51. We happy hooligans

Comment #191312 by Eric Blair on June 10, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Boy, you were fast off the mark, Steve Zara. I deleted that stuff in parentheses barely a couple of minutes after posting it (it was unclear and unnecessary). What more evidence do you need of the existence of unexplainable phenomena? ;)

I think we've seen this discussion before, why religious studies might be OK but theology isn't. You could argue it should be a sub-set of religious studies, or anthropology or even literary criticism - but this is all semantics.

My original point is that these theologians - I mean the more sophisticated ones who don't insist their ruminations be mistaken for truth - are in the same realm as many (most?) great artists and writers, in that they are seeking meaning over explanation.

Maybe seeking meaning is less important or "serious" (since it never seems to yield tangible results) than seeking explanations, but nonethless many people continue to do it. It's like those who seek "true love" in a cynical world that explains human attraction through biology.

The dichotomy here between reason and the rest (I hesitate to call it the "irrational"), I think, goes well beyond believers and atheists, and rests at the core of the human condition. Faith is just one expression of it.

And any one of us wrestles with how to marry the two sides, with obviously varying reuslts.

EB

52. We happy hooligans

Comment #190787 by Eric Blair on June 9, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Steve: But, as they say, what is reality, man? Is science the only reality?

Art, literature, music, philosophy are also real, though not in the same way science is, and often driven more by the search for meaning than explanation. And so are the thoughts and feelings they inspire. And I don't mean that these things are all seeking the divine, though clearly some works are. But they are pursuing something quite different than science and reason are.

Does this make them unworthy of serious study?

Or to take another track, Zeno's paradoxes, which occupied a lot of the time of medieval philosophers (who, of course, also happened to be theologians). These logical and linguistic problems serve no practical purpose and do not describe reality, though they appear to. They may help us think about how we describe and think about reality, which may or may or may not eventually have some practical purpose.

You and I may have no interest in these paradoxes, and say they are just linguistic errors (or whatever), but does that make people who are interested in them worthy of ridicule?

So it is with much of theology (that Dawkins is accused of not studying). It's not focused on proving God exists but how we might think about the divine or the supernatural or phenomena science can't explain or give meaning to.

Again, this may be of no interest or value to you or me, but I don't that it is worthy of quick dismissal, particularly without some study, simply because the dismissers say "It's talking about stuff that doesn't exist."

Those who take this approach, to my mind, see science as the only legitimate prism for viewing the world and human experience, which is simply an opinion.

EB

53. We happy hooligans

Comment #188263 by Eric Blair on June 3, 2008 at 2:30 pm

SteveN: Don't apologize for misunderstanding my point, that's my fault for not making it plainer. But this is pretty swampy ground we're into.

I still think there is a basic distinction between people seeking explanations and understanding, and those seeking meaning and purpose. For many, on both sides of the divide, the inspiration is the search itself, not necessarily the end, or what's being sought.

I think, though, our basic shared predicament as humans should move us to seek ways to bridge this divide.

And that's all I'm going to say about it.... for now. :)

EB

54. We happy hooligans

Comment #187762 by Eric Blair on June 2, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Steve N: I think you may have read my post too quickly. I'm not suggesting scientific types don't have moments of awe or wonder but that their reaction to their feelings is different - as you seem to agree.

There may be no answer to the Why questions but some folks, such as artists, believers and others - mainly but not exclusively non-scientists - will keep asking these questions.

My observation (I don't really consider it an argument), right or wrong, is that many of these believers being mocked on this thread probably know their answers to the Why questions are woolly and vague, and they have their own doubts about the nature of God and things supernatural. But they still pursue the Why, believing our existence must have a purpose even if there's no objective way to confirm it.

It's easy enough to say the only purpose life has is what we give it. But I'm not sure that's any better an answer than the vague notion of God many of these theologians present. (No worse, perhaps, either.)

All this to say that this discussion needn't be about whether God, however defined, exists, but the possibility of purpose or meaning, and how to live with absurdity, which is one definition at least of lack of purpose or meaning.

Since we all share this fate, it seems to be something we might talk about.

EB

55. We happy hooligans

Comment #186549 by Eric Blair on May 30, 2008 at 3:05 pm

'What we have here is a failure to communicate."

I don't know why these "discussions" are always positioned as debates, since believers are unlikely to put forward anything that is debatable and few Dawkinsians are likely to listen to anything else.

I think there's more than one great divide at work here: as well as that between faith and reason (or skepticism) there's the chasm between science and art, or, in academics, the sciences and the humanities.

A poet or musician will describe a stunning sunset differently than will a scientist, and the esthetic description will highlight the feeling the sunset stirs in them. Many artists will even suggest that feeling is somehow derived from and connected to the sunset itself, and is not "all in their head."

The scientist will describe the sunset in mainly empirical terms, though he/she may also note the feeling it seems to evoke, but the feeling will be secondary. And the scientist will almost certainly not ascribe any inherent meaning or value to the sunset's beauty.

For artists, for believers of the "sophisticated" variety who are described on this thread as "liars and charlatans," for many if not most people, the beautiful sunset may simply offer hope or promise of meaning. Less subtle believers jump to the conclusion that the sunset is an example of "God's handiwork;" the variety under discussion here tend to see the connection as more vague and opaque, perhaps eternally undefined but in many ways not so different from the esthetic experience.

Those of us who see something "ineffable" in a sunset, or in great art, music, literature and even ocasionally daily interactions with those one loves, are, I submit, responding to a deep yearning for meaning, especially, ultimately, personal meaning in the face of death and disconnection with all one loves.

Science may theorize that these feelings are simply reflections of psychological (and biological) needs. This may even be true. But this approach papers over the distinction between the search for knowledge and understanding (science), and the search for meaning and wisdom (pretty much everything else, including religion).

