151. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78971 by Eric Blair on October 15, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Same old same old. On both sides. Dialogue of the deaf. A puzzle.

Why would the ArchBish respond to Dawkins et al. in the first place? Does he actually think RD will say, "Oh, quite, we have misinterpreted what you believe. Sorry." I guess his flock expects him to say something vaguely comforting and what he said probably is (to them).

And do "new atheists" expect ArchBish and his ilk to say, "You're right, we've been lying to you and misrepresenting ourselves. We do believe a load of rubbish."

But this "debate" is a zero-sum game after all, so every defence or questioning of faith must be met with a rebuttal. Even if the rebuttal means nothing to the other side.

There are really only three question I'm interested in related to someone's beliefs:

Do you have any doubts about your beliefs, especially the more specific ones, or do you hold them to be true without qualification?

What actions and behaviour does your faith encourage you to pursue (what might you do differently than a non-believer)?

You seem to believe some pretty strange and even irrational things – do you have any idea why you believe these things when in many other ways you're a completely rational person?

(The last question is not rhetorical, and asked mostly out of academic and anthropological interest.)

Otherwise, who cares what they believe.

PS. How come it's always the same old "mushy" Christian moderates who challenge Dawkins -- no Muslims or Jews, or even literalist Christians?

EB

152. A Revelation

Comment #78499 by Eric Blair on October 13, 2007 at 9:31 am

"Mr. Dawkins" is common North American journalistic style. Only medical doctors are called "Dr." (Of course, many papers have dispensed entirely with honorifics.)

But I'm surprised no one objected to Lennox not being called "Dr." I presume he too holds a PhD, or doctorate.

EB

153. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

Comment #77823 by Eric Blair on October 10, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Goldy wrote :

Just so I don't appear to contradict myself across threads, yes, immigrants should integrate. But the indiginous population have to accept them as one of their own too. Nothing drives immigrants towards self poisoning enclaves than oppression and apartheid. Do others not also think that more ex-Muslim athiests would appear if they were seen as equal members of society as opposed to brown Muslim boys and girls? Certainly the BNP and its ilk would have less ammo and less effect on both immigrant and indiginous populations.
Does take 2 to tango, I know, but if 1 invites the other to dance, then dance they can.

Well put.

Freelance Cynic wrote:

Would you please stop the Quebec bashing? It always annoys me to no end when my fellow canadians indulge in it, either due to prejudice or ignorance... we should know better.

My criticism of Quebeckers isn't arbitrary -- the thread is about Quebec and I think context always helps.

I'll admit I have some bias, as an anglophone born and raised in la belle province. But je me souviens, too.

Quebec, or at least Quebecois society, has gone from being a near-feudal state in thrall to the Catholic church to a modern industrial and formally secular democracy. That's quite an achievement but to get there it's taken a strong, centralized bureaucracy guided by "social engineers." The excesses of this recommendation reflect this intellectual approach.

The Quebecois' ongoing pursuit of "sovereignty" reveals a proud nationalism with tendencies toward both self-confidence that allows them to stand alone in the world, and suspicion of "others," those who do not trace their roots to the original habitants.

This recommendation, as I said, may appeal to suspicious, nativist elements mainly in rural Quebec and so-called progressive technocrats.

(In this respect, Quebecois aren't very different from some groups in Europe, who share a similar idea of "nationalism." For their part, English-Canadians may also be suspicious of ethnic minorities, too, but because they themselves are so diverse nativist sentiments don't run too deep.

But ultimately, my feeling is the majority of Quebeckers, in their wisdom, will reject it.

EB

154. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

Comment #77617 by Eric Blair on October 9, 2007 at 10:15 pm

In the context of French-Quebec's often scarcely hidden suspicion toward ethnic minorities -- after the 1995 referendum on separation (narrowly defeated), the premier at the time blamed "the ethnic vote" -- this recommendation doesn't bode well.

Setting aside its appropriateness, in practice it would really only affect Muslim women (maybe Sikh men?) and Orthodox Jews. Both groups already have tense relations with French-Quebeckers.

(Christian -- Catholics, mainly -- might have to take their crosses from around their necks.)

The purpose of a secular society, as the article notes, is to ensure all groups are treated equally and without favour or prejudice -- not to eradicate certain or all religions.

Where religious clothing does not interfere with someone doing their job -- and in some cases the full-face niquab may do so -- then banning it is an overreaction. Banning it in the name of gender equality is ideological claptrap.

