101. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #98427 by Eric Blair on December 13, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Bonzai: Why do we assume that Inayat Bunglawala and the MCB represent moderate Muslims? I know a few moderate muslims, they have jobs and families , they have quite mainstream opinions on a variety of issues. They are just as outraged and perplexed by the teddy bear incident in Sudan and the disgusting treatment of the rape victim in Saudi Arabia like we are. But they are not activists, they don't organize protests and go on TV debates. No one interview them on national media.

An excellent point, Bonzai. Nothing affects one's understanding of other people like first-hand knowledge -- anecdotal as it may be -- and we need such understanding above all else if we are to deal rationally with issues like this.

EB

102. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98418 by Eric Blair on December 13, 2007 at 3:13 pm

I don't think it unreasonable for Dawkins or any atheist for that matter to clarify his position re historical examples of violent anti-clericalism.

Stalinism would qualify in this category, as would the Left generally in the Spanish Civil War and non-European models of Communism. Naziism and Italian Fascism had elements of anti-clericalism but they were easily eclipsed by their anti-semitism.

While it's true that as an atheist Dawkins doesn't represent a particular value system, he nonetheless has values that influence his political positions. He has written or spoken about them at different times, and it might be helpful for him to do so more broadly.

I suggest he is pretty much a liberal democrat, generally opposing violence except in extreme circumstances, and favours using reason and common sense to guide his support for different policies, rather than inflexible pre-judgments.

Much like most people on this site...

EB

103. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97729 by Eric Blair on December 12, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Musashixxx:This guy has it all wrong, we realize that you only have this one life, after that there's nothing. This alone makes life much more valuable.

Your life is more valuable. Not necessarily other people's. If atheism doesn't imply a particular value system, then be prepared for such interpretations. (This was the most recent post, so I felt obliged to respond.)

On the evil atheistic dictator thing, I think there is a legitimate point about Stalin and Hitler (or Germany and the USSR), that the collapse of Judaeo-Christian values among intellectuals after/because of WW1 allowed irrational ideologies to rush into the vacuum.

Stalin was an atheist but more to the point he was anti-clerical because of the power the church still had on the Soviet people and he worked to stamp it out. Hitler may or may not have considered himself an atheist but he generally saw Christianity as weak. If he could get a Concordat with the Pope, fine. If individual RCs or Protestants opposed what he was doing, he threw them in camps along with other social enemies.

So Morris could argue, with some justification, that in the most obvious instance when Christian or religious values eroded, what replaced them was pretty brutal.

Responding -- albeit accurately -- that atheism isn't an ideology or a value system does leave open the question of what will replace religion.

Reason itself doesn't lead to a set of values, and even Darwinism is open to moral interpretation.

I don't agree that therefore we must accept religion in the public realm but engaging with post-Enlightenment varieties of believers on these questions seems not entirely unreasonable.

EB

104. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97530 by Eric Blair on December 12, 2007 at 9:12 am

I agree with Lisapd's and Bonzai's comments on this one.

Religion may give the context for this tragic situation but it's likely more about a power struggle and probably psychosis – mental illness. We'll see what follow-up stories say about the family situation.

We may also be loath to call this an "isolated incident" but it is unusual – after all, it's not as if Muslim fathers are killing their daughters all the time in Canada over religious clothing. On the other hand, struggles for independence between parents and teenagers, especially daughters, are not unusual in any community and are likely quite common with Muslim families. But it's vary rare that murder is the result.

What's especially tragic here is that it seems some of the girl's friends had an inkling of what was going on, though I'm sure they didn't expect the father's reaction. It also seems the father acted spontaneously rather than planning the attack.

As someone has said, let's see what the police investigation reveals.

Either way, it's terrible no one could intervene before it was too late.

EB

105. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #96451 by Eric Blair on December 10, 2007 at 2:51 pm

The points Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes are entirely valid and remind us of the difficulty of trying to flush out moderates as allies in the battle with extremists.

But, as Brainsys says, there's no obvious, realistic alternative strategy waiting in the wings.

We are dealing with a religion that is at root pre-Enlightenment and as such will react to different influences than the liberal democratic communities we are more used to.

The trick of course is figuring out what those influences are. I don't pretend to know what they might be, but we must keep looking.

EB

106. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #96061 by Eric Blair on December 9, 2007 at 10:49 pm

It seems moderate Muslims groups don't feel the need to publicly distance themselves from every horrible act of other Muslims unless there was already a connection and expectation, as in the Gillian Gibbons case, where they did respond.

The lack of response is nothing to gloat over, however, any more than the total absence of Muslims on this site (unless I'm mistaken).

This is a broad social and political problem, and moderate Muslims, or those who have accepted the need for at least some separation between religion and politics, will be crucial to finding a solution that doesn't involve some of the apocalyptic scenarios a couple posting here keep alluding to.

Personally, I would avoid speculating as to why moderate Muslims haven't responded, preferring to allow them an opportunity to tell us.

As far as multiculturalism in Canada goes, it's noteworthy that polls show the more that non-Muslim Canadians have contact with Muslims (moderate or not) the fewer negative views they express.

Direct contact and seeing "the other" as human beings do work toward understanding.

EB

107. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94134 by Eric Blair on December 4, 2007 at 10:03 pm

Beware Hitch bearing Greeks...

Pretty ill-tempered and over-the-top to make a vague seasonal point, seems to me. I haven't the knowledge or energy to sort out wheat from chaff here, but the Slate site has attracted many annoyed bloggers.

EB

108. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #94031 by Eric Blair on December 4, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Every time a critic calls out Dawkins et al. for being illiberal, we can chalk it up as malicious misrepresentation. Or we can recognize that they have been less than crystal clear in some of their rhetoric.

The fact that posters here are again debating what Dawkins really meant by his "labelling/indoctrinating children is child abuse" argument tells me he wasn't clear.

I don't think Dawkins anywhere suggests he would actually support intrusion into how parents raise kids, but he does leave the idea open as a tantalizing topic for debate.

Does that mean he would absolutely oppose such measures? Or wishes they were possible somehow?

I would hope, given a chance to expand, he would say something like: "In investigating cases of suspected child abuse, we should recognize that strong religious faith can be a motivation for physical and psychological/emotional abuse, the symptoms of which may require extra attention to identify."

Such a statement would express the gist of his general concern but also show he has a sincere interest in preventing and treating the real issue of abused children, and is not just using the argument as an expression of his frustration with the fact most theists learn their beliefs at their parents' knees.

(Dawkins is much clearer on religious education in schools, but that is a separate topic.)

EB

109. GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson

Comment #94010 by Eric Blair on December 4, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Trading off factual correctness in favour of religious faith and delusion, increasingly backed up by ruthlessness and bloodlust, is a threat to life and limb for each of us. It is a threat to science and civilisation. Ultimately - given current technology - it may be a threat to the existence of our species.

This sentiment, while it may reflect what many posters here are saying (Bonsai and Russell at least excepted), allows our fear of extremists to dismiss the value of studying religion in the way DSW suggests.

This value is two-fold: as an academic endeavour, to further our understanding of the evolution of human society, and to understand why people have religious faith, so as to better engage them (or defeat them, as need be).

To my mind, this is in no way an apology for religion but simply recognizes its reality as a perennial force in our world.