The search for meaning is not more valuable than that for knowledge - in fact, it depends on knowledge - nor does it necessarily lead to religion or faith. But it will lead beyond the purview of science, because science, rooted as it is in logic and reason, has nothing to say about what our lives may mean, if anything, and how we become wise, beyond analyzing probabilities.

That said, whether we are seeking understanding or meaning, it seems unwise to automatically close doors to the ideas of others based on a narrow for-us or against-us mentality.

(I'm not sure if my thoughts here are quite coherent - now there's an easy target for someone - but perhaps some will understand the point I'm making.)

EB

56. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183231 by Eric Blair on May 21, 2008 at 2:42 pm

It's good to see some discussion here about abortion without getting stuck in religious versus atheist rut.

There are both practical, social issues at stake here as well as more abstract philosophical ones -- but that doesn't mean the practical ones will forever win out (though in the short-term they are more pressing).

The abstract issues relate to the definition of human and person - which are not yet carved in stone - as well as innate value. Nor should these be dismissed as matters of personal belief.

There must be some reasonable basis for drawing lines or limits, as to when abortion is entirely up to the pregnant woman, and when society has a stake.

This does not mean "sending women back to the streets" or making decisions based on religious dogma. (Religious dogma, or at least Christian and Jewish dogma as reflected in the Bible, has little to say about abortion and the sanctity of unborn life.)

All it means is that we must expect, at some point, to better balance all the factors at work here, just as we would in any other rational decision-making process.

EB

57. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178525 by Eric Blair on May 11, 2008 at 2:40 pm

As Paula Kirby's comments suggest (I just realized... her last name might have originally meant "by-the-church(kirk)?), I wouldn't read too much into these "squabbles."

They've been going on in Protestant churches for hundreds of years. That's why we get need ones... some weirder than those who went before.

EB

58. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177723 by Eric Blair on May 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Styrer: I think the multitude of posts after mine and yours, mainly supporting mine, eclipses your rebuttal.

They also illustrate how a flippant off-the-cuff comment can lead to a tangential dead-end discussion that simply gives Boteach more credence than he deserves. Yet I don't think we should let comments like the Hitler comparison go without comment. Dawkins should know better.

EB

Deeper issues? Sorry, don't follow you.

59. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177290 by Eric Blair on May 8, 2008 at 9:38 pm

I have to agree with Belcanto 78 here.

Did Dawkins really think he could compare anyone - let alone a Rabbi - to Hitler, in any respect, and then pretend it was an innocent statement? Either he intended to be malicious or he is terribly naive.

The ensuing pointless discussion about screeching preachers is beneath the usual standard here. I'm sure there are some atheists who have annoying speaking habits.

EB

60. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #160906 by Eric Blair on April 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm

The author of the Guardian article and Dawkins apparently agree on the aesthetic and anthropological value of studying religion, as many here have noted.

But what is the chance that kids wil actually study the Bible in school, before college or university. Even high school comparative religion courses are more likely to be based on someone's summary of the great religions, not actual texts. One can imagine the furor if schools suddenly put the Bible on the reading list, after decades of building up walls to keep it out.

Will we see the professor waving a placard reading "Study the Bible for art's sake"? T'would be a bizarre and ironic sight.

EB

61. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160901 by Eric Blair on April 14, 2008 at 2:30 pm

A strange and misdirected article, to be sure. The author and Dawkins apparently agree on the aesthetic and anthropological value of studying religion, as many here have noted.

What few if any have asked is, what is the chance that kids wil actually study the Bible in school, before college or university. Even high school comparative religion courses are more likely to be based on someone's summary of the great religions, not actual texts. One can imagine the furor if schools suddenly put the Bible on the reading list, after decades of building up walls to keep it out.

Will we see the professor waving a placard reading "Study the Bible for art's sake!"? T'would be a bizarre and an ironic sight.

EB

62. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #159194 by Eric Blair on April 11, 2008 at 3:27 pm

I know I'll get spanked for this but I keep hoping Dawkins will get off his "religious indoctrination as child abuse" hobby-horse. I think he got whatever rhetorical value the point had in his book and has been mainly raising hackles ever since.

He raises it here (in one of the segments, I didn't follow them in order) where he mentions a 12-year-old girl who trotted out the usual pat Creationist phrases (evolution just a "theory," humans walked with dinosaurs, etc.), and he says her parents abused her by feeding her this religion-inspired nonsense.

To me, the abuse is that they clearly put her up to challenging Dawkins publicly, not necessarily the content of what she said.

I'm not sure why telling a child such things is abuse. It's not as bad as threatening them with hellfire and damnation, which to my mind is abusive. Parents may tell their kids all kinds of things on many subjects that are not true and even ludicrous (even though the parents think them true)... is that all abuse?

If this child, at 12, has any inkling of what she's talking about, she's obviously clever enough to get over it in a few years. If it's all just rehearsed cant, well, she may still learn real science - though she may not get over her parents' setting her up to take on the Great Atheist.

I think the response of the religious moderates here gave a good picture of this issue. Few are forcing dogma down the throats of their kids, and those who are - besides not being moderates - are not going to listen to Dawkins anyway.

EB

63. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #159191 by Eric Blair on April 11, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Anyone interested in the dead-end Holocaust debate should find enough on Wikipedia to avoid taking it seriously. If you're obsessed, no doubt it goes on (and on) like a poor badminton game on various sites, as do arguments over the 9/11 conspiracy theory or various world domination paranoias.

I doubt tossing quotes and websites back and forth is going to convince anyone here.

What I do find curious is that conspiracy theories seem to be really big in America (the US, not Canada), where of course literalist Christianity is also rampant. (Holocaust denial cuts against the grain here since many proponents, like our friend Senor Marques, live in Europe - though I think this relates to neo-Nazism and ongoing anti-Semitism.)