I don't think this will fly, though it will appeal to certain nativist elements in Quebec as well as some overzealous feminists.

EB

155. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77614 by Eric Blair on October 9, 2007 at 9:52 pm

The American Enterprise Institute hardly consists of "Christian extremists." It is unabashedly rightwing but that's not the same thing. It does include some (moderate) religious intellectuals -- Jewish and Christian -- but religion is not a major theme of its research or publications.

No doubt the AEI's neocons, Jews and Christians share similar feelings about Islam as Hirsi Ali, which made it a reasonable choice for her. And she owes nothing to the liberal-left, even if some feel she belongs there.

EB

156. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77569 by Eric Blair on October 9, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Those who say this discussion has little to do with Iraq or the Middle East or 9/11 are quite right. It also has little to do, believe it or not, with Muslims in our midst or dealing with diversity.

It has to do with not backing down from fascists, of whatever persuasion, who think they can force "weak-kneed" liberal democracies to cry uncle when defending a basic principle. Defending this principle -- and this individual -- may be expensive and complicated but it needs to be done, by citizens if governments won't.

The link to the larger issue of the "war with Islam" is not as direct as some say, because Islam is not monolithic. Nor is "this issue so important it trumps all other considerations."

Hitchens took that view on Iraq and now regrets it, if only because the US didn't have the wisdom or staying power he thought they did. (Plus they're wasting resources fighting the wrong enemy at the wrong time and setting a terrible precedent for resolving international "disputes.")

But that's another debate.

EB

157. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76955 by Eric Blair on October 8, 2007 at 12:11 am

Captain Underpants (Re Simon Packer's comments in general)

I don't think Simon necessarily believes in the Bible as literally true, though obviously he thinks many parts provide "deep insight in to the human condition," a view that I share.

The question is, which parts, how you separate the "wisdom" from the chaff, and what you do with such insight. Presumably, to make those ethical and rational decisions you need an underlying framework more "basic" than the Bible -- to judge where the Bible is wrong. I'm not sure Simon wants to go there...

On homosexuality: at risk of being "blasphemous," I tend to feel the anti-gay sentiment in our society, though rooted obviously in religion, has become cultural. That is, many of the biggest homophobes and bigots don't base their ugly thoughts in religion but just what they say is "natural" from their narrow culturally determined point of view. (Though of course religious folks have drawn the line at gay marriage...)

EB
(Clearly you're aware one of Eileen's pet names for George was "Captain Underpants.")

158. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76948 by Eric Blair on October 7, 2007 at 11:38 pm

I find it hard to get too hung up about the teaching of one subject, even it is evolutionary biology. But then I never took biology or evolution in high school but still managed to pick up its main points later (not in science but in history and philosophy).

As long as science is taught consistently well and students are taught the scientific method somewhere along the way the smarter ones will see that religious-based ideas just don't measure up. If religious kids are raising Creationism in science class, it's an opportunity to discuss this head-on -- in another, more appropriate class. The science teacher should be able to say, "Well, Billy, in this class we're learning about evolution. But you will have a chance to talk about your ideas about how the world began in your XYZ class next week."

I'm sure there are all kinds of limitations and problems in UK state schools across the curriculum and grade levels, just as in Canada. But teachers need support/resources to deal with controversy and diversity in the classroom without just saying that everyone's views are equally valid.

EB

159. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76310 by Eric Blair on October 5, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Regarding "respect" toward religion, it also depends where you live. In Winnipeg, which is a pretty religious city in terms of both people attending church and more literalist Christians, tends to be much more polite than Toronto, where I lived previously. (Winnipeg also has an old and perhaps more integrated Jewish community, which has affected the public discussion as well.) Montreal, where I grew up and went to university, was even less so.

But I think the new "politeness" is reserved mainly for Islam, as a relatively new ethnic community, and is a definite offshoot of political correctness and guilt about how North Americans have treated the Third World. As I said in my earlier post, it's time to re-think this approach and realize that being accepting of diversity doesn't mean tossing out basic principles.

EB

160. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76084 by Eric Blair on October 4, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Re: 128. Comment #76028 by captain underpants on October 4, 2007 at 12:21 pm

127. Comment by Simon Packer

Man was prohibited from eating of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The tree was not called the tree of knowledge. God is not against the pursuit of knowledge. Instead of walking in fellowfship with God, man chose moral autonomy.