In the course of doing this, we may well discover, among other things, that differences between faiths are not necessarily trivial or inconsequential -- that some religions and sects are "better" or "worse" than others in terms of achieving a harmonious, secular society.

This prospect (as well as a distaste for examining religion for any purpose besides ridicule) may deter some atheists from seeking such understanding. But that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate thing to do.

EB

110. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93234 by Eric Blair on December 2, 2007 at 1:16 pm

I think the responses here bear out Linker's point.

As others have said about Communism and fascism in the past, understanding what one opposes -- and why people accept such principles -- is invaluable in undermining it.

The history of religion, most notably where it is the "established" faith, shows toleration is actually essential to its survival. As a political force, Christian religion in particular has often had to make compromises with certain "dissenters" to keep social peace. This didn't mean it tolerated all dissent, obviously. But it did open a crack in the wall of monolithic intolerance.

As for less self-serving tolerance and civility, read Garry Wills' new book, Head and Heart.

It shows how American religious sects, despite their own intentions and preferences, moved toward greater tolerance of each other (if in fits and starts), culiminating in the intense discussion between faith and reason from which developed the principle of separation of church and state championed by Deists Jefferson and Madison.

EB

111. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #92746 by Eric Blair on December 1, 2007 at 11:41 am

Absolutely, it's better to have the Muslim Council speak out against the arrest of this woman than say nothing (or, worse, try to defend the action).

But it would be nice to hear them say that her actions, whether or not she intended to insult Muslims, were not in any way criminal.

Of course, the Council understands Muslim mentality better than anyone, and so probably wouldn't want to dismiss the whole issue of offending the Prophet.

So maybe this is really the best response we can expect right now.

EB

112. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #92457 by Eric Blair on November 30, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Steve B.:
Blaming Jews and Christians for what's happening in Sudan won't help this woman or others in Sudan, for that matter.

The current, concrete issue involves Muslim extremists and authoritarians, and affects Christians and Jews -- not to mention liberal Muslims, if they exist.

113. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92442 by Eric Blair on November 30, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Dawkins seems to be thinking out loud in this article, not really presenting fully developed positions. Nor do his arguments have much to do with religion or atheism.

His initial point, that Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was none of the public's business, is only true to a point. A president's relationships – though not whether or not he had sex – are fair game for scrutiny, even if salacious details eclipse in the public mind the relevance of the relationship to the duties of his office. The very fact that such an affair could, in today's world anyway, have political consequences opens the door for blackmail, special treatment and other possible abuses of the office.

As for Dawkins' wishful thinking on love, cheating and jealousy – namely that the "cheatees" deal with their partner's peccadilloes more maturely -- seems reasonable enough at first blush. However, his complacency and cynicism about marriage, and relationships in general, make him appear less than wise about all social relations.

The point is not who has sex with whom, it's about honesty, trust and respect in relationships – and all social interactions. (This is not to say we hold people to impossibly high standards but if there are standards they would involve such traits.) This has little to do with religion or heavy-handed "moralism."

Jealousy and malicious "revenge" obviously arise when trust and respect are well gone, but the spouse who "cheats" rather than confronting the issues in the relationship (or deciding to leave it) isn't being honest with or respectful of his/her partner either.

In fact, if giving in to jealous rage is in Dawkins' eyes yielding to "nature," surely the partner who surrenders to the temptations of a casual tryst – as often is the case – whether by curiosity, alcohol or whimsy is no better, and with less excuse. Not only have they let their self-centred-ness end a relationship (often without intending it), they have done so ignoring the predictable hurt they have caused the partner.

Can someone love more than one other person at the same time? Should they?

Anecdotally, I don't think the open marriage concept of the '60s won a lot of long-term converts (maybe there's some research somewhere) and it seems less likely to do so today. Presumably some people can make such three- or four-way relationships work. I'm not sure what the advantage is to society and, based again on limited numbers of cases, there would seem to be even more opportunity than in traditional marriages for one partner to be the "loser" in inevitable "power struggles".

Evolution (and current social data) may suggest that few people are destined to be monogamous over the course of a lifetime. But that is no reason for downplaying the importance of sensitive relationships and the feelings of other human beings, imperfect as they may be.

EB

114. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #92138 by Eric Blair on November 29, 2007 at 11:41 pm

The woman was, unfortunately, quite naive -- but that should not be a crime. One news report has said a student said the teddy bear was actually named after him (and voted on), not the prophet. But this apparently didn't stop the judges.

EB

115. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #91566 by Eric Blair on November 28, 2007 at 2:54 pm

The Muslim Council of Britain also condemned the arrest, saying it was "obvious that no malice was intended".

If that's not a feeble, deceitful condemnation, I don't know what is.

So if malice were intended she should be in jail? Maybe lose her job (if malice were intended it wouldn't be appropriate to use her young students to make anti-Islamic statements). But that's the extent of it.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

EB

116. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91550 by Eric Blair on November 28, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a courageous woman who needs and deserves our protection. She's also invaluable in helping us understand the Muslim mind and society.

However, this does not mean she is right on every issue, nor in particular are her proposals for how democracies should respond to the "Muslim threat" necessarily the best options.

EB

117. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #90236 by Eric Blair on November 23, 2007 at 4:09 pm

To try to explain why there is any advantage is simply to speculate, and such speculation can obviously be rebutted (as we see here), which side-tracks the debate into irrelevance.

The person posing this question is trying to raise fears that our normal everyday world would come crashing down if everyone stopped believing, even -- gasp! -- giving up your seat on a bus.

The habit of giving up your seat your for an old person has only been around since public transportation and may be as a much a strange and fleeting cultural ritual as a moral imperative. Or maybe it's just common sense: if old people were falling down all over the place, it would slow down the flow of passengers and we'd be late for wherever we're going.

"Don't know. Maybe it has nothing to do evolution. Next question?"

EB

118. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90060 by Eric Blair on November 22, 2007 at 2:42 pm

There seem to be two issues here, Can we know what is good (if God doesn't tell us) and are we inclined to be good (if God doesn't push us)?

The "wired to be good" argument seems to embrace the two: We know what being good is (helping others) and our general instinct is to do so.

If this is true, then why are so many people not good? Do they not know what good is (no sense of right and wrong, as with young children and certain psychological disorders), or do they choose not to be good (or to do bad things), against their instinct?

It's reasonable to suggest there are competing instincts – on one hand, to be selfish and better one's own interests (with no regard for others); and, on the other, to help others.

So, further speculating, "bad" people lean too much to the selfish instinct, while "saints" and heroes follow their selfless gene too far, putting their own lives (or livelihoods) and that of their group at risk.

Does this mean we should discourage the saints and heroes as much as the criminals and misers, that in either case their behaviour is "anti-evolutionary"?

By this analysis, two tenets of Christianity that are often cited as being "beyond normal human morality" -- the Good Samaritan helping a Jew, and "turning the other cheek" -- could be argued as simply "unbalanced," not necessarily derived from God.

Maybe this approach is over-rationalizing. Food for thought, though.

EB

119. Religion's Real Child Abuse

Comment #89699 by Eric Blair on November 21, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Dawkins' position is fair enough as rhetoric but it doesn't really lead anywhere, mainly because the crime of emotional or psychological abuse of children isn't well established, regardless of its context.

Parents and other adults do many terrible things to the psyches of children without leaving "fingerprints," as it were.