Think about it: Pearl Harbor (advance knowledge), Roswell, JFK, 1969 moon landing, Tri-Partite Commission/NAFTA, Federal Reserve...

What's with them Yanks anyway?

Now there's a topic worth discussing!

EB

64. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147465 by Eric Blair on March 20, 2008 at 2:08 pm

AKirkland:

The "atheist extremists" arguement gets on my tits like no other.

My argument was in response to Henri Bergson and Michel Onfray's suggestion, after Nietszche, that "true" atheism must discard most modern institutions and philosophy because they derive from Christianity.

I'm not sure what this means on a practical level. But on an intellectual level it sounds like an extreme view.


As for whether theology is a worthy academic subject, the answer ultimately is found in terms of either "bums in seats" or the pleasure of those who pay the bills. If you run the place, then obviously you can determine what studies survive.

I must say, though, I don't like the Jacobin-like suggestion that we should close down areas of study on the basis of their basis in "rationality."

Lots of academic studies, from psychology and philosophy to classics and art history, might fail the litmus test of being "true."

Theology may, as suggested, have implications for anthropology, but are we then to tell such scholars, "You'll get your office as long as you produce something that adds to our understanding of human society"?

Who's to judge? Do theologians like Augustine and Aquinas now drop off the accepted reading list?

EB

65. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147120 by Eric Blair on March 19, 2008 at 9:32 pm

This book is meaningless after Nietzsche.

Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise).

You're joking, right?

66. Jesus saves

Comment #146782 by Eric Blair on March 19, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Witticisms aside, surely it's all grist to the mill.

I'm not sure this particular pot of money will be well spent but it seems to me if you want people to stop doing something (like, say, hitting themselves on the head with a hammer) you might look at why they do it.

If their ancestors and in fact many people's ancestors hit themselves on the head with hammers (different shapes and sizes, different strokes, etc.), all the more reason to try to find out what's at the root of this head-hammering.

This is assuming, of course, that direct appeals - from the subtle "That must hurt" to "Stop hitting yourself on the head!" -- have fallen on deaf, if not crushed ears, and that you don't want to simply take away the hammers, believing this is a decision they must make themselves.

Then once you have some inkling of why they persist in this activity, then maybe you can offer something less harmful that addresses the same need.

(Or give them a helmet, if they're not Sikh...)

EB

67. A God blog

Comment #137443 by Eric Blair on March 2, 2008 at 9:55 pm

"Dawkins spends a lot of time discussing evil acts committed in the name of religion, but little time disentangling religious motivation from political or economic factors, or acknowledging the acts of charity or goodness directly inspired by religion."

I think it's important to note that Dawkins acknowledges TGD is a polemic, not a scientific or "balanced" work in all its elements (though it contains many sections that are scientific in all but tone).

On the other hand, Dawkins often says he is pursuing truth in his discussion of the existence of God, not practical or political goals. This may apply to God but not to his analysis of religion.

While he brings to this study a fine mind (one of the best around today), his field is not anthropology or history - which provide the best lenses to scrutinize the role of religion in society. And, it must be said, he does come to the subject seeking to confirm certain answers.

On the Bible vs Qu'ran (which is worse?) debate, from my limited understanding I think the Q is probably worse in its directives regarding treatment of non-believers. More important, though, is the point Ayaan Kirsi Ali has made that Islam is yet to go through an equivalent of the Enlightment, which means it has not yet sought to re-interpret its dogma in the light of reason (as has Christianity to a limited extent) nor has it at all embraced the notion of a secular state overshadowing religion.

EB

68. Darwin's dangerous idea

Comment #137437 by Eric Blair on March 2, 2008 at 9:28 pm

pkruger: on "begging the question."

It's a lonely and losing battle. It's gotten to the point that whenever I see the phrase, I assume it's used incorrectly and I'm rarely disappointed.

Technically, it's an argument where you're simply restating what you're seeking to prove in other terms, or presenting an argument that assumes its conclusion in its very formulation. An example: "If God exists, he would have created an orderly universe. The universe is orderly, therefore God exists."

EB

69. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #135384 by Eric Blair on February 28, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Response to Paula Kirby.

I understand why RD asked Bunting about the Virgin Birth. I just think it keeps the debate so narrow and misses an opportunity to show some listeners who might support Bunting because of her social "progressiveness" that her RC dogma actually limits her ability to respond to social issues (unless she doesn't believe in the dogma either).

EB

70. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131073 by Eric Blair on February 21, 2008 at 9:53 pm

The article doesn't add much to the discussion that occurred right after 9/11. American leftists were already blaming US foreign policy rather than Islam.

Chris Hitchens responded at that time that despite decades of struggle in Latin America against US imperialism no attack of the scale and directness of 9/11 (and pre-cursors) has apparently ever been contemplated. He said this was because anti-Yanqui guerrillas in Latin America basically shared many of the values of Americans - they just believed the US didn't live by them. Radical Muslims on the other hand despise the values and entire culture of the West, and most specifically the US as the epitome of that culture.

This aside, as others have said, even if American foreign policy is the root cause, Islam is still the local context and what the world has to deal with. (This does not mean I supported Hitchens' or Bush's view of Iraq.)

Among other things, I think Islam can take credit for its radicals embracing the systematic use of suicide bombing of innocents (ie, non-military targets). We know that "officially" Islam doesn't condone such activity but it seems easily misinterpreted to encourage martyrdom - mainly because of its openly violent imperative to convert and/or destroy non-Muslims.

Does Islam have a greater propensity to violence than Christianity or Judaism? This is really hard to measure. Obviously the other two monotheisms have great violent tendencies, too. Today, though, Christianity is mainly the religion of the powerful so it doesn't need to resort to "terrorism" as a tactic in its own defence. Israel as the home of official Judaism uses state-sanctioned violence to achieve its ends.