Why on earth should anybody take these claims seriously?

Taking them seriously is the not point. As Dawkins himself suggests by saying everyone should study the Bible as literature, it may be worth knowing that the tree in the Garden of Eden represents moral awareness, not knowledge per se. So the story of Adam and Eve is not a strike against science...

EB

161. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76081 by Eric Blair on October 4, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Re: #75828 by steve99 – comments on enabling

Two trains of thought here –

It's true that moderate Christians have been guilty of unreasonable accommodation of and "respect" for otherwise intolerable religious practices and beliefs (in practice, mainly Muslim). But this is not chiefly due to their own attitude toward faith as it is to the political correctness and "guilty liberalism" toward what they see as extensions of minority, ethnic culture that they share with secular "liberals" (a lot of overlap here).

This attitude also arises, in Canada anyway, from "polite ecumenicalism" ("we should learn more about each other") and the "privacy of belief." Dawkins has helped stir the pot here and get moderates thinking about these issues. There are limits to politeness, even in my country.

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. Of course, we should do so consistently and without prejudice, and with the aim to making reasonable accommodation of diversity in the interest of building a harmonious and open society. But this does not mean we slip into relativism.

That said, I think Dawkins often shows a frustration with moderate Christians – people who may share his ideas toward reason and secularism in politics, science, education, etc. but insist on clinging to irrational beliefs. But his view that such people somehow by virtue of their faith help reinforce the faith of literalists and fundamentalists – including those of non-Christians – is an intellectual conceit, an opinion not supported by evidence.

EB

162. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75852 by Eric Blair on October 3, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Yes, it is getting tiresome.

When I debated at school, in a competitive tournament you always had to debate both sides of the main topic. It was part of the fun and intellectual exercise.

So how about Dawkins taking the theist side for this one as a change of pace? :)

EB

163. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75851 by Eric Blair on October 3, 2007 at 9:47 pm

J wrote: Now, avoiding the temptation to enter a discussion with Eric Blair about the difference between arts and sciences, and why there's room in the world for both, I'm shutting up.

I know the difference between arts and sciences, and hope the original poster of this "letter" would as well. Apologies if you missed my attempt at satire (of the original joke).

My point was that theology offers no "testable" or socially useful ideas, but neither do literary criticism, art history or philosophy.

They are all grist to the mill of a liberal arts education but don't expect them to "justify" themelves.

EB

164. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75711 by Eric Blair on October 3, 2007 at 12:19 pm

"He could have done it with even fewer words:

Dear English/Art History/Philosophy/?? department,

Make a testable claim or F**k off from my university." :)

EB

165. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75682 by Eric Blair on October 3, 2007 at 10:06 am

Bonzai said: I also don't agree with Dawkins' point that moderates enable the fundamentalists because of their insistence that faith must be respected at all cost. I think that is a gross generalization. Very often the insistence of blind respect for religion comes not from the moderate religionists but from some misguided secularists.

To which Steve99said: I am not sure that is his point. I think his point is that in our societies we tend to respect faith. It is irrelevant to the argument who insists on this; what matters is that this is what we do.

I agree with Bonzai (about the role of moderates vis-à-vis literalists, and that of misguided secularists) and disagree with Steve99 (as to Dawkins' point – I think Dawkins clearly lays some responsibility on moderates for enabling fundies, though he may criticize secularists for doing the same).

I'm also unclear on what "enabling" means, on a level of faith. To repeat, are we expected to believe that literalist Muslims, for instance, feel more confident and strong in their faith because moderate Muslims or Christians defend their "right" to their beliefs? (Perhaps Dr. Benway can explain "communal reinforcement" when he is himself again. I may be wrong, but I don't think there's a lot of ecumenical "sharing" between different sects in the Muslim community.)

On a practical level "accommodation" of religious fundamentalism is more obvious, though exactly when it becomes unhealthy is open to discussion. I would say religious practices that offend liberal democratic principles or basic humanity are clearly out of line. Supporters of "multiculturalism" and political correctness often cross the line in their determination to create an "open and tolerant society," but they have forgotten the principles that make such a society even possible. (On the other hand, these same liberal principles demand we not be arbitrary in drawing the line against diversity.)

