all our probabilities are vaguely commensurate, and that we are not making any clanging exceptions, or allowing any breath-taking double standards to go unchecked. But if ever somebody tells me at a party that “there is no such thing as truth” – which seems to happen far too often – I have to move away, as I just know I’m going to end up bludgeoning them to death with a sofa cushion.
I don’t know if Mr Boyce is a bigot or not; but he is certainly a bore.
Laurence, disbelief is fine and disestablishment is something I support, but dissolution is a step too far.
It is easy to get carried away by concentrating on the implications of church iconography and other things with which you personally don’t accept, but there is nothing in the substance of religion that is inherently evil. Power, now that is something else.
Failure to recognise how individual belief changes over time shows an inability to learn and a large dollop of immaturity – you are clearly stuck by your fixation that the world revolves around you and must conform to your expectations, so maybe you should apply to be the next infallible pope as the holy representative on Earth and see where you get to.
Freedom of religion usually encompasses freedom to believe so it is a bit of a shock to find a self-describing liberal promoting repression of this or any kind. I think you’d be better served learning a bit of voluntary self-restraint to become a fully responsible adult.
For the record, I’m all for giving one’s opinion on the basis that you can moderate yourself and reform is always possible (and aren’t all religious communions a product of previous reforms aiming at improvements?), but nitpicking different concepts of ‘truth’ is a futile occupation which diverts from the more important practical issues like the disorder on our doorsteps that I mentioned and you seem unconcerned by, maybe even quietly relishing.
If your obviously unresolved issues continue to cause you anxiety I can guarantee you your local priest has an ever-open ear to the humble, even disbelievers like your good self, and you will definitely be offered forgiveness as well as sincere pastoral advice to help you find some inner peace and harmony – no sheep is lost forever, however prodigal – good luck!
Thanks for that incisive contribution Martin.
Thanks again for all the free psychoanalysis Thomas. I’d have to pay a fortune to get all that from a trained professional. Much obliged.
Failure to recognise how individual belief changes over time shows an inability to learn and a large dollop of immaturity.
What about God though? Do his beliefs mellow over time? Is God much more relaxed about sex before marriage than he used to be? Did God prefer the Book of Common Prayer a hundred years ago, but is now much more a fan of “contemporary worship”? You would certainly think so, the way some Christians talk.
Nitpicking different concepts of ‘truth’ is a futile occupation.
Are you and James operating some kind of pincer movement here? He reminds me that I have failed to address a point, so I address it, and then you chime in to call my reply a waste of breath. Or am I just paranoid?
If your obviously unresolved issues continue to cause you anxiety I can guarantee you your local priest has an ever-open ear to the humble, even disbelievers like your good self, and you will definitely be offered forgiveness as well as sincere pastoral advice to help you find some inner peace and harmony – no sheep is lost forever, however prodigal – good luck!
Ah, bless you my son! As it happens, I know my local vicar quite well. In fact I’m hoping to persuade him to star in my next video. Let’s hope he’s not reading this, eh?
OK, I’m hoping to get my first philosophy lecture out before too long. It’s all going to be fairly light hearted stuff. I mean I never even picked up a philosophy book until about three years ago. But hey, someone’s got to do it! I shall probably include lots of quotations and references, which I guess means that I’m no different really to a religionist quoting from a sacred text. Whatever you say. One little thing though: I shall end every “lecture” with a “question for the reader.” If you want to engage with me, I may require you to answer the question first. There’s certainly no need for me to agree with your answer, but it must be AN answer, and one which doesn’t vastly exceed the brevity of the original question. Alternatively, just ignore me – this is probably by far and away the best option.
Especially if you don’t have a leg to stand on. 🙂
Laurence, when I use the word ‘belief’ you reply with the word ‘god’ – you are failing to distinguish between subject and object: I await your responses with much interest, though all I read are dodges.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Well yes, it is bedtime.