In Latin America, Christians - notably Catholics - are found on both sides of the power equation and fight against US imperialism. The established church has generally supported the state, dictatorship or otherwise, while radicalized priests, following Liberation Theology, have sided with socialist and even Marxist rebels - even picking up arms on occasion. Interestingly, though, these followers of the "church of the poor" did not envisage the creation of a Christian state - in contrast to places where Muslims have led anti-Imperialist struggles.


Naked Celt: I love your paradigm for thinking about multiculturalism, nationalism and the like. I've been trying to articulate a similar view on other threads.

I think the key is to consider each situation or call for "accommodation" on its merits in a commonsensical, rational and pragmatic way, with compromising basic liberal democratic principles, without saying any one individual or group is more important than any other.

EB

71. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #130565 by Eric Blair on February 20, 2008 at 9:47 pm

It is true, though, that laws generally should apply equally to all, so I think most accommodations for minories should be either to redress unfair (or simply poor) laws, or apply to non-legal practices of institutions or within communities.

This doesn't mean every time a member of an minority group seeks a change, they should get it. Nor should they be automatically denied, either. Decide each situation on its merits and overall rationale.

Example: 10 or 15 years ago Sikh (sorry, back to them again) members of the RCMP (Canada's famous national police force) were permitted to wear turbans instead of either the ceremonial stetson or regular police cap. I believe this was done without legal coercion by the RCMP (I may be wrong).

To me, this was reasonable. What difference does it make, really, what kind of hat they wear. No, they wouldn't be identical when on parade. What of it?

On the other hand, if you're trying to encourage more minorities to join the police, especially in areas where there are lots of Sikhs, why would you let this formality stand in the way. (Of course, it was and remains controversial.)

But such changes should be done informally, not through the courts and definitely not pushed by human rights commissions. They should be a pragmatic social compromise, not an edict of political correctness gone wild.

An example of a bad law that needs to be changed: Canada's national rules for voting.

This became a hot topic last year when the national elections officer said there was no reason Muslim women couldn't wear burkas (full-face coverings) to the voting booths. (Muslim women had never asked for this - the official just brought it up on his own.)

This seemed absurd. How could you possibly allow people to vote while their face was hidden? Just about all politicians jumped on this issue, vowing to change it.

But the real absurdity is that Canada's election act doesn't require photo ID. In fact, you can even vote by mail. Yes, someone could vote several times hiding behind a veil but so could anyone brazen enough to test the flimsy rules with no disguise.

EB

72. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #130499 by Eric Blair on February 20, 2008 at 5:41 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad:
Speaking of unclarity, can you be more specific? I'm not sure what your point is.

"A sikh is a sikh, an American an American." What does that mean? A Sikh can also be an American.

If people are concerned about terrorists carrying knives on trains, they should search everyone, not just target Sikhs. Change the rules to make them fair.

BTW, I'm assuming Sikhs can't carry their daggers on airplanes, but then tighter security applies to everyone, even Christian grandmothers :), so it is "fair."

EB

73. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130492 by Eric Blair on February 20, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Notsobad:

I'm not saying all Catholics work to relieve suffering (ie, "earthly" suffering) but there are those that do and do a commendable job. As RD said in his debate with Bunting, you might wish they did it for different reasons but that doesn't take away from its value.

EB

74. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #130463 by Eric Blair on February 20, 2008 at 3:11 pm

73. Comment #129298 by HunterZolomon on February 19, 2008 at 1:13 am

63 Comment #128939 by Eric Blair on February 18, 2008 at 10:18 am
"Many people here seem to define "multiculturalism" based solely on their experience of various responses by governments or institutions to the fact of diversity."

Multiculturalism should be judged by what results it generates, not by your personal definition of it. So far, it has almost exclusively resulted in the exact opposite of what one would believe to be the desired outcome. The key is indeed "fairness", but treating people differently in order to accomodate their culture or belief systems simply leads to more segregation. How is that "fair"?

It's hard to talk about this issue without being specific. What sort of accommodations are you talking about?

In Canada - which is actually credited with inventing m-cism, the concept has been pretty innocous, mainly meaning giving money to various community groups to display the costumes, food and folk dancing in festivals, to encourage inter-ethnic understanding. (Part of this was as a political counterpoint to longtime French-English squabbling.)

You may think this is a waste of money but it's hardly the same thing as establishing a Sharia court or a blacks-only school. (You may also say it's a slippery-slope, but that's not proved ... every step down the slope requires a decision.)

More recently, Canada has also seen pressures to "accommodate," including the campaign in Ontario to allow Sharia law. But Ontario rejected that effort. On other issues, we have tended to treat them on a case by case and usually rational basis. One exception - ie, I disagree with it - has been the move to set up a blacks-centred school (whites can go but it;s mainly for blacks). But so far it's pretty limited.

Treating people differently to be fair does not inevitably lead to segregation, though of course it may in some circumstances. First, I would argue that a rationale must be made every time an individual is treated differently that shows how the different treatment encourages fairness without offending any other important principle (including fiscal responsibility, BTW).

A trivial example would be that if my office is having a free pizza lunch and I'm the only one of 500 people who can't eat pizza (lactose intolerant), I shouldn't expect a different meal, because it costs too much (per meal). (Or maybe I should..!).

A more pertinent, and real, example concerns a Sikh man being thrown off a train in Ontario because he was carrying a ceremonial dagger under his clothes. This situation was unfair because train security does not routinely strip search passengers, or even ask if they're carrying a weapon. They just happened to see he was a Sikh and realized he probably was wearing a dagger.