JJ Ramsay said: (Dawkins) points out that various religions can have different bases from morality than humanism, and points out examples of extremist views leading to extreme suffering. What he does not do is show how one gets by steps from what most of us here would call decency to those extremist views. At most what he's shown is that different moral frameworks can lead to radically different results.

I heartily agree. It isn't clear why this slippery slope is necessarily slippery or sloped.

I would also find more to agree with in Dawkins's argument had he simply said religion, as one of several irrational abstract moral systems, provides a logical path to evil deeds. However, his argument does not adequately deal with what kinds of people may follow this path. He assumes or speculates based on minimal evidence that they start as "normal, decent" people, when in fact we know very little about these people and what makes them extremists, whether religious or ideological. Maybe they are psychologically inclined that way, not simply following "logic."

Finally, another fly in the ointment is when otherwise good people do "evil" things because they have determined them to be necessary. War offers many examples, like the bombing of Hiroshima, which was undoubtedly an atrocity but arguably necessary. Do we not see here good people doing evil things? Or are the actions not evil because they were necessary or seen as such?

I think, ultimately, Dawkins argument is pretty shaky, either so general as to be banal, or simple rhetoric. In either case, it is not a quasi-scientific proposition that he seeks to objectively and rationally confirm.

EB

166. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75471 by Eric Blair on October 2, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Dr. Benway wrote:

Moderates, being non-believers on some level, are unlikely to take their religion completely seriously, especially their more unpleasant scriptures. However they defend faith, and this defense provides a sense of communal reinforcement for more literal-minded believers. When non-believers challenge faith as a basis for anything, the moderates throw stones at them and thus empower the fundies further.

So Dawkins is saying fundies need moderates to feel good about their faith? Not sure how that works or what evidence there would be to support that opinion.

And, yes, "some" moderate (Christians) throw stones at atheists, though I think it's as much out of vanity and a sense of rising to a challenge that a conviction of truly being threatened. Most moderates, of course, ignore atheists, as do almost all Muslims and Jews (not many of either post on this site).

Liveliest Crib wrote:

Dawkins is not arguing that the average religious moderate individual might one day suddenly commit murder or another atrocity. He is arguing that religion and faith, by their nature, will lead some people, some members of a population wherein a religion is prevalent, to justify atrocities based on that prevalent religion. Moreover, he argues, if one accepts the premises of those members' religion, their justifications will be logically valid.

Isn't this argument called a post priori or something? Certainly, many Muslim terrorist groups have used religion to justify their acts, so there's probably some internal logic to it. On the other hand, moderate Muslims (who, let's recall, are offering help and succor to the terrorists by continuing to believe in Allah) deny there is any justification found in the Koran for violence against non-believers. Not knowing much about the Koran – wouldn't want to study theology, after all – the point is moot.

continued... Unless I am misunderstanding the arguments of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al, none of them discount politics or nationalism or even poverty as influential variables altogether. Instead, they argue that religious belief is also one of the variables influencing people to commit atrocities, a variable discounted by those who respect such belief, and a variable far more powerful than politics, nationalism or poverty.
Somehow a debate has emerged about whether atrocities like 9/11 were committed because of politics or because of politics/nationalism/poverty. This perceived, and false, dilemma rather spectacularly misses the point we so called new atheists make. Although all of those factors are in the mix, if we removed either politics or nationalism or poverty from the equation, religious belief is powerful enough to cloud the moral sense of otherwise sensible people, and perpetuate the atrocities endlessly. There is simply no reasoning with someone who truly believes that his actions are ordained by an all-knowing deity. On the other hand, remove the religious belief from the equation, and the politics, nationalism or poverty become far less potent variables.

I'm not aware of any serious scholar of the Middle East or other religious hot-spots who discounts the role of religion. Its relative importance is another matter, however. Economic determinists, who when I went to school three decades ago were on the rise, would say the poverty and changing economic interests have rekindled religious extremism.
I support the view that the religious aspect is the most complex and intractable factor, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Talk about "removing" the religious factor is of course purely hypothetical.

continued Perhaps you have not read Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens closely enough. None has a problem applying their arguments to Israel or Judaism. To the extent that Israel acts as any sovereign nation, and is not influenced by religion, they acknowledge it. To the extent that there are fundamentalist Jewish people, Israeli or not, committing atrocities in the name of their faith, they acknowledge that as well.