If we could sue our parents for raising us badly, how many of us would be first in line... :).

EB

120. For the glory of God

Comment #89108 by Eric Blair on November 19, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Nothing off-topic about discussing Canadian survey numbers. Ottawa Citizen is a Canadian paper and the article quotes Canuck polls (with no reference, unfortunately).

Veronique and DavidJMH: Clearly your experiences in Australia and Seattle are different from mine, and you have my sympathy. But this simply highlights that not every country faces the same issues (or deals with them the same way).

Public debate in Canada is generally secular, unblemished by religious overtones. When religion does intrude, as it did when the RC church threatended any Catholic MP -- including our PM at the time -- who voted for the gay marriage law with excommunication, it has been dismissed with ridicule (to his credit, our PM voted for gay marriage).

EB

121. For the glory of God

Comment #88677 by Eric Blair on November 18, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Surveys on religious faith always seem to be unreliable. To me, "snap-shot" polls are less useful than those showing trends over 5 or more years. I would also be more interested in studies that relate these numbers to every-day life activities and specific issues (birth control, premarital sex, gay marriage, abortion, etc.)

And there's the anecdotal daily-life test, unreliable by definition but still of some significance: Does religion intrude in any way on your daily life?

I live in Winnipeg (which is supposedly more religious than, say, Toronto or Montreal, where I have also lived) and interact with people of all ages (mainly "Christian" by cultural history):

- I have little sense of who goes to church and who doesn't. It just doesn't come up, except on rare occasions when people mention something they are doing for their church, just as they might refer to a social club.

- It's becoming more common for co-workers' aging relatives, including parents, to die and to hear condolences passed on. I have never heard anyone say anything vaguely religious, like : "Well, they're in a better place now." More common, "At least they didn't suffer long." And people are even more likely to say "We're thinking about you" than "We're praying for you" or the like.

- These are just two small observations. But in my experience of Canadian society over 30-plus years, Canadians -- whatever their personal beliefs may be -- accept and support that public life is primarily secular.

- I realize this may not square with others' experiences. I would like to hear what kinds of experiences others have had. I'm speaking of activities in the political sphere, public schools, community organizations and workplaces -- not with friends or family.

EB

122. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87967 by Eric Blair on November 13, 2007 at 10:08 pm

For what it's worth, I find Chomsky's documenting of US "atrocities" abroad a useful tonic to the view of the world presented by the mainstream media. On the other hand, he is not the only chronicler of such misdeeds, nor even the ablest. (Here in Canada we get reasonably independent and critical perspectives on US foreign policy along with CNN and Fox News.)

The 9/11-Sudanese drug plant equivalence debate offers a revealing example of how Chomsky sees the world, at least IMHO. First, he judges events by consequences, not necessarily by intention. And he holds America to a higher standard than other nations because it has more options and because it is a democracy. (The latter is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does result in the appearance that he has no interest in atrocities committed by others.)

Another disturbing element about Chomsky's approach is that, despite his blistering and cynical attacks on US leaders (past and present), his overall analysis spreads moral blame around so much it almost disappears. For Chomsky, a whole social class of Americans is complicit in crimes abroad, not simply the administration that carried them out. So are the large media and academics.

And the psychological dissonance that prevails over policymaking is so pervasive that ultimately NO ONE is morally responsible because EVERYONE is.

(The only ones who are not morally complicit are the common people, who of course have no real influence because they are so manipulated by the media -- and despite the fact they vote for political leaders and otherwise support the elite classes.)

To me this is a bizarre and shallow view both of moral responsibility, and of how American democracy works.

EB

123. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87909 by Eric Blair on November 13, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Dammit! Like Russell, I just lost a long post in which I solved this whole Muslim thing without sending them packing and closing down the borders. It was brilliant but now I've forgotten it...kinda like those dreams Churchill was supposed have had during WWII.

Seriously, I too hope that Dr. Bari-bari has shot himself in the foot by laying out his true agenda in plain language with, apparently, not an inkling of how average Brits would take it. But this sword cuts two ways too -- against unreformed Muslims like Bari and truly liberal Muslims as well.

Unfortunately, some moderates won't feel pressured to distance themselves from Bari because they see themselves less as Muslims than as British citizens (as someone said). They also may simply be uninvolved in politics, like most peope of any group.

A complex problem that so far is only mildly seen in Canada. I hope the British can start resolving it without resorting to the knee-jerk reponses I suggested (in jest) in my opening paragraph that ultimately backfire and undermine the principles and values you're trying to defend.

EB

124. Holy communion

Comment #86997 by Eric Blair on November 10, 2007 at 11:10 pm

It sounds like many here want to win the ultimate battle but none of the battles along the way, if they involve a hint of compromise with even moderate theists.

So was Dawkins wrong to join with the Bishop in comdemning Creationism? Is "You're just as bad" the best response to the liberal Christians who fight against gay-bashers and allow homosexuals to become pastors?

Based on the sampling here, the "more atheist than Dawkins and proud of it" crowd seems certainly untainted by any sense of nuance, compromise, humour or self-criticism...

EB

125. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86555 by Eric Blair on November 9, 2007 at 3:10 pm

For the record, Chomsky:

- is not explicitly an atheist. In answer to one interviewer's question (Do you believe in God?), he replied, "I can't answer that. I don't know what you mean."

- says religion can play a role in undermining oppressive elites and their policy toward poor countries (e.g., Christian churches that believe the Gospel "favours" the poor)

- does not believe 9/11 was an inside job and says such theories just divert attention from the many real atrocities the Bush administration has carried out.

- says 9/11, while tragic, was a logical response to US policy toward the Middle East and elsewhere

- opposed/opposes US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq

- does not believe America is a fascist country and in many ways is a model to others in terms of free speech and democracy

- says he is a libertarian socialist and believes only in the efficacy of local, grassroots political action (rather than supporting a national political party or movement, except on specific issues)

- argues that human language makes us distinct from other mammals.

So sharpen your knives accordingly….

Because of his overzealous and intransigent analysis of US foreign policy and its support by American elites, Chomsky has at times shown himself to be complacent, selective and even disingenuous about certain atrocities and injustices that Washington happened to focus on.

As for a sincere and uncritical support of Pol Pot or Mao or even Serbia, I would find this surprising. For one thing, to my knowledge he has not advocated for any particular regime or political system (besides qualified support for American democracy) – only criticised the US for attacking regimes that undermine its interests or ignoring unjust activity by regimes it supports.

EB

126. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86190 by Eric Blair on November 8, 2007 at 3:54 pm

The friendly discussion about Hitchens' old friend Chomsky (start a thread on that!) underlines my problem with this article and its attempt to legitimize politically driven arguments by tying them to science and evolution.

To me this piece just muddies the waters (though the research it refers to is interesting and important).

It tells us that humans are "hard-wired" to be empathetic to others, even those we don't know, but these instincts are routinely overridden by cultural influences like religion and politics. Moreover, our leaders are driven by their "interests" to systematically block information that might make us more open to feel empathy for others (externally, for sure, and maybe even internally – not clear about this.).

The analysis of interest-politics and "manufacturing consent" focuses on America, though presumably it would apply to other nations, including Islamic states. The question arises as to the relative importance of different cultural factors – for example, is the Bush Administration more driven by narrow political interest, ideology or religion, or do they just happen to coincide at this time?