In this case, it would be up to the authorities to provide a rationale for stopping the man from riding the train (or taking away his dagger). I think they would have to provide some evidence of attacks by Sikhs using ceremonial daggers, not just a "general risk."

And so to the Sikh biker. In this case, he's asking for special treatment so he can ride a bike while still practising his religion by wearing his turban. Here I think the principle behind mandatory helmets - public safety - easily trumps his "freedom of religion," as he doesn't have to ride a motorcycle.

Is this trivial compared to genital mutilation? Absolutely. But then I would see genital mutilation as always intolerable and, more to the point, illegal. I can't imagine how anyone could try to make the case that it ncourages "fairness" or any other principle recognized in a democracy.

If that what multiculturalism means to you, then I suggest you are looking at one extreme and perhaps as it is being played out in your region of the world. On the other hand, I don't think it's that hard to distinguish between the types of accommodation I see as worthy of discussion (that is, not always valid) and your more ghastly examples.

EB

75. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130356 by Eric Blair on February 20, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Pain and suffering - "The Problem of Pain," as CS Lewis called it - is a major issue for religious believers, especially moderate, "social gospel" Christians. (As Ehrman says, some Christian apologists like Lewis try to "think around" this challenge, but it's hard to truly avoid for those who actually live it in their daily lives.)

In fact, I think experiencing and witnessing deep suffering, whether their own or that of others, is more likely to turn many of those most devoted to their fellow humans away from their faith than reminders than what they believe is illogical or silly.

On the other hand, others - notably Catholics - accept it as part of the "tragic" sense of life (and of "fallen mankind") that comes with their dogma, and deal with the conundrum by devoting their lives to helping relieve suffering. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And, of course, giving up belief doesn't make the pain and suffering go away. They're part of the human condition.

(And for record, I don't think the "battered woman" T-shirt is even mildly funny - to me it seems provocatively anti-PC. Well, the humour doesn't outweigh the offence. It was only slightly better as a Two Ronnies joke about a fish-and-chips shop owner charged with "battering" his wife -- but I heard that one 25 years ago.)

EB

76. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #129759 by Eric Blair on February 19, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Whether Bunting believes in the Virgin Birth or not is of no consequence (to me, anyway).

Why didn't RD ask how she stands on abortion, contraception, premarital sex, gay marriage/priests, the infallibility of the Pope, etc.?

These are issues where the Catholic church has taken strong positions that generally go against the grain of Bunting's leftwing politics. They also affect real people and how they "get along", as she puts it.

EB

77. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129614 by Eric Blair on February 19, 2008 at 11:30 am

It would be interesting to see formal study to explore some of the various theories -- I should say hypotheses! -- put forward here. I wish the article said more about their proposed methodology, or maybe they just don't know yet.

If done well, this kind of study would be most helpful, as well as fascinating, on various levels. I hope it will expand its scope a bit to include "follow a religion," which is a different issue from simple belief in God.

And yet again, like Steve Z, I have to tip my hat to fellow Canadian Bonzai for his relentlessly reasonable posts that help keep the discussion on what I would call the "enlightened" middle ground.

EB

78. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #129110 by Eric Blair on February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Every time I draft a comment in MS Word, then copy and paste into the Comment box, I get all these strange characters in place of "coded" punctuation.

Any way to get rid of these without going through and replacing each one? (This has only happened in the last week or so...)

EB

79. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128939 by Eric Blair on February 18, 2008 at 10:18 am

Many people here seem to define "multiculturalism" based solely on their experience of various responses by governments or institutions to the fact of diversity. Obviously, some responses have been silly and extreme -- seeking only to win points with newcomers. But these responses do not need to set the tone for others.

For me, multiculturalism is simply a positive and reasonable way to deal with increasing diversity within the framework of liberal democracy, and existing laws and practices. The key underlying concept is "fairness," in relation to the broad objectives of political and economic participation and, ultimately, social harmony.

On some issues, it may mean accommodation; but the accommodation should be aimed at helping newcomers adapt to liberal democracy, not the other way around.

Another way to look at it is to see the accommodation as responding to and accommodating individuals, not groups or "cultures," and stressing common sense and practical judgments.

The choices may not always be easy and may be controversial. That's OK, as long as decision-makers understand why they made the choice they did.

A good recent example in Canada: Two provinces seem to be going different ways on whether Sikhs should be exempt from laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets. For me, the decision is pretty simple: public safety (and universal public health care) trump the individual's right to pratice their religion. Also, riding a motorcycle is not a right but a privilege. (Ontario has taken my position, I believe, while British Columbia has gone the other way.)

On the other hand, for a decade or so various Canadian school boards have allowed Sikh boys to wear ceremonial daggers under their shirts (triple secured), despite general "no weapons" policies. There have been no incidents involving these daggers. I think this is a reasonable accommodation, though I think a school board should also be free to decide the risk is too great.

If you're looking for some insightful and provocative thoughts on these issues, check out the Canadian Civil Liberties Association website (http://www.ccla.org), especially columns of its president Alan Borovoy.

EB

80. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #128150 by Eric Blair on February 16, 2008 at 11:12 am

The more I think about this “debate,� the more I think Dawkins gave up more points than he gained, either by ignoring the issue, not responding strongly enough or even agreeing.

Four stand out:

(a) He did not challenge Bunting’s suggestion that his strategy of “ridiculing� religion as embodied in The God Delusion was not much help in (the West’s) dealing with most of the world’s population who are of course religious and even strongly religious.

(b) He agreed that this approach and he himself were more of a hindrance than a help in specific political battles against teaching Creationism in schools in the US.

(c) He appeared to agree that he was unlikely to swing many moderate/vague believers (ie, Christians) into even agnosticism because of his insistence on challenging/questioning the details of dogma (that these people still believe) -- which gets their back up.