Plato (428 – 347 BC)
OK, this is a bit embarrassing. You thought I was going to start with David Hume. But in fact religion had already been dealt a fatal blow hundreds of years before Jesus and Mohammed even strutted their stuff. Here’s the rough idea:
According to this story by Plato, Socrates meets a guy called Euthyphro on the way to the court house. He’s going there to testify against his own father over something or other. So Socrates naturally asks him why the hell would he do that? Euthyphro replies that he believes it to be the wish of the gods. And then Plato (in the words of Socrates) delivers the immortal punch line: “Do the gods wish for what is good, because it is good; or is what is good, good, because the gods wish for it?” Or something like that. This then came to be known as the “Euthyphro dilemma,” after the geezer who was off to condemn his dad because that’s what he thought the gods wanted.
This is Julian Baggini’s version of the story from his amusing book The Pig that Wants to be Eaten. (These are my gods: Dawkins, Harris, Baggini – hmm, I’m a bit of polytheist too!)
And the Lord spake unto the philosopher, “I am the Lord thy God, and I am the source of all that is good. Why does thy secular moral philosophy ignore me?”
And the philosopher spake unto the Lord, “To answer I must first ask you some questions. You command us to do what is good. But is it good because you command it, or do you command it because it is good?”
“Ur,” said the Lord. “It’s good because I command it?”
“The wrong answer, surely, your mightiness! If the good is only good because you say it is so, then you could, if you wished, make it so that torturing infants was good. But that would be absurd, wouldn’t it?”
“Of course!” replieth the Lord. “I tested thee and thou hast made me pleased. What was the other choice again?”
“You choose what is good because it is good. But that shows quite clearly that goodness does not depend on you at all. So we don’t need to study God to study the good.”
“Even so,” spake the Lord, “you’ve got to admit I’ve written some pretty good textbooks on the subject . . .”
So, after a moment’s thought, we may see that God (or the gods) cannot reasonably be the source of all goodness. Whatever goodness is (and that is another debate really), it is a standard against which both man and God must be measured. Unless we would prefer that whatever God commands should go unchallenged, including a command to torture infants.
But of course God would never issue evil commands like that. Well . . . not quite so fast. One biblical story that sticks in the memory is that of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22). God commands Abraham to offer up his son Isaac as a blood sacrifice because . . . well, God just needs a regular supply of blood sacrifice to keep him going. Don’t you? So Abraham says, “right you are God,” and takes Isaac up a distant mountain, puts him on a pyre, ties him down, sharpens the knife, raises it into the sky, ready to plunge it into the heart of his only son. By this stage, Isaac is really shitting himself. Then, at the very last moment, God says, “Aha!!! Only kidding!!!” Now both Abraham and Isaac are pissing themselves at the sheer hilarity of the situation. They’re miles from home, cold and tired, Isaac is still tied down on the altar, and Abraham is laughing so hard that he can’t even undo the knots.
The point of this story, as I’m sure you know, is that God was putting Abraham to the test – a test he passed with flying colours. But I don’t see it that way at all. I think that both God and Abraham failed the test big time. God, for asking Abraham to do such a sick thing in the first place; and Abraham, for going along with it. Because, as Plato showed, God has to be judged by the same standards that we are judged. We have every right, and indeed a responsibility, to question God’s wishes, to call God to account, and ultimately even to condemn God after a fair hearing.
Question for the reader: What would you do if God appeared to you in the middle of the night and asked you to kill your only child?
David Hume (1711 – 1776)
I love Hume. Not that I knew him personally you understand. The peaceable Scot who was way ahead of his time, and yet liked nothing better than to relax with his mates of an evening around the billiard table. Mindful of the fact that not so long ago, an eighteen year old student named Thomas Aikenhead had been convicted and hanged for “blasphemy,” Hume had to tread with caution. For this reason, his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion were written in the form of a . . . dialogue (amazingly!) between fictional characters, and even then were only published posthumously. Here is an interesting passage from the Dialogues which is often cited for its spooky anticipation of Darwin:
If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter who framed so complicated, useful, and beautiful a machine? And what surprise must we feel, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long succession of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving? Many worlds might have been botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out; much labour lost; many fruitless trials made; and a slow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world-making.
Wow! But for me, Hume’s greatest contribution lies in his brilliant demolition of the whole concept of “miracles.” While Protestants may feel a sense of smug superiority upon hearing of bleeding Catholic statues and the like, the truth is that miracles are central to the entire project of religion. For put simply, a miracle is the opening up of a channel of communication between the natural and supernatural domains. Normally the channel stays open for a very short period (for some reason) – but if there is no channel at all, if the two domains are completely cut off from one another, then . . . what is the point? You might as well be telling me about Pluto, which would be interesting. But not that interesting.