But those Jewish atrocities are certainly not at our fingertips, are they? Maybe the key to when and why people commit such atrocities is less to do with faith alone as to when faith is fully integrated within a power structure, as in the Catholic church and the power wielded by mullahs.

This observation would also apply to secular (I won't say atheist for fear of setting off a round of nasty replies) ideologies such as Stalinism and Nazism, which as we know contributed more than their share of atrocities. I am not chalking these up on the "atheist" side of the ledger but just note that they were not primarily religious in motivation.

All this to say that while humanism may be relatively benign in this ethical balance – not having any power helps – Dawkins might need to include other abstract, irrational moral systems in his argument besides religion.

EB

167. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75371 by Eric Blair on October 2, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Dawkins is implying that average every-day moderate believers might, by virtue of the fact they believe in something irrational, some day do something akin to what the 9/11 terrorists did (I'm assuming he means on a much smaller scale and it may not actually involve killing people but it would be evil nonetheless).

He has simply not demonstrated this. His argument, as I said, applies to Muslim terrorists and even then it assumes the pivotal role of religion in their motivaton (I share his assumption but recognize it is an assumption).

We might also distinguish between those who carry out such things, including other suicide bombers, and those who encourage and train the bombers, and plan the events. There's likely a strong overlay of politics motivating the planners, as well as faith.

Setting aside atrocities by Christians for now, what about those by Jews (besides in biblical times, which may not be true anyway)?

Atrocities by Israel don't count as they can just as easily be ascribed to callous enforcement of the will of a security-oriented state, or even to simple nationalism. They're not any less wrong, just have a motivation that's not primarily religious.

If Dawkins wants his argument to hold, it should apply to Judaism, too.

EB

168. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75348 by Eric Blair on October 2, 2007 at 11:32 am

I have several problems with Dawkins' argument:

1 – Why doesn't he call a spade a spade and say Islam contains a logical path leading directly to evil deeds. That's his example, and he benefits from the emotive response of readers by referring to the iconic event of our time. I know there are examples from Christianity and Judaism, but they tend to water down the effect by being long past (Crusades, Inquisition), muddied by politics (Northern Ireland, Israeli extremist settlers), or isolated and involving less "normal" individuals (abortion clinic bombings). They also raise doubts about the overall application of the argument, too – it's simply invalid to apply these observations mutatis mutandis to other religions without elaboration.

2 -- Dawkins' paradigm (shared by Harris, Hitchens et al.), that the common irrational bases of religions are more important that their differences, is simply a particular view of religion, an opinion. Dawkins has suggested, for instance, that moderate Muslims believe more or less the same thing as fundamentalists – or that where they differ is a matter of convenience or habit or arbitrary cherry-picking. This demands more of a supporting argument than simply saying that once you believe anything that's not supported by evidence the details don't matter. This objection is even more valid when Dawkins tries to link Christians and Jews, of whatever internal stripe, to the worst of Islam. And thus, as in my first objection, his argument really only relates to certain sects of Islam.

3 – Judging the 9/11 terrorists as "normal, cricket-playing" young men is based on speculation and inference. We actually know little about the psyches of these men.

4 – We have no reason to assume most atheists are humanists, so he should restrict his contrast to believers to the latter. Many atheists have in the past, and some still do, define "good" by different standards than simply improving people's welfare and avoidance of human suffering, etc.

5 – This argument would apply equally to other abstract, inflexible standards or overarching objectives such as communism, fascism, nationalism and tribalism – even "family-ism" if that's an appropriate term. (A person defending his family or reacting to an attack may see good and evil in quite different terms from those based in Dawkins' humanist standard, regardless of their individual beliefs or lack of them.) Sam Harris's thoughtful defense of the limited use of torture in extreme situations suggests Dawkins may be setting up a Pollyanna world for humanists to live in.

6 - So some religious people who normally act in moral ways (by Dawkins' standards) may in some circumstances break from those standards and do things Dawkins (and the rest of us) consider evil. Wel, so may many humanists.

And, given the right the circumstances, it would be the rare human being who wouldn't do so. Dawkins might say, Well, we would do so only with great reluctance. The same could be said of many believers -- albeit, not all, as we've seen in 9/11 and elsewhere.

So, at the end of it all, what is the difference here? the degree of enthusiasm with which someone commits horrible if necessary acts? Surely this would depend as much on personality and one's life experience as on one's faith or lack of it.

This argument seems now quite banal and obvious.