(d) He admitted that ridicule may not be the best way to deal with the problem of religious influence in the world but that he isn’t very good in politics and hasn’t developed a different approach yet.

(e) He said that on purely political matters and those relating simply to human beings he had no trouble working in alliance with religious people, though he might prefer they were motivated by something other than religion. (This is only negative in the sense that it undercuts the more absolute “religion spoils everything� approach �quot; to borrow Hitchens’ phrase �quot; that Dawkins uses when it suits him.)


A fifth point of dubious value to Dawkins was his statement that he was primarily focused on seeking “the truth� and, by default, less interested in political or “human� issues. This might be seen broadly as admirable if he were Galileo, putting his life on the line for his commitment to science, against an intransigent Church. As it is, seeking the truth is what he’s paid to do in his job (which he does very well, of course) and for which he reaps the rewards of celebrity. Many people, religious or not, may see seeking to solve human issues as a greater priority than trying to solve the riddles of the universe and those who do so as more admirable.

Taken together, these points might be seen as Dawkins admitting that what he has to say is not that relevant in terms of today’s pressing socio-political agenda.

These points are more important than Bunting’s failings because he has more at stake -- the bigger public reputation and more people looking to him for wisdom, rightly or wrongly.

EB

81. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127832 by Eric Blair on February 15, 2008 at 4:28 pm

I've come in late yet again but I thought the debate raised a couple of interesting

- RD is mainly pursuing truth while Bunting is more interested in helping people "get along." (Not that Dawkins is entirely uninterested in human beings -- although Bunting may be close to entirely uninterested in ultimate questions.)

- Bunting is sidestepping the issue of the factual truth of her Catholicism, though seems leaning toward denial. So why resist? Go back and read Dennett. In most practical terms, because to deny it would mean having to explain her response to others in her faith community and she obviously doesn't want to do that. And, on another level, she doesn't really know what she believes -- and maybe it's a matter of indifference. The main thing her religion gives her is an emotional for her concern about other human beings. This sidestepping is a big problem for her, but clearly it is for Dawkins.

- One might well ask, Why is this such a big deal for Dawkins? Not everyone shares his scientific mindset, or aversion to living with contradiction or even hypocrisy. In fact, most people probably live their lives in contradiction and some level of hypocrisy.

- I think this debate highlights that Dawkins has in TGD raised at least two quite discrete issues - living with/responding to fundmentalism, and seeking to understand the motivation and self-rationalization of moderate believers.

The first is mainly political and social and of immediate priority, the second philosophical and psychological and a long-term question that may never be adequately addressed.

I think this also points up the fallacy of lumping all religions together. No matter what happens to Bunting in her personal life, it's unlikely she'll be driven to fly a jet into a high building.

EB

82. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125536 by Eric Blair on February 11, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Man, the discussion moves fast here. I'm inclined just to say "ditto" to Bonzai's posts along with others and go for a drink.

(I see no one bothered responding to Henri Bergson's standard xenophobic blather.)

For me, two points stand out here from the article: the focus on the equality of individuals before the law (regardless of background) and the flipside of that, the "background-blind" actions of the state (ie., laws, courts, schools, public institutions).

The thumb-nail definition of liberalism -- "do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt anyone else" -- is fine as far as it goes. Societies that are becoming daily more diverse (in many ways) also benefit from seeking ways to be inclusive and accommodating, without in any way offending the general relationship between individuals and the state, and/or liberal values.

I realize this statement really needs concrete examples to clarify it. I'll provide some later. Let me just say here that Sharia courts most certainly does offend all of the above.

EB

83. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124105 by Eric Blair on February 8, 2008 at 11:18 am

Applying "some provisions" of Sharia law (like for divorce settlements and certain other contracts or agreement) may seem innocuous but opens the door to some undesirable possibilities:

- The phrase, "if all parties agree," hides situations where some parties (one thinks of Muslim women, for instance) either don't understand the consequences or think they have no choice. For better or worse, the Anglo-American adversarial legal system does at least give a chance to air out all interests (not that everyone is necessarily treated fairly).

- What exactly does "agreement" mean? Can you agree initially and then change your mind? Any provision like this should allow for a full appeal, not just of the Sharia court’s determination but also of the original facts and issues.

- No secular court should be put in the position of ruling on a religious issue. The parties would have to frame the issues in secular, legal terms, even if dealing with a so-called Sharia issue.

The Arch Bish's arguments are too vague to warrant discussion. It may be true that the British legal system doesn’t "work" for some Muslims but it may not work very well for many non-Muslims either. If it's not familiar to Muslims, the same can be said for most us.

Why not identify the situations where it seems to "fail" people and find ways to reform it, without turning to alternative systems.

As Churchill said about democracy, it's the worst system around except for the alternatives.

EB

84. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123671 by Eric Blair on February 7, 2008 at 1:44 pm

I have to say that proofs of the existence or non-existence of God based on logic are unlikely to convince the other side, except in “debating games� as on this site.

That is, if suddenly someone found that the Ontological Proof was valid, I doubt atheists would start going to church. Likewise, confronted with mathematical/logical proof that God doesn’t exist (as per laws of physics, etc. â€" more implausibility than outright proof), theists won’t stop going to church.

Given all this, you have to wonder why believers keep looking for loopholes or logical sleights-of-hand that â€" presto â€" prove God exists. This kind of logic-chopping tends to favour scientific minds.

While disbelief may be mainly rooted in logic (and personal experience with religion), I’d venture that belief, and especially adult conversion, comes from emotional or psychological experiences of some sort. And I mean that in a non-judgmental way.

EB

85. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #121654 by Eric Blair on February 3, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Why not push this where it's going...

If you were on an academic panel deciding whether a fellow scientist got tenure, would the fact he went to church influence your decision? Or would it be irrelevant?