Maybe this relative importance of such factors varies by the particular culture.

Other questions come to mind, too. Tribalism and nationalism obviously interfere with instinctual empathy, too. These forces often overlap with religion and/or ideology but not always. Consider the nationalism of Nazi Germany versus that of the Soviet Union during WWII. Religion didn't play a clear role in either, and Russian nationalism eclipsed Communist ideology as a motivating factor.

These are just two examples. My argument is that tribalism by itself should also be considered as a "built-in" countervailing force against empathy.

Also, why shouldn't religion and self-interest be seen as "intrinsic," rather than local, cultural influences? Religion may be an irrational rogue "meme" (or a phenomenon that once brought evolutionary advantages), but self-interest (extending to a sub-group within a large group) would seem to be universal and have some rational basis for offering advantages.

Add to this mix that religion may also enhance empathy – whether we consider left-liberal Christian "solidarity" with Third World causes or the charity-focused efforts of conservative churches (what could be more empathy-producing than arresting images from World Vision's "pornography of the poor"?).

I also have problems with the underlying analytical themes of this article, which are I think politically driven.

It portrays capitalism as dependent on systematic denial and obstruction of people's inherent empathy for their fellows in other countries, notably poor countries. This may be true, but this unscientific conclusion depends on an analysis of capitalism as predatory and fundamentally inequitable. Moreover, it assumes the ruling class in capitalist states are cynically devoted to enriching themselves and their class – ignoring the claims of such leaders that capitalism in fact benefits everyone, including the Third World people for whom, according to the article, these same leaders are undermining domestic empathy.

Again, I'm not defending capitalism or its ruling classes. I just don't think an argument pretending to represent the latest scientific research on evolution and human society should move so quickly to areas that are well beyond science at present.

All it does is stir up mud (witness this thread).

EB

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

Comment #86022 by Eric Blair on November 7, 2007 at 9:56 pm

A lot of opinions and unsupported "facts" here, plus little attempt to define what a moderate or extremist is.

Some 36 per cent of British Muslims between the ages of 18 and 24 think apostates should be murdered.

When taken, context, wording of question, part of survey, depth of feeling, one-time question or trend? A "snapshot" like this shouldn't be taken as definitive.

The extremists define the moderates, since after all the term "moderate" is relative only to the absolute limit. The only difference between those who hold the extremes and those in the middle is their willingness to act, not in their approval of the cause. This is evident through the sheer number of polls in so called moderate nation states where the believers approve of barbarism but would reportedly never engage in such behavior themselves. I make no such distinction between the end and the middle, both are guilty while none will act to counter.

This is simply not true if we look to moderate vs literalist Christians on the issue of gay marriage. In Canada, for example, only evangelical(literalist) Protestants and Catholics are really holding the line against gay marriage. Others are taking a strong stand for it, even allowing gay priests (ministers). The "slippery slope" is actually that some more flexible elements among RCs and literalist Prots find it hard to deny gays equal rights, even if they think gay marriage is wrong.

There's a similar division on abortion (it hasn't been an issue recently with no legal change in the offing).

The "extremists" are simply those who put their money where their mouth is. The Bible says "Do not suffer a witch to live" so, by God, they'll kill anyone they think is a witch. The "moderates" will hum and haw and wring their hands and talk about changing times and not taking things literally. But if the Bible is the word of God, then shouldn't it be followed completely and absolutely?
It's like calling a driver an extremist because he obeys every rule of the road while "moderate" drivers would ignore some red lights or overload the vehicle or break any of the rules that actually inconvenience them.

It may be frustrating (and seem illogical) to atheists that some religious people, especially Christians, don't follow the literal word of sacred texts. You can take that as hypocritical or "evolving." But there are rationales and historical experiences that account for some of these variations. In any case, it seems bizarre to fault moderates for not following the more irrational of religious doctrines. It also shows a complete lack of interest in trying to understand what separates moderates and literalists (in their own words), even if only from an anthropological viewpoint.

EB

128. A House Divided: Hitch at Georgetown

Comment #85704 by Eric Blair on November 6, 2007 at 10:36 pm

"Extremism in defence of liberty is not a vice," as Barry Goldwater apparently said in 1964. An old debating topic from school...

Extremism, of course, is a relative and contextual term. It means nothing on its own. Most people -- in, say, the last 40 years -- accept the context is the rule of law within liberal democracy, so by definition (or consensus) actions outside or violating those principles are extreme.

But most people also accept that unusual circumstances (war, breakdown of public order, etc.) may require overriding the formal rule of law to preserve a greater good. The real debate then is over the when, where, why, for how long, and whether the rationale meets the test of common sense.

EB

129. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Comment #85699 by Eric Blair on November 6, 2007 at 10:12 pm

More than just an argument, for some atheists (Albert Camus comes to mind) the problem of evil and God's apparent indifference to suffering completely eclipses the logical improbability of God as the key reason why they reject religion.

It's not an easy issue for believers, either -- Camus' friend Simone Weill, a Jew who converted to Catholicism, basically starved herself to death trying to share the suffering of concentration camp victims in an irrational and tragic attempt to resolve the conundrum through her own life.

EB

130. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #85016 by Eric Blair on November 4, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Keith wrote:

...You always have to know who you're opponent is and why your having the argument before even thinking the problem through (albeit out loud and on a website)?

... There is pleasure to be had in simply expressing your thoughts. If you're after all or nothing results then, of course, you'll find most arguments pointless.

I think you have ferretted out my meaning, though I would go beyond your first statement and ask what your purpose is in each debate -- to win over most of the audience (or more than when it started), to push off some fence-sitters, to continue to erode the "certainties" of believers or strengthen the confidence of atheists, etc. You then adjust your arguments and rhetoric accordingly.

I enjoy a good debate -- one where there is actually a clash of ideas -- but in many reported here there is no real clash. More like ships passing in the night.

In such cases, these debates are pointless, especially for the believers (they are unlikely to make any inroads in the point-counterpoint format, so why do they keep volunteering?).

Personally, I would like to see precisely where similar post-Enlightment views part company (we saw a bit of it in the original Dawkins-McGrath video) and drill down for more.

EB

131. A House Divided: Hitch at Georgetown

Comment #84748 by Eric Blair on November 3, 2007 at 12:30 pm

It would be nice if they asked the audience to do more than applaud (before and after survey, maybe?). Then we might know if Hitch did anything other than charm people.

On the Jesus as scapegoat issue, I heard an interpretation recently that saw the crucifiction as the end of scapegoating. That is, scapegoating non-Jews (and "outsiders" in general) was until then the sanctioned way to redirect violent instincts within the group. Jesus then offered himself as the ultimate scapegoat so scapegoating could end and society could move to true non-violence. (This came from a gay Catholic pacifist.)

EB

132. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #84576 by Eric Blair on November 2, 2007 at 3:01 pm

The argument about our "evolved" sense of compassion, good and bad, etc., is problematic because:

(a) it is no more provable than a religiously-based sense of morality. It is a hypothesis not an accepted theory: it relies for its persuasiveness on the fact many people accept it instinctively. Informally, that's not a bad thing but it's not scientific proof.