Anyway, it all began when Hume was staying at the theological college of La Flèche in France so he could get on with some writing in peace. One day, Hume fell into conversation with a Jesuit who sought to impress him with some tale about a miracle which had supposedly taken place within the college. Hume, deciding that this tommyrot simply had to stop, tried gently explaining his maxim (which we will come to in a minute). Upon hearing it, the Jesuit dropped his jaw like a fish and exclaimed, “But sir, if you are right about this, then the same would hold for all the miracles in the Bible!”
Hume was at a loss as to how to respond. He could either slap his forehead and say, “Doh! Silly me! Just forget everything I said!” Or he could say, “Yes, well the Bible’s a pile of shite – I thought we all knew that anyway.” Uncertain of his ground, Hume beat a hasty retreat to his study and promptly wrote out his famous essay Of Miracles – first published in 1748, anonymously of course for fear of all the usual reprisals.
It’s a terrific piece of prose in two parts, though Part I does most of the damage. Hume gradually assembles his argument that “a wise man [should] proportion his belief to the evidence,” by way of an entertaining series of stories and anecdotes. In order to believe in a miracle, clearly some sort of evidence is required, but the key thing is that the evidence must scale with what is being claimed. Here is how Hume sums up his case in what, now I come to think of it, must be my favourite paragraph in the whole of the English language:
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force which remains after deducting the inferior. When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact which he relates should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce my decision and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.
I love that, “When anyone tells me he saw a dead man restored to life.” Not mentioning any names of course! Prison would have been no picnic for Hume – he certainly wouldn’t have had the luxury of a billiard table in jail, like you would today. (What a foul disgrace that, even as I write, the Blasphemy Act of 1698 has yet to be repealed.)
There’s also a bit of a technical argument to Hume’s maxim. Even if the quality of the evidence were to surpass the required level, we are still left with this “mutual destruction of arguments” between the testimony on the one hand, and the entire weight of human experience on the other – experience which in general would suggest that the dead do not rise up from the grave. So still no reason to stand back in amazement. Don’t worry if you can’t get your head around that part. The bottom line is that “miracles” are just a complete load of bollocks. At any time. At any place.
But for me, Hume’s essay is saying something much deeper than simply providing a handy “miracle test” with which to shoo away simpletons making preposterous claims. Hume seems to be telling us that we wouldn’t even want a miracle story to be true. For example, I love fine wines. The ones I love the best are the ones I can’t afford. But had I been a guest of the Wedding at Cana, I think I would have taken Jesus to one side and given him a little lecture along the lines of: “Very clever superman, now why don’t you just turn that wine back into water, and we’ll say no more about it, eh? There’s a good Saviour of mankind.”
Think about it. What do you stand to gain? Some wine. What do you stand to lose? Reason and sanity. It hardly seems worth it. Certainly not for a wine which pre-dates the Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée scheme. It does make you wonder though whether that story might not have been devised specifically to appeal to pissheads.
Question for the reader: Which do you think is more likely: that Jesus turned water into wine, or that somebody made that story up?
Message for the reader ?
4 of the last 6 posts on this thread have been by the writer – there are no readers..
Message for the writer – take this bilge off to your own blog so you can bore for England without detaining anyone else.
Please.
Question for the writer: I’ve got some concentrated squash in the cupboard, it turns water into a remarkably tasty fruit-flavoured drink – do you want me to tell you how it works, or do you want to preserve the mystery?
4 of the last 6 posts on this thread have been by the writer.
That’s normal for me.
Take this bilge off to your own blog so you can bore for England without detaining anyone else.
Look, you’re going to have to blame Martin Turner for this. He asked me (about a million comments ago) to explain how science and philosophy had debunked religion, without (naturally) addressing a single point I had made in the article. Basically, your punishment for addressing none of my points is that I am going to address all of yours.
Please.
I’m nearly there. I reckon I’m just going to cover Darwin, and maybe a short bit on Harris, and then wrap things up.