EB

86. U.S.: 'Demonic' militants sent women to bomb markets in Iraq

Comment #121648 by Eric Blair on February 3, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Other reports say the women were well-known in the markets (one was called the "crazy lady"). Also, there were apparently eye-witnesses that survived.

It appears the women themselves may not have have known what they were carrying, so the religious fanatic label hardly applies to them.

As for the people who sent them, they are much more than simply Muslim extremists, they are also political animals (the expression applies now more than ever!). Usually, though, they manipulate the blindly religious to do their dirty work...

On the psychology of terrorists past and present, here's an interesting column in Canada's Globe and Mail newpaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080201.wreckoning0202/BNStory/International/?query=

EB

87. Atheism and Violence

Comment #120410 by Eric Blair on February 1, 2008 at 3:33 pm

I haven't read Nietztche (or spelled him recently) and don't know if I'll have time to soon, so it's hard to assess all this.

It's interesting Michel Onfray, French atheist and philosopher, is rarely mentioned here. He says European culture must root out and detach itself from Judaeo-Christian values before it can create a truly atheist society.

Harris's comments about killing people for their ideas is problematic but Oakes runs that thread back thruough RD, DD and CH with no evidence.

Oakes might better have simply asked atheist to say how they would approach issues like capital punishment, torture, treating severely disbled people, limits on abortion, racism, etc.

Sooner or later, hard and soft approaches will collide, and our "feelings," whether they come from long exposure to Christian culture or from inherited notions of the social value of protecting the weak and the dignity of individuals, may not be the only or best guide.

I'm not making any argument here -- just that an atheist society should understand what framework it would follow to determine such issues, just as religious societies have.

88. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #120368 by Eric Blair on February 1, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Undogmatic religion = oxymoron?

Maybe I should have said undogmatic or non-dogmatic "believer" rather than "religion," though I think it’s splitting hairs.

Can believers be flexible in their beliefs? Absolutely. Changes in many Christian churches over the past few decades regarding abortion, women priests, homosexuality, premarital sex and so on show some can be.

EB

89. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #120365 by Eric Blair on February 1, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Steve Z et al.: I think, realistically, if you had to work with a scientist who admitted to wondering if love involved something more than chemistry, or to attending church, you would probably judge him or her based on your regular interactions and not just on their admitted beliefs.

That said, it's probably a good thing to be suspicious of any scientist, especially those who seem to have no "hidden agenda."

On the abstract level, though, science does not yet know all there is to know about human consciousness and emotions, including our responses to love, art, music … and even religion. Culturally, we tend to see these things as somehow transcendent ("somehow" being a key word -- there's no agreement as to what this might possibly mean).

So why would we expect a scientist to accept, outside of his work, only proved facts about such things?

"Do you love me, Honey?"

"Well, you do seem to set off the appropriate electro-chemical reactions in my brain. Today, anyway. Maybe not tomorrow…"

EB

90. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #119406 by Eric Blair on January 31, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Not sure of the purpose of this thread.

The US Constitution, purposefully, does not mention God (even the references in the Dec of Ind are not specifically Christian, more Deist).

It's probably true that most of the founding fathers saw the US as a Christian nation, though they themselves were hardly devoted believers. But so what? Even if they were devoted, that really has no bearing on what the US is today.

On the other hand, the secularism advocated by the FFs, and the church/state separation that expressed it, was aimed at avoiding a single denomination being recognized as the "state church," as in most European countries at the time.

The FFs were generally Unitarian, Deists or vague Christians. They were not atheists and did not encourage atheism. Jefferson in particular saw it as harmful to social order.

But again, what's the relevance? They are not great "witnesses" for either side in this dispute.

Is the US a Christian nation? Yes, because most people are Christians. Is it formally a Christian nation? Absolutely not, according to its constitution. Or at least not yet...

EB

91. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #118303 by Eric Blair on January 30, 2008 at 3:27 pm

I think problems mainly arise when a scientist's religious views contradict a scientific principle. Otherwise, the fact that a scientist -- or anyone, for that matter -- may "accept" things without reasonable evidence, as Steve Zara puts it, shouldn't in itself be a problem.

Most of the things such a scientist "believes" in will likely be in the grey area where scientific evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive.

For example, a scientist may, on the one hand, "understand" that human love may be nothing more than a collection of brain-based reactions, but on the other believe/hope that it also has some quality that transcends this explanation. That the bond with his/her lover is greater than that between two mating chimpanzees or dogs.

Similarly with explanations of consciousness itself.

So if we don't have a problem with a scientist having such beliefs/hopes, then why would undogmatic, non-conflicting religious faith be a red flag?

EB

92. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117769 by Eric Blair on January 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Two problems with this piece. One, he doesn't really define dogma or give a way to separate it from "religion." The other is that he doesn't address the problem Dawkins in particular (and the others to lesser degrees) has with religious faith itself, regardless of its link to dogma.

I'm still not clear of his point when he speaks about the "spirtuality" of Dawkins et al., or the virtues of the transcendent vs the supernatural. Language like this, left undefined, can lead to "obscurantism" as much as religious language.

He suggests human responses to love and art are "more real" than religious experience. Well, yes and no. The love object and the piece of art or music may be tangible, and the electro-chemical responses in the brain measurable. But the total love/esthetic experience is surely more than the sum of its parts.

Likewise, in religious experience there may be a physical object (Bible, cross, etc.) and the brain activity may be similar to love/art. And of course the believer would say the experience was similarly larger than the concrete.

So what's the difference?

It seems if you allow for the significance of one sort of "transcendence" then you undermine arguments for excluding other sorts.

EB

93. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #117462 by Eric Blair on January 28, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Riley says: Modern liberal society in general, and moderate adherents to religious faith in particular, tend to shelter religious claims from criticism. What sense does this make? Do we do this out of fear of reactionary extremism?