(b) it doesn't necessarily negate religious morality (maybe one supports the other). Or maybe, it could be argued, religion itself -- Christianity would be the best example here -- is evolving toward merging with this evolved sensibility, in which case why all the fuss?).

Another complication is why people don't always follow this innate sense -- the same criticism atheists level against religion.

EB

133. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #84571 by Eric Blair on November 2, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Reply to Comment #83969 by Teratornis (in reply to my questions about "winning" the debate)


One might argue that "moderates becoming more moderate" is happening anyway. Look to the history of moderate Christian churches over the past 50 years.

It's apparently happening in small ways all the time. Recently in my city there was a minor kerfuffle about a gay speaker being "uninvited" from a Catholic conference by the local Archbishop.

After a radio station interviewed one so-called RC doctrine expert (a priest) -- he basically said homosexuality is against church doctrine and that's that -- another priest (!) called in to say the church's position on such issues was actually not carved in stone and was "developing."

My point in asking these questions is to suggest, as communications theory does, that you understand your audience and try to engage them rather than simply focus on the armour of logic and "irrefutable" arguments.

EB

134. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #83958 by Eric Blair on October 31, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Forgive me for asking, but what happens when you win the debate?

Does the theist shake your hand and say, "You win. I no longer believe."?

How do you know the "fence-sitter" in the audience, despite your irrefutable argument, doesn't go home thinking about that small point the theist made early on that actually related to her own life?

Does the moderate, now realizing his religious life is based on hypocrisy and things he doesn't really believe, quit his church's refugee committee and pull his kids out of Sunday school?

EB

135. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #83599 by Eric Blair on October 30, 2007 at 3:01 pm

I think the point of this thread might be better stated as, "Life's a bitch and then you die."

If your life is pleasant enough and you're not obsessed with death, it's easy enough for anyone to be happy without God or mental stimulants.

But when things get tough – loved ones die young, your career nosedives, you get seriously ill, etc. – religious people would say that's when you turn to God (a variation on the "no atheists in the foxholes" argument).

The rebuttal – if that's the right word – would need to suggest that facing the hard rational truth, and being intellectually honest and reliant on one's self and one's fellow humans, are better than falling into the soft, comforting but childish pillow of belief in life after death.

Not always an easy sell. Who wants a soft but childish pillow and live forever? Hands up those who prefer to be intellectually honest and moulder six feet under…! (Where are those mental stimulants?)

EB

136. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #83388 by Eric Blair on October 29, 2007 at 10:18 pm

Atheism in itself does not offer a "better" moral system than religion because it is not "about" morality. It must be tag-teamed with a moral system, whether found in evolution (intrinsic notions of group preservation) or rationality (humanism) or a specific ideology (eg., Marxism or fascism).

Morality based on evolution or nature is a hypothesis, not a developed theory, and controversial among scientists. As for humanism, as appealing as it is, by reason alone is arguably no truer than Marxism,whih is based on a different analysis of human nature.

The argument is not to prove that any one of these (or others) is superor to religion -- that is a matter of opinion and hardly provable. The point is just that conceiving of a consistent moral system is possible without God.

A quick rebuttal and change of focus may be emotionally less than satisfying but it's a safer debating strategy.

EB

137. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #83382 by Eric Blair on October 29, 2007 at 9:45 pm

Who is the audience? What are their assumptions? Are you trying to change their assumptions or reinforce them? How do you know if you've done it?

If you don't know where you're going with an argument, to paraphrase Lewis Carroll, it doesn't much matter what you say.

Life would be a lot easier if the most rational argument always "won."

EB

138. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #83302 by Eric Blair on October 29, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Lauragon wrote:

Consider just one example close to Richard's heart, the teaching of creationism in school. Many devout mainstream Christians,-- probably the majority, --take the side of evolution. So when they do have to make a choice between fundamentalists of their own faiths and atheists many do ally with atheists. I think the same would be true for other issues of true importance like separation of Church and state. - Bonzai

On-line, I know of an avowedly mainstream evangelical Christian, a retired vocational school teacher, who claims to be politically liberal, supports the teaching of evolution in public schools ....

I'm not sure of your point here. Of course an evangelical would have to do a mental dance to square his beliefs with evolution. But the point is moderates don't have to since they don't take the Bible literally.

I'm not sure whether there are any studies/surveys that show moderates generally side with secularists and against fundamentalists on social issues.

However, it's reasonable to suggest moderate Christians have supported the secular humanist agenda over the past few decades on issues like women's rights, abortion, prayer in schools, evolution vs Creationism, and gay rights – all issues fundies would oppose. (In Canada at least, this would entail assuming most United Church and Anglicans, and some smaller proportion of Catholics, are in the moderate camp.)

On the issue of gay rights/marriage especially, Christian moderates have even changed their own internal rules (over time) such that only Catholics and evangelical churches still strongly resist gay marriage and gay priests. And even in the Catholic church, events like the barring of a gay former hostage in Iraq from speaking at an RC social justice conference highlight the gap between the hierarchy and lay people on some issues.


Back to the Anne K's article:

Her argument about happy families and religion seems to be a last-minute add-on and is not well supported.

However, I think she has a point in suggesting RD's concern about indoctrination may be exaggerated when it comes to moderate, middle-class educated Christians (in Canada, UK and larger urban areas of US anyway).

The fact most kids grow up and assume the religion of their parents does not prove they were indoctrinated. Maybe it's simply convenient and comfortable for them.

Growing up in the 60s and 70s, I recall that people my age stopped attending church regularly in their mid-teens and only went back after they had children, probably out of a mixture of nostalgia and some sense of community duty – only rarely from fervent conviction.

Likewise her anecdote about 10-year-olds discussing reincarnation – I took it that she wasn't involved – suggests kids are curious, independent-minded and resilient.

Any parent will tell you that there are so many influences on kids these days – including their own developing minds – that it would be hard to "indoctrinate" them even if you wanted to, short of isolating them and undermining any suggestion of intellectual development. Just as it takes a village to raise a child, it would take a "village" to hold them back, too.

EB

139. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82718 by Eric Blair on October 27, 2007 at 10:28 am

Why do we keep seeing articles like this?

Because RD et al. frame the debate in two ways that moderate Christians like Anne Kopf don't: that moderates "legitimize" fundamentalists, and that what separates different religions is trivial compared to their common acceptance of irrational faith.

On some abstract level these may be true. But in their own lives moderates find it absurd, and I can't say I blame them.

This weekend in my city a controversy has erupted over the decision of the RC Archbishop to "un-invite" a high profile speaker to a social justice conference because he's gay and outspoken (and, incidentally, Catholic). The man is now speaking at a United Church. This situation has not only highlighted doctrinal differences between the two churches but prompted many RCs to attack their Archbish.

A little in-house squabble ... perhaps. But hardly trivial to those involved. Nor will many renounce their faith because of this and become atheists. Most perplexing, the gay man at the centre remains a committed Catholic.

Disputes like this may be difficult for atheists to understand, and they may dismiss them as childish. But knowing some of the people involved, I can say they are anything but childish. They are reasonable adults, committed to similar social issues in the secular arena as humanists.

And so when people like Anne K., who may well fit somewhere in this mix of Christians, feels she is unfairly lumped together as a "fundie-symp" not only with bible-thumpers but with Koran and Torah wavers, small wonder she balks at the suggestion.