I’ve got some concentrated squash in the cupboard, it turns water into a remarkably tasty fruit-flavoured drink – do you want me to tell you how it works, or do you want to preserve the mystery?
Well that’s how I reckon Jesus did it – using some sort of concentrate. But of course that’s no miracle.
On yer blog Laurence!
This is all Dorkins stuff.
Well, I’m finding this interesting, I just don’t have much to say on the topic. If you don’t want to read it, then no-one is forcing you to click that link.
Please God, bring forth the Rapture.
We have plenty of leaflets to deliver here in St Austell & Newquay if people would like something constructive to do with their time.
Thanks Sanbiki!
Please God, bring forth the Rapture.
Amen to that! And if Christians wouldn’t mind signing over all their property to me before the big day arrives, I’d be much obliged.
We have plenty of leaflets to deliver here in St Austell & Newquay if people would like something constructive to do with their time.
Do you know Stephen, I’m slightly surprised that, in these environmentally aware days, we are still delivering leaflets at all. I mean does anyone actually take the trouble to read an election leaflet? And if they did, why do we think it would make the slightest difference to their voting intentions? Have you ever switched to Labour on the back of a stunning leaflet? The only reason we persist with the practice, I imagine, is because we are unwilling to concede the tiny advantage to our opponents which would accrue if they continued to leaflet while we stopped. And so it is that we all wind up participating in this mindless orgy of A4 distribution. Here’s a good quote from the Gospel according to Richard Dawkins:
Why are forest trees so tall? Simply to overtop rival trees. A sensible utility function would see to it that they were all short. They would get exactly the same amount of sunlight, with far less expenditure on thick trunks and massive supporting buttresses. But if they were all short, natural selection couldn’t help favouring a variant individual that grew a little taller. The ante having been upped, others would have to follow suit. Nothing can stop the whole game escalating until all trees are ludicrously and wastefully tall.
But just because nature (God?) is ludicrously wasteful, doesn’t mean that we have to be too. I reckon that if we are serious about our green credentials, then we should adopt a policy of unilateral disarmament and cease leafleting altogether. Never were so many trees culled in vain . . .
Dawkins is evidently unaware of the fact that almost all forest on this planet is either secondary growth or managed primary growth.
Tall trees are encouraged because they provide a canopy that supports the growth of berry-bearing plants, or under-storey trees like hazel that can be coppiced.
I don’t think I have ever felt more comprehensively busted in all my life. There was I arguing passionately that it was quite impossible for a dead man to be restored to life, and then who should turn up but the ghost of Trofim Lysenko!
OK, I can see that I have shamefully neglected my philosophy course. I was about to write something when I was distracted by the bearded idiot’s latest remarks. So here’s some stuff on Darwin, and then it will soon be all over. Promise!
Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882)
Charles Darwin invented Darwin’s theory of evolution. You knew that, didn’t you? But possibly the most important thing to understand about Darwin’s theory is that it is . . . just that – a theory. A bloody good theory, but nonetheless . . . just a theory. A theory of massive explanatory and predictive power, which has, over the course of the last century, created a unity and coherence out of the biological sciences, while simultaneously shedding a powerful light upon that which could scarcely be of greater import – the very nature of the human condition itself. But . . . when all’s said and done (and I really can’t stress this enough) . . . just a theory.
Darwin studied theology at Cambridge (now there’s an irony) before heading off on a sailing trip around the Galápagos Islands off the coast of modern Ecuador. The adventure was to have a number of onerous consequences. Firstly, it resulted in Darwin losing his Christian faith. Sadly, he also lost his health which was never to return for the remainder of his life. And finally, he changed the world utterly and irrevocably. Not bad for a boat trip.
Darwin made a close study of species, especially finches, and discovered that they were all slightly different from one island to the next. This led him to the conclusion that, though distinct, the various species of finches were clearly descended from some common ancestor. So this got him to wondering whether all species might not be related by way of a gradual series of increments, the overall difference (and this is the key insight) being one of degree not of kind.