EB

169. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #75135 by Eric Blair on October 1, 2007 at 10:27 pm

Reasonable people agree that religion can be, and has been, a force for both good and evil. So have all social forces. But I don't think you'll ever get agreement on the "final tally," whether ultimately it's been a good thing or bad thing, despite Dawkins, Hitchens et al.

Religion is too diverse and ever-changing across the world and across the centuries, and too tightly integrated with other political and social forces, for anyone to come up with final judgment that everyone will agree with.

People will reject religion, or not, based other reasons, not a body count.

EB

170. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75131 by Eric Blair on October 1, 2007 at 10:07 pm

I think we have to accept Dawkins' point about theology having no content as mainly rhetorical. It is a valid argument but it's hardly incontestable. It also leads, as we've seen, to rather pointless discussion of appropriate nomenclature.

Renaming psychology may be the just the beginning. It's been argued that history, my old field of study, will be superseded by the "true" social sciences. History is after all simply the the study of the past, and we can look at the past through various lenses -- political science, sociology, economics, anthropology, literature, even science.

Or you can (should?) study history (and literature) as a precursor to studying any social "science" at graduate school, as one of my profs believed. I would include "theology" as part of history, or at least the amount of it I would want to study.

In my Medieval Philosophy class, we basically studied theology because that was what philosophy was then -- developing and applying quasi-rational models to explain religion and God. Whether one believed or not never came up. The course was about understanding the texts and their role in the ongoing development of European thought. (Can't say I enjoyed it, though ... dull, dull, dull.)

Glad to see someone mentioned Classics (also dull). Why isn't Classics separated into Dead Languages and Ancient History? Because it used to be seen as fundamental to "proper education." No longer...

The point is that no one is forced to study theology, any more than they are forced to study Marxism (we all know "dialectical materialism" as an agent in history is an unproved hypothesis.) But that doesn't mean those who want to study it -- for whatever reason -- can't do so.

EB

171. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75068 by Eric Blair on October 1, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Surely theology (perhaps not at this particular college but in general) is the study of texts (the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc.).

These texts may be about God but are written by people. So are subsequent related works by so-called saints and scholars. These make up the body of what theologians study, presumably – that is, they discuss, even debate, what others have written.

Arguably, theology could be regrouped as a sub-set of anthropology, literature, philosophy or history. But I don't see that it necessarily fails to qualify as an academic subject because the focus of its attention doesn't exist. (In fact, I would think they don't just study God per se but the implications of texts for dogma and behaviour, both of which exist – as we all too well know.)

One reason to study theology – that is, religious dogma and behaviour – is precisely to better understand its political and social implications (not that many theologians study for this reason but they are nonetheless "experts" who may be able to provide answers to such questions).

For example, there is ongoing debate about the role of violence and "holy war" in Islam – is this theme a minority aberration or a core tenet? It's all very well to say, "It doesn't matter, since all of the Koran and all Islamic teachings are nonsense because there is no being known as Allah." On the other hand, it may be helpful to understand how and why Muslims think and respond the way they do.

We could apply a similar rationale to Christianity and Judaism. And if people who spend their lives studying this stuff want to call themselves "theologians," who cares?

I'm also surprised that Dawkins, knowing academic politics as he surely does, would want to open this can of worms (not to say Diet of Wurms). He has bigger fish to fry.

EB

172. Keeping the faith at school

Comment #73372 by Eric Blair on September 24, 2007 at 10:16 pm

At risk of sounding complacent, I suggest this school is pretty mild. It sounds like some Christian schools in Winnipeg, which are non-denominationally Protestant. All that means is they don't actually teach dogma, or at least not until high school when they've gotten rid of most of the non-core "interlopers" (these schools tend to be cheaper than other private schools, so some parents send their kids just to get that "private school" discipline).

This is in contrast to Catholic schools that teach catechism from a young age, and of course Muslim and Jewish schools that don't teach much else besides religion. But then the latter two don't often let the media in to see what they're doing.

EB

173. Root and Branch

Comment #73367 by Eric Blair on September 24, 2007 at 10:01 pm

Quine wrote:

Bacteria, which don't have sex, probably pass genetic material from one to another, quite indifferent to who is descended from whom--from one species of bacterium to another.

This is either gramatically malformed or informationally incorrect. Had it said, "Bacteria, that don't have sex, ..." it would be fine, because some bacteria do not have sex. However, the sentence as written states that no bacteria have sex, which is incorrect.