Finally, I think it's a little disingenuous to say articles like this completely misrepresent Dawkins et al. RD is hardly crystal clear on the difference between moderate and fundamentalists, and between different religions. In fact, his basic underlying point is that the acceptance of irrational faith is the problem, regardless of how this may be reflected in conscious dogma or actions. The religious "meme" is essentially the same.

For myself, I think there are lots of unspoken grey areas within any given church community, let alone denominations and entire religions – certainly enough to warrant different treatment from critics. Treatment of religion as monolithically bad and sociopathic, which these "debates" encourage, does little to help anyone.

140. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #82532 by Eric Blair on October 26, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Bonzai, I humby accept your reprimand as I am not intending to argue that sharia law should be applied in any enlightened country (it shouldn't be applied anywhere, for that matter). I was sort of thinking out loud, in part to counter FK's shrill hysterics, saying that we are so far from his view of things that we might even look at sharia law to see if there's anything good about it.

I know many details of sharia law are horrific, sexist and even demented. Your argument about Muslim women being vulnerable to community pressure is especially valid, so that what might appear to be a mutual agreement is not.

Unfortunately, even Canadian/British laws do not guarantee these women will be protected.

I still believe that in some cases community-based alternatives to jail may have merit, even if sharia law offers no good models. I also don't think the use of these options should depend on what ethnic group one comes from or how recently you've been in the country. If an approach offers a possibly better alternative, then it should be considered.

As for Aboriginal peoples, I don't think their as yet undefined special status in Canada should result in any less protection given to individuals, nor do I think insisting on such protection is culturally insensitive or patronising. It's just the way liberal democracy works.

Having said that, I see no problem in principle with alternative sentencing for Aboriginal people, because, in principle, the same approach could be used with other communities.

EB

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

Comment #82228 by Eric Blair on October 25, 2007 at 10:37 pm

I'm surprised more people here haven't provided some numbers in reply to this question, challenging the idea that most religious people are "moderates."

A related reply is to question what the definition of a moderate is.

These are really the only valid responses. The rest, trying to establish a continuum between moderates and extremists, is simply opinion -- one way of looking at the facts of religious belief and believers.

To me, it's just as valid to say moderate Christians (and I do specify Christians) because they generally accept the post-Enlightenment notion of a secular "public arena" have more in common with humanists and liberal-democratic atheists than with extremist Christians or Muslims or Jews.

Sorry, this isn't really a rebuttal but then I agree with the headline argument. I also think, given the kinds of social and political issues related to diversity all our nations are facing these days, these debates may be amusing games but they don't add a lot to the key discussions that need to go on.

EB

142. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #81585 by Eric Blair on October 24, 2007 at 11:46 pm

FK wrote:

Once more we deal with a total lack of reality. As for Eric Blair his many and large errors can be best summarised with this quotation:

But a limited form of sharia law in parallel with existing law might not be such a bad idea.

And there you have it, the final abortion of the bogus tolerance will, in final analysis, justify the introduction of laws every bit as terrible as those of National Socialist Germany, and, in fact, serve as the basis of some of those laws.

I thought that might set you charging down the wrong path. But you see, I'm not so paranoid and panicked by views understandably inflamed by terrible personal experience (AHA) or isolated factoids stirred in a tendentious pot by those with nativist agendas to ever contemplate a world different from what our great-grandfathers lived in.

When I said "limited sharia law," I did mean limited. If a Muslim person commits a crime against a Muslim family or against, say, a Muslim community centre, and sharia law suggests a way of responding that seems to address the British system's basic criteria for punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation, why would a judge not consider it? (In Canada, some provinces offer a similar option to Aboriginal communities.)

However, if sharia law says we should cut off the person's hand or ear, well, no, we'll just stick him in jail, then.

Likewise if two Muslims sign a contract under sharia law that doesn't violate any principle of British law or harm anyone, why would a British court dismiss it out of hand?

But, otherwise, you're probably right. Generally, I wouldn't support sharia law replacing British law (or Canadian law, in my country's case -- which is more or less British law, with a little more US-style protection for civil liberties). It truly is unenlighted, despite what I said above, and Muslims must understand that "want" does not mean "get."

My point remains, however, that I have a lot of faith is the ability of our judicial and political systems to deal with the challenge that Muslim extremism presents, without lumping all Muslims together without distinction and applying illiberal, even totalitarian measures to end that threat "once and for all."

Tolerance and accepting the need for harmony amid diversity are part of the principles you claim to be defending. Identifying where "reasonable accommodation" ends and blowing with the "bogus tolerance" wind begins may seem a difficult task (it's certainly hard whne you're prone to panic).

But actually we're not even talking about grey areas. Cast aside the relativism that has clouded the eyes of some in recent decades, re-affirm your confidence in liberal democracy, and it's pretty easy to tell where the "demands" of Muslims cross the line, and violate our laws and important principles.

And once you understand this, you'll see it's also not hard to tell which Muslim practices are simply different and do not constitute a threat.

Our work is to make sure our judges and politicians also uphold these bedrock principles of democracy -- but not to charge into the shadow lands of demagoguery and xenophobia as you suggest.

I apologize for my typing/spelling errors in my earlier post. You didn't address any of my other "errors," so I presume that's what you meant.

EB

143. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80974 by Eric Blair on October 23, 2007 at 7:00 pm

FK wrote:

Eric Blair could you - or anyone for that matter deal with minor things like those polling results I cited? Or the ones that Sam Harris cites? Could some one deal with actual facts?

I don't know which "polling results" you're referring to. I would have strong reservations about the validity of any surveys coming out of the Middle East.

Without context, a poll is just a snapshot in time. Let's say you're talking about the 62% or whatever – I can't find the exact reference – of British Muslims who say they support applying Sharia law in the UK. When was this survey done? What was the question? Was it part of a larger survey, and if so what else was asked? Is the 62% the peak of a trend or the nadir, or is support flat? How strongly do these respondents support sharia law?

Having said this, I wouldn't be surprised that many Muslims would support the introduction of sharia law in Britain. Why not? They likely have little loyalty to British jurisprudence, see it as overly complex and convoluted, impossibly slow, and often delivering unjust results at the end. Sharia law by contrast is (presumably) familiar, fast and predictable, if callous.

But a limited form of sharia law in parallel with existing law might not be such a bad idea. Why can't the courts involve the community where it makes sense and where no significant principle is at stake, as in offering alternative forms of punishment and community service? A sharia contract between two or more Muslims doesn't offend me, as long as it doesn't violate any Western law.

If this particular survey still disturbs you, recall that Muslims account for about 2.7% of UK population.

Immigration – UK and EU probably have a significant immigration "problem" in that they are overpopulated and can't absorb too many more people (but I'm no expert). That many would-be immigrants are Muslim is really irrelevant.

Muslim schools – Sure, shut them done and drive them underground. Then you have no idea of the extent of the true problem and you create a social cauldron for more fanatics. And this is, why? Because some schools may produce suicide bombers…

Iran – Who's really in charge in Tehran is subject to debate. Ahmadinejad's power is probably severely restricted, as the Ayatollahs really rule. Holding irrational beliefs does not make one completely unreasonable, either. Everyone has interests. Why did he go to United Nations and Columbia University? He obviously values someone's opinion. While we're on the topic, "rational" brinksmanship during the 50s and 60s almost led to nuclear war -- closer than many realize. Yes, Krushchev did ultimately back down in Cuban Missile Crisis but it was mainly because the Kennedys found a way for K. to keep face with his generals. Both sides stared into the abyss but they wanted to walk away saying they'd won. It was a terrible risk to take.