Darwin spent the rest of his life working on his little theory, including a whacking eight years on barnacles alone. He liked barnacles. The writings of Thomas Malthus provided him with an explanatory mechanism – now known as “survival of the fittest” – for why species might undergo such a gradual “evolution.” Really the only bit missing was the genetic understanding which was to come later. Eventually, spurred on by the knowledge that Alfred Wallace was coming to roughly the same conclusion, he let off his little bombshell in 1859.
Reaction to The Origin of Species was mixed. Some people said that his findings contradicted the Bible, and therefore could not possibly be true. These folk live on to this day and are known as “creationists,” but they are a very tiny minority – in America, only 53% for instance (according to those pesky polls). Others performed a soft shoe shuffle and said that they had never really believed in Genesis literally anyhow. These people are called religious “moderates.” Darwin’s own reaction was a little more dramatic. He said he felt as though he was confessing to a murder.
But perhaps the most telling reaction of all came from the wife of the Bishop of Birmingham who is reported to have said to her husband, “My dear, let us hope that it is not true; but, if it is true, let us hope that it does not become generally known.” So much for the Protestant liberal tradition. Of course I have no idea whether or not she actually said that, but it’s certainly what she should have said. For nothing, but nothing, has been more corrosive to the project of religion than the theory of evolution through natural selection. Here’s why:
Question for the reader: How concerned should we be to learn that the most powerful nation on Earth appears to be in the grip of a medieval superstition?
Darwin’s theory
The first and perhaps most obvious problem is, as has already been touched upon, that evolution falsifies a literal interpretation of Genesis. However, most Christians don’t seem to get too exercised over the fact that the “word of God” is wildly inaccurate. Six days, 14 billion years – we’ve all been there, especially the software engineers among us. Besides, this was not exactly news in 1859. Earlier that century, geologists had already noted, through studying rocks and stuff, that the biblical time-scales were simply infeasible.
Nevertheless, to this day the “debate” still largely seems to centre around questions concerning whether the Hebrew word for “day” means just one revolution of the earth, or whether it really means “f***ing ages.” Indeed, there are times when I get to wondering if this fatuous argument is not prosecuted purely in order to distract attention from what is maybe the bigger embarrassment – namely that evolutionary theory drives a coach and horses through the foundational Christian doctrine of the fall and redemption.
If you attend the extended Christmas or Easter liturgies, as bizarrely I still do, you will find that the story begins (where else?) with Adam eating an apple – the “felix culpa” from which all else follows. Of course modern Christians don’t take this too literally either. There was no apple, no Adam and Eve as such, no serpent, no garden – rather the story merely symbolises mankind’s fall from grace into its present disordered and unhappy state from which it now cries out to the Almighty for salvation. It’s just an allegory, stupid.
Except . . . it’s not exactly a brilliant allegory either. I thought that allegories were supposed to inform and illuminate, but this one just misleads. Because neither was there any “fall from grace.” Instead, we started out as pond scum, became fish, then small furry creatures, monkeys, and finally humans (missing out a few steps there). And how did that happen? It all came about on account of the struggle for survival – a bitter and ongoing fight over finite resources – ultimately, a fight to the death. And get this: it’s been that way for the best part of 500 million years. Here’s Dawkins:
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.
Great! And whose fault is all of that? It’s God’s fault. That’s right – the big cheese himself. That’s the way he chose to set things up, in his “infinite wisdom.” But now, maybe sensing that we were not far off stumbling upon the truth, God plays an absolute blinder. He tries to blame it all on us. He tells us that all this misery is a consequence of human “sin” and then, just to complete the illusion, sends his only son to “save us” by dying a horrible death, doubtless imagining (correctly as it happens) that we might be impressed with that sort of thing.
This is what I mean when I state unequivocally that the position staked out by the religious moderate is intellectually bankrupt. I’m not terribly impressed with Christians who believe in evolution. Granted, they may not be flying in the face of modern science with all the arrogance and ignorance of an evangelical nut-job. No, instead they’re just worshipping – yes, worshipping – the most cynical bastard in all of history, literature, or mythology.
I’m really looking forward to the day of judgement. I can’t wait to see the look of dismay on God’s face when it finally dawns on him that he’s actually going to be entering the dock himself.
Question for the reader: Why would the omniscient, benevolent, and omnipotent creator of the universe appear to be so cruel, wasteful, and lazy?
P.S. Don’t panic! It’s just a theory!