Riley goes on to say that atheists should discard this tendency and subject religious ideas to as rigorous criticism as anything else.

I'm not really clear on how this "tendency" reveals itself, except as a quality of day-to-day civil discourse among members of a community who don't see anything to gain by offending each other.

Otherwise, more broadly, I think religious ideas have been subject to analysis and criticism on all sorts of fronts, from academia to literature to European politics in particular.

However, if we accept that this "sheltering" tendency is at least somewhat true, then it's, as Riley says, more a characteristic of liberal democracy (along with some post-colonial guilt) than of moderate religion.

And even if (some) moderate believers support this tendency -- not all do -- what is at fault is not their belief itself but their political/social response to extremists.

All this tends to undermine the original premise of this thread, which is to argue that moderates are if not as bad, then almost as bad as extremists.

And to make this argument is really to say there is no difference between the two (or that no continuum of belief exists), or that the difference is just that moderates haven't yet been "pushed" hard enough.

This is simply an unproved opinion, and one that is unlikely to win many friends for Prof Dawkins.

EB

94. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #117342 by Eric Blair on January 28, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Two points to add to the discussion here:

- The US presents a unique situation among modern democracies in that polls suggest there are a lot more people holding "extreme" views on religious topics like Creationism, abortion, same sex marriage, etc. than even in other English-speaking liberal democracies like Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. I don't think simply that, because of their proportion in the US population, we should call these people "moderates." I think they are still extremists, or at least possible extremists (see next point).

- For me, the litmus test for a moderate (vs extremist) is their attitude toward the separation of church and state, toward liberal democracy and toward public secularism. On this basis, I would say most Christians (and Jews -- don't know about Muslims) outside of the US support the idea that laws and government policy should not be determined by one's religious beliefs, and in fact should reflect a generally secular "public square."

Some Christians might be less likely to support this but for the arrival of the "Muslim" issue, whereby they now see the risks of advocating for a state that is in any way religious.

EB

95. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116449 by Eric Blair on January 26, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I think this project may be misdirected, and the way people here interpret it seems to bear me out. Unless I'm quite off the mark, this isn't about why people serve their country in the military.

The "no atheists in the foxholes" chestnut presumes that, in the face of death (and fear of death), people turn to religion. The book aims to challenge that notion by citing the thoughts of non-believers in such situations.

The first criterion for submitting an entry for this book would be that you were scared sh**less but relied on reason and your own resources to stay focused, rather than praying to a higher being. (If you weren't scared, then the fact you didn't call on God to protect you won't have much impact.)

Obviously, this shouldn't just apply to being under fire in battle -- someone facing a fatal disease may offer just as valid a response.

EB

96. Banks are helping sharia make a back-door entrance

Comment #116439 by Eric Blair on January 26, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Sleep of Reason:
It's just a case of remembering that Banks are as honest as religions.

Steve Zara:Please don't generalise like this. I use the Co-Operative Bank in the UK. I use it because it has a policy of ethical investment - for example, working to help fight climate change, and to defend human rights. The Co-Operative movement has a long and honourable history.

Cynicism may be fashionable, but it isn't always right.

So it's OK to generalize about religions but not banks? Some religions do positive things too, obviously.

The point others have made about banks and sharia law (just business) is generally true except that banks, in Canada at least, are regulated by government so creating "sharia-compliant" loans may actually involve government at some point.

Loans are a form of contract, so it's important that nothing in the sharia-type loan should change how commercial law applies to either party.

Otherwise, yes, it's just a marketing ploy. No one, Muslim or not, is obligated to follow.

EB

97. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #116134 by Eric Blair on January 25, 2008 at 3:28 pm

According to my OED, a "niggard" is a "parsimonious person: or "grudging giver," hence "niggardly." I don't see any connection to the standard stereotypes that might make people think this term was offensive to blacks.

As for the article, whether Darwin was racist or not is no more relevant to the teaching of evolution in schools than whether Pythagoras believed people's souls move about affects the truth of the Pythagorean theorum.

Still, inevitably, social Darwinism and questions about morality and the value of individual humans are part of the ongoing discussion about evolution. They're not likely to be raised in high school science classes, though, so not worth Compolo getting his shorts in a knot.

EB

98. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115119 by Eric Blair on January 23, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Goldy's and Steve Zara's comments remind us to be careful and precise in stating our opinions, especially on hot button topics.

Absolutely, this situation is ludicrous, but it does not mean schools should stop being concerned about offending minorities. Nor should it reflect badly on Muslims -- there's no indication they asked to be "protected" from this story.

And, yes, broad-brush attacks on Muslims do help encourage racists to follow suit.

But none of this should hinder the civil expression of reasoned and precise positions.

EB

99. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106406 by Eric Blair on January 2, 2008 at 8:58 pm

To comment on this would be to attack a flea with a hand grenade. It's also giving this site undeserved attention.

This seems to be one (1) person. No other blogs, no comments, no links.

Let it die in obscurity.

EB

100. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #106258 by Eric Blair on January 2, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Dr Benway: The raft analogy is as good or problematic as life itself. I don't think there is a perfect scenario that rids people of all distractions and makes them focus on relationships.

Inevitably, some people will focus on relationships and others will look inward, or to trivial things just as they did when immediate death didn't threaten them. And some, regardless of the inevitability of death, will hope for "rescue," whether by God or technology.

You suggest a primal emotional bond with others is the best way to face death, and I think you're right. It's also the best way to face life, which I think is your underlying point.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is a universal instinct, whether in death or life. Nor do I think atheism or faith is much of a predictor. I'd like to be convinced otherwise.

One tragedy of the human condition is that we don't all respond to the human condition in the same way.

EB