So we've been there before, and we can't dismiss the possibility that Iran is not so demented and monolithic in its foreign policy, when push comes to shove.

There is no risk-free way to live in a world where a terrorist can carry a nuke in his hip pocket. But the fact that mushroom cloud hasn't appeared over a Western city yet suggests it's a long way from happening. Western democracy is not on the brink yet and we have no cause to abandon its principles.

Or maybe you think we do. In which, by all means panic.

EB

144. God's honest truth?

Comment #80735 by Eric Blair on October 22, 2007 at 9:05 pm

A google search just gave me a bit of perspective on the Swedish proposals:

- they are proposals and not law yet, so the details remain to be seen
- religious schools are funded in part by government in Sweden
- the proposals seem mainly aimed at taking Creationism out of biology class and keeping it in religion where it belongs (religious educaton will still be allowed)
- I haven't found any reference elsewhere (a brief search) to a ban on proselytising or "teaching religion as if it were true."

EB

145. God's honest truth?

Comment #80732 by Eric Blair on October 22, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Quine wrote:

He is not fighting a battle, he is using a "consciousness raising" technique to get people to think about something they normally do not even notice. There is nothing to win that is not won by just the fact of noticing that children are being labeled without reason (or consent). It also can cause young people to ask "Why was this done to me?" which is one of the best places to start.

We seem to be saying the same thing in different words, if you read my whole post. The "labelling" may not disappear but people will understand it differently.

EB

146. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80677 by Eric Blair on October 22, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Fanusi Khiyal wrote

Firstly, we should cordon off Islam. Stop Muslim immigration, expel any Muslims that support Shariah law, seize the property - including Mosques - of any individual or group that teaches jihadism, and enforce laws against treason on the teachers. By which I mean, putting them to death. There is no real other option. Cut them loose? Imprison them so that they can use our prisons as recruiting grounds? These steps should be combined with an intensive campaign attack the ideas at the foundation of Islam. In the newspapers, on the airways, on the internet - everywhere Islam's teaching should be held up for the pitiful rubbish that they are.

...

We know that there is a truly vast number of jihadists out there - estimates of 300 million are not uncommon - and we know that they are willing to use catastrophic terror. We know that Iran is building nuclear weapons, we know that bin Laden pursued biological agents, and we know that Pakistan is one coup away from being a nuclear Taliban-state. Do you feel good with these facts in play?

Paranoia is an understandable emotional response to the sense of the inevitable such language provokes.

Reason, and the values and principles that built our societies, demand a more studied response. We must -- and we will -- respond clearly and confidently, and in ways consistent with our view of ourselves.

We must not lash out at spectres or be stampeded to take drastic actions by those who pretend to offer a special wisdom in understanding the Islam world. The world sees many agendas and forces at play, and Islam however powerful it may be is but one.

We face these challenges as we have many others, one a time, do the research and analysis, and take action. We may not have a full response for Fanusi Khiyal today, but we will tomorrow, and one we can belive in.

As always, we mustn't rush to throw away our most precious values to met someone else's agenda.

EB

147. God's honest truth?

Comment #80462 by Eric Blair on October 21, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Russell Blackford wrote:

I largely agree with the analysis by George Orwell, I mean Eric Blair. I don't like religious indoctrination, but I don't think it's the kind of thing that it's up to the state to prohibit. [...] I disagree with EB about at least one thing: I actually do think that at least some kinds of religious indoctrination are clear and serious forms of child abuse. They might not be kinds that are amenable to state prohibition, but they are nonetheless abusive, and I'm prepared to call a spade a spade on this. I'm thinking, in particular, of stories about supernatural terrors, such as Hell, to which children are often exposed in all earnest by parents.

I don't deny (and didn't in my post) that some kinds of religious indoctrination are really child abuse. The hard question, as you also suggested, is how to respond to it. I also noted that it may not be worse than many other things parents do to their kids because they can.

If we do ever decide to go down this road, we would need some empirical studies to support whatever our response might be.

(Having again seen RD's rebuttal, I have to say I have always been a bit puzzled by his strong stand against "labelling" children of religious parents. I understand his basic point but feel he's fighting an uphill battle of secondary importance. Most religious labelling of children is done by the media who would frankly reply that it is intended as a convenience and not necessarily as a description of the child's faith. At some point, once more consciousness raising has been done, most people will presumably understand that a "Catholic or Muslim child" is not mature enough to actually believe in those faith ... irrespective of what the media may call them.)

EB (appreciate the nod, Russell, to my pseudonymous doppelganger)

148. God's honest truth?

Comment #79876 by Eric Blair on October 18, 2007 at 10:49 pm

I would prefer to see how this law actually is worded and some of the debate in Sweden before I comment, but that seems unlikely, as I don't read Swedish.

Based on what I've heard, I think the Swedish government has over-reacted in response to the conundrum all western democracies have to wrestle with – what to do with Muslims who won't integrate and, in this period of our history anyway, seem to present an ongoing security risk.

I suppose it could be argued that these clear abrogations of liberal principles are justified by the seriousness of the threat they aim to counter – much in the same way national security rules have recently trumped individual rights and legal protections. However, I think the threat is exaggerated and other remedies overlooked.

I believe in completely secular public education and oppose government funding for private religious schools (actually for any private schools, religious or not). The school system is truly the best tool to integrate our diverse populations, not so much by what they teach as the fact they give the opportunity for kids of all cultures and backgrounds to rub shoulders and share key development experiences.

I also believe different religions and cultures have the right to pass on those values and sources of identity if they so choose in their own schools, which they pay for themselves.
However, these schools should still meet certain standards in order to grant recognized certificates to students, and governments should insist they teach certain courses as part of meeting these standards (national history, civics, critical thinking, science, etc. could be among these), rather than telling them what they can't teach.

Practical issues as well as those of principle would eventually undermine efforts to banish religion entirely from any schools. For starters, what would be involved in enforcing such regulations? As others suggest, religious groups will simply find ways to pass on their faith (through their churches, synagogues and mosques), and even simply ignoring the regulations in schools and calling the government's bluff.

The notion of religious instruction as child abuse is a dead end, leading to either draconian countermeasures or inconsistency. Surely parents are the worst offenders in manipulating children's minds – on a whole range of issues, from smoking and eating habits to bigotry and hypercriticism – yet what government would contemplate snatching away kids to protect them from such psychological influences?

Religions may be irrational but they are not demonstrably false (even in relation to each other built-in vagueness and allowances for interpretation make it hard to show they are mutually exclusive – in any case, such an argument highlights a paradox but has little true weight).

Finally, individual religious people and faith groups may be a force for good or ill in their communities – which can be endlessly debated.

But there is no conclusive evidence that the threat they pose to the safety and security of our societies is greater than non-believers. So laws that single them out would be unjust and discriminatory.

Moreover, such laws are not needed. Consistent and unapologetic enforcement of existing laws and reasonable constraints on freedoms is well able to contain and address such threats.