OK, this really is it. Some stuff on Sam Harris coming up, a few concluding remarks, and then I’m done. I think I may collect these ramblings together in a Facebook note, seeing as nobody much is reading them. Wouldn’t want them to go to waste!
Sam Harris (born 1967)
Sam Harris shot to prominence in 2004 with his best-selling book The End of Faith, which has managed to draw sharp criticism from religionist and secularist alike – a sure sign that he must be doing something right! It’s a superb book – packed with useful insight and displaying a fine mastery of the English language. I don’t agree with all of it. In particular, the final chapter caused some of us a few difficulties, especially when he started quoting Padmasambhava approvingly! But for exposing the duplicitous role of the “religious moderate” in unwittingly providing comfort and cover for the “religious extremist,” I’m afraid he scores a perfect ten in my book. “By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally.” I don’t think I could have put it any better myself!
But that is all by the way, because our interest here is in questions of science and philosophy – and so to his lesser-known day job as a neuroscience PhD student at the University of California, Los Angeles. When I first heard about Harris’s research, I assumed that he was going to stick probes onto people’s heads, and try to show that religious beliefs were fundamentally different in some way from “normal” beliefs. In fact, he’s doing something far more interesting – he’s trying to show that they’re the same. I’ll let him explain what he’s up to:
What I believe, though cannot yet prove, is that belief is a content-independent process. Which is to say that beliefs about God – to the degree that they really are believed – are the same as beliefs about numbers, penguins, tofu, or anything else. This is not to say that all of our representations of the world are acquired through language, or that all linguistic representations are on the same logical footing. And we know that different regions of die brain are involved in judging the truth of statements drawn from different content domains. What I do believe, however, is that the neural processes governing die final acceptance of a statement as “true” rely on more fundamental, reward-related circuitry in our frontal lobes – probably the same regions that judge the pleasantness of tastes and odours. Truth may be beauty, and beauty truth, in more than a metaphorical sense. And false statements may quite literally disgust us.
All of this is very much in its infancy, and doubtless will not be the work of just one man. Ultimately this may turn out to be a futile quest – it may not be possible to prove that all belief is on an equal footing, indeed it may not even be true. But we’ll just follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it leads to God (which would be a first)! If you’re interested, Harris had an initial paper published before Christmas. It’s available here (pdf), though I can’t claim to understand any of it.
That said, I do find this idea highly plausible. We all know, or should do, just how malleable and suggestible the human brain is. One of my favourite demonstrations of this involves Derren Brown making a nice lady act like she was under some kind of voodoo spell. First, she can’t move her legs, then she can’t move her arms, and finally she can’t even speak – all courtesy of Derren manipulating the little levers in her brain to convince her that there really might be something in this voodoo doll malarkey after all.
The moral is that, “As a nice lady thinks, so she will act.” Or as Harris would say, “A belief is a lever that, once pulled, moves almost everything else in a person’s life.” Yet, time and again, I seem to come right up against this tired old false dichotomy, so cherished by liberals, between belief and action. “People are free to think and say whatever they like, as long as they keep off my front lawn.” If only I had a pound – hey, 50p even! – for every time I had heard that glib sentiment, I would have long since retired to Hawaii and you could all blissfully carry on without me.
Of course the sentiment is valid in a strictly legal sense but, in just about every other sense, it is hopelessly outdated. Beliefs are in no way separate from actions. In fact, beliefs are actions, and can be just as lethal. The neural activity which constitutes a belief connects directly to a nervous system running through your arm and finger, which pulls the trigger, that fires a bullet, that kills the President, which starts a nuclear war – it’s all of a piece. To think otherwise, is essentially to buy into a philosophical dualism of the mind which bit the dust ages ago.
Beliefs have potentially devastating consequences – 9/11 should have proved that beyond any doubt but, as the fatuous search for “root causes” continues apace, one has to wonder whether 2,998 may not have died in vain. Yet Harris is out to show that beliefs in the Koran, Islamic jihad, the afterlife, etc., are fundamentally no different in character from beliefs about the weather! Of course, some of the more batshit crazy ideas may be a little harder to acquire, taking years of persistent indoctrination not unlike the lengthy process of learning a musical instrument. But once acquired – once the brain has accepted that the belief “tastes good” – then pretty much everything else follows for better or for worse.
Religious belief, or indeed any other belief, is emphatically not a private matter. Rather, a belief is merely an action primed, cocked, and ready for battle. If we are “as liberals” to insist that it is not beliefs but only actions which matter, then I fear we may find ourselves having to clear up the mess following one 9/11 and 7/7 after another. It is time that we went after the bad ideas with a vengeance. The claims of religion are false – we are now in a position to state this with overwhelming confidence. If liberalism means one thing, then it must surely be about setting the individual free. It isn’t entirely clear to me just how shackling ourselves to the ignorance of the past can form any part of this project.
Question for the reader: When we observe how easily the mind may be altered by hypnosis or drugs, why do some of us appear to imagine that religion is quite incapable of performing the same trick?
Reading list
No lecture series would be complete without a recommended reading list. This basically covers the a*** of the lecturer against the inevitable errors and omissions of his own exposition. “You’ll have to turn to the reading list for a more detailed treatment,” he will say. So here it is!
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding – a bit heavy going as you might expect. But the chapter on miracles is fairly readable, and that is the important bit.
Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden – explains evolution as only Dawkins can. Should be read by every child in the land.
Sam Harris, The End of Faith – in my view, the best of the post 9/11 anti-God diatribes. Should be read by every condescending atheist in the land.
Julian Baggini, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction – this tiny book sets out the philosophical arguments against God in the simplest terms. Another one for the Christmas stocking methinks.
Victor Stenger, God, the Failed Hypothesis – and this one sets out the scientific arguments against God. Probably wouldn’t appeal to those without a strong interest in science.
Ludovic Kennedy, All in the Mind: Farewell to God – superb historical sweep charting the rise and fall of God. Great reference book.
OK, that’s enough books. If you’re still “doing God” after reading that little lot, then I don’t think there’s a great deal more I can do to help you. But make no mistake – you do need help! 😉
Concluding remarks
Well that’s pretty much it. Thanks to everyone who came on to abuse me without addressing a single point I raised. You strengthened my case no end! Thanks also to James, without whom none of this would have been possible. He, at least, managed to raise a few points. This passage though I do find a touch troubling:
[Laurence] says “polls have show that around 36% of young British Muslims think apostasy should be punishable by death. As a matter of interest, how high would that figure have to go before ‘vile’ and ‘pernicious’ becomes about right?” This is of course to completely miss the point since if Islam were so vile and pernicious, 64% of Muslims wouldn’t be able to disregard this core belief. Of that 36% I have no doubt that most of them don’t really believe in apostasy beyond paying lip service to it.
It’s almost as if James is saying that only 100% would merit a raised eyebrow, as opposed to a mere third of young British Muslims. And even then, they’d only be paying “lip service” to executing apostates. Does James really have no conception of the living hell to be endured by a young woman or homosexual, say, being raised in a household where “lip service” to such barbaric and outdated notions is still being paid?
What if it were 36% of Conservatives paying “lip service” to some ghastly idea straight out of the dark ages. Would we make any political capital out of that, or would we seek to play it down? This is the double standard which the faiths have worked so hard to maintain, and one which it would appear James has bought into hook, line, and sinker – that somehow, when it comes to religion, “it’s different.” Why? Because it is. Why? It just is!
And what exactly is so difficult about the concept that good people may so easily become infected by bad ideas? That we can and should and must attack the theology, while understanding that, to some extent, Muslims are simply the victims of their own religion? I don’t hate those 36% in the least. Frankly, I just think they are suffering from a form of mental illness and need help. Patronising? Maybe, but that’s honestly what I think.
What I definitely don’t think is that religion is just “what you make of it” – a statement which is either false or meaningless – take your pick. That this degree of denial should come from one of our most intelligent and secular bloggers, merely confirms what a mountain we still have to climb before we really get the insanity of religion on the ropes.
OK, that’s it, I’m out of here. Unless, of course, you want to continue the discussion . . . 🙂
Laurence Boyce has got the right idea, in my humble opinion. We should be standing.
Hey, thanks Asquith! My fan base is slowly growing. Very slowly growing!
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
Essential reading for all….