Such a renewed commitment to the principles, restrictions and freedoms already found within liberal democracy in no way implies hiding our heads in the sand – quite the opposite. It is realistic and appropriate, and prevents us from complacently accepting the erosion of these same values and principles in the midst of nativist paranoia, or the over-hasty pursuit of an elusive secular utopia.

EB

149. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79807 by Eric Blair on October 18, 2007 at 3:14 pm

On re-reading RD's essay and some of the posts here, I find myself less convinced than ever of this supposed "logical path" that religion provides, leading some good people to evil deeds.

This flawed hypothesis would be difficult to support with evidence and its logic is not water-tight either. Nor is it very scientific, as it seeks to make a rhetorical point about religion rather than explore why suicide bombers and others fanatics do what they do.

RD suggests the "path" Muslim suicide bombers (his only example) take from being normal, reasonable, good citizens to becoming evil suicide bombers is predictable. But it's not inevitable or inescapable. RD doesn't clearly make this distinction but it is important, for if the logic were inevitable then all Muslims would eventually become suicide bombers.

(He also says faith changes or, more precisely, qualifies what "good" means, whereas good for non-believers will be more or less absolute or unchanging. I think is a terribly simplistic view of how anyone, with or without faith, makes ethical decisions. But this is not my main objection.)

So RD admits by default something else must be in the equation for the logic to follow through. Unfortunately, we don't really know much about any suicide bombers, besides their apparent faith, so we have to speculate. So, the "logical path" might reasonably be expressed as:

Good person + Faith + political engagement + personal alienation + catalytic event = Evil Bomber


(This is almost certainly not complete.) Why should faith be the key predictor? Why not the political engagement or understanding of the bomber, or his personal alienation from a community (in non-Muslim countries)?

I would suggest (as another unproved hypothesis) a kind of "chemical reaction" takes place between the terrorist's political views, personal alienation and faith, resulting in a drastic "deepening" of his faith beyond the "normal" to an obsessive state where he loses empathy for others and common sense.

This could be expressed as :

Good person + Obsessive Faith/expectation of martyrdom (Normal Faith + political engagement + personal alienation) + catalytic event = Evil Bomber

One problem with this (as with RD's original hypothesis) is that the "Good person" embraces many unknowns, including the possibility of a genetic predisposition to obsess (who knows).

This also can't be a universal equation because we know some suicidal fanatics and terrorists are not religious, which would adding another, unknown, variable to the equation.

It's possible some suicide bombers already have Obsessive Faith, so they don't necessarily have to go through the psychological metamorphosis but would still need some kind of catalyst or opportunity. (But then they haven't taken RD's logical path – they're already at the end of it.)

Another variable that needs to be included somehow, along with Obsessive Faith (OF), is specific links between sacred texts and killing infidels or non-believers and the heavenly reward for doing so. RD's argument (and my variation) is predicated on such incitements being in the Koran (this may or may not be accurate).

My conclusions from this are:

- the logical path RD describes would at least require Obsessive Faith. Moving from normal, moderate faith to OF is, arguably, not a simple logical progression but a radical psychological change.

- RD's "evidence" hinges on neighbours of suicide bombers seeing them as "normal" young men and expressing surprise. One question, so far unanswered, is if these neighbours noticed any changes indicating they were moving from normal faith to Obsessive Faith. Without facts, again, all we can do is speculate, which is what both RD and I are doing.

- RD's argument may apply to Muslim extremists but to extrapolate to other religions, notably Christianity and Judaism, would require advancing other examples and an argument that the Old and New testaments are equally unequivocal in calling for violence against non-believers as the Koran is. (I'm not saying that either Christians or Jews have not killed non-believers for religious reasons but that the ties back to sacred texts are not as clear as apparently they are for Muslims and the Koran).

EB

150. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79318 by Eric Blair on October 16, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Dr. Benway wrote:

Eric Blair:
In either case, the remedy is straightforward, if not always easy. We do not need to apologize for applying the same principles and laws of liberal democracy to religious people as to anyone else.

Your blindness to the obvious problem with this approach suggests that you've never been a true believer yourself.

For the most part, believers and non-believers share the same values, such as compassion, honesty, and fairness. Believers and non-believers generally have the same level of impulse control and emotional stability. Where believers and non-believers part company is with respect to matters of fact.

If indeed it were the case that my neighbor was behaving in a manner that would likely invite God's wrath upon my community, would I not be justified in seeking some means to restrain him?

For believers and non-believers to achieve a rational meeting of the minds, both parties must agree upon basic rules of evidence. When is a proposition factually established, and when is it mere opinion or supposition? "Faith" is far too elastic a justification for any factual claim to ever be taken seriously by any reasonable community.

Moderates who defend faith are removing the option of working toward rational agreement with sincere believers. Those of us who prefer argument to force find this to be a problem. Those of us who have been believers know that the spell of "faith" as a basis for factual certainty can be broken, given time and a little less constant reinforcement from one's fellows.

I'm not sure we really disagree. I'm not proposing we try to argue rationally with believers when they violate our laws or democratic principles. We simply stop them, as we would anyone else who mutilates their daughters, tries to keep them from attending school or forces them into marriage.

These examples all relate to Islam but then I'm not really clear on what kinds of issues you're hinting at where we might be tempted to debate with religious people who are doing crazy things. Maybe you can be more concrete.

In terms of moderates defending faith, again I must ask you to be specific. I don't recall moderate Christians defending, in principle, the "faith" of the 9/11 bombers (moderate Muslims have, of course, tried to show how the bombers distorted the "true" face of Islam, which was to be expected).

To me, the difficult decisions arise not when believers' behaviour crosses the line and undermines our laws and principles as a liberal, democratic secular society, but when the behaviour only confuses or offends us.

Whatever we may feel about the irrationality and backwardness of issues such as symbolic clothes and innocuous customs, as a society that seeks harmony in the face of diversity we must pursue reasonable accommodation. Call it political correctness if you like, but it is really just common sense and "getting along with the neighbours."

This does not mean there aren't limits, that some kinds of accommodation are unreasonable. But we must decide that based on practical criteria, not just because the particular custom is based in religion.

nOrrs1 wrote:

For example, let's take a nice, sane person who also happens to believe that the Koran is true. The Koran says believers are to be rewarded, and that unbelievers should be killed. From that starting point, it's a simple logical deduction for this person to start killing.

As another example, let's take a sane, good person who believes the bible is true (and I mean takes it all as the word of God, because I know you don't believe that). The bible makes statements against homosexuality, so this otherwise good person would be against gay rights, by simple logical deduction.

In summary, if you start from incorrect facts, your logical deductions will be wrong. That's all that's being said here.

Two comments here. Your Muslim example is, to me, not logical or persuasive. As far as we know, there are millions of Muslims who believe the Koran is literally true, yet only a tiny proportion have killed unbelievers. There's more at play here than simple faith -- it take more the logic of belief to slide down this slippery slope. And we know so little about any suicide bombers that coming to definitive conclusions about their motivation is impossible.

As for Christians and homosexuality -- and I note Dawkins did not use this example – many Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin do not believe in gay-bashing or denying gays protection against discrimination. They just don't accept gay marriage (some simply balk at using the word). If this is "evil" in the sense that Dawkins uses it, it's on a lesser scale than blowing up airplanes. (Not to diminish the plight of gays but you might look for a better example to show how Dawkins' argument works for Christians.)

EB