I just had to intervene here before a grammatical atrocity was left uncorrrected in the name of scientific accuracy. If Quine is correct about bacteria, then the sentence should be "Bacteria that don't have sex [no commas] ..."

EB

174. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73223 by Eric Blair on September 24, 2007 at 1:53 pm

I think moderates should just "get over it." Atheists are not a true threat to them – as long as both sides still believe in the principles of liberal democracy and civil discourse – and when push comes to shove on the true issues most atheists will join with moderates, however uncomfortably.

Dawkins saying, "Yes, evolution is incompatible with Christianity and leads ultimately to atheism" will not suddenly push all fundies into the Creationist camp (if they're not already there). And if a few schools start teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design alongside evolution, or even stop teaching evolution – so what? Maybe this will wake the greater public up. Pretending faith-based pseudo-science is true science is so obviously untenable that students themselves will see the light.

To me, the case of Christopher Hitchers' support of the invasion of Iraq shows that most of these issues that might divide atheists and believers will split instead on classic political lines. And they will be resolved on those lines as well. In Hitchens' case, I think he has let his strong antipathy to fundamentalist religion, and Islam in particular, cloud his political judgment about the motives and reliability of his allies (Bush and co.) But then his political sense has not always been the best …

As for complaints about Dawkins from moderate Christians: if you don't like his style, stop debating him. Your view of the world is so different from his you have nothing to gain. He's not going to suddenly be swayed by a "sophisticated" explication of your faith or touched by a personal metaphor that gets you through the day. Stop it already.

If you want to engage Dawkins or other atheists, stick to concrete issues in the real world where you might share something in common.

EB

175. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #72542 by Eric Blair on September 21, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Jimbob, I'm not sure how much of your post is you and how much the RC magazine. But …

"Post-pubescent boys" may change the perpetrator from pedophile to rapist or sexual manipulator – depending on the victim's actual age -- but the effect is the same. Priests and other church leaders are using their position of authority to gratify themselves. Let's not be complacent about this.

I've always had problems with RD's equation of parents instilling religion in their kids with child abuse.

How many cases might you actually show where parents' actions hurt a child in a measurable way? If it's just a rhetorical accusation, it's pointless hyperbole that serves only to trivialize real child abuse.

Typical parents "teach" all kinds of things to their children that someone might decide should be called child abuse, from to smoking and drinking, to bad driving habits and bigotry.

The answer is to try to make up for these in the education system, not demonize parents.

EB

176. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71712 by Eric Blair on September 19, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Here's a link to provide a bit of perspective, without defending the RCs. There's some controversy about the vaccine itself and concern that, if provided without education, some kids may see it as protection against any STD. (Not that that was the primary concern of the anti-vaccine trustees).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070914.whpv15/BNStory/National/


EB

177. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70251 by Eric Blair on September 14, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Janus wrote:


Except that nothing is being done to curtail the study of religion. For fuck's sake, promoting the study of religion is the whole theme of Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell. And it certainly isn't true that the "new" atheists see nothing of value in religious morality. All Haidt has been able to come up with to support the main point of the second half of his article is, what, one sentence from Dennett (which might be nothing more than a mistake on his part), Dawkins' hypothesis about religion being a misfiring of evolutionary adaptation (which might very well be true), and one or two other minor anecdotes.

That's very flimsy evidence, to say the least.

As for Harris' article, I agree that he misses the point, but he can't entirely be blamed for this. Throughout his article's second half, Haidt constantly lets out hints that he is a religious appeaser. He should have stuck to his main point instead of going off on these tangents.

I agree about the tangents. Not sure what a "religious appeaser" is.

Dennett is softer on religion than Dawkins or Harris, and his aim is ostensibly only to have religion studied "like any other subject." However, since he doesn't seem to admit that religion is already studied appropriately, he must mean something else. Perhaps, borrowing a phrase from Steve99 (below), he means it should be subject to the "harsh rigour of science."

I return to what I said previously. We should approach religion as an anthropologist does, to describe it as objectively as possible and fit it into a broader canvas of sociology, political science and psychology. From an academic point of view, atheists judging religious dogma and believers (in a formal way) as "nonsense," "not based on evidence" or "morally repulsive" is no better than Catholic missionaries dismissing the ceremonies of native people as "pagan rituals."

Does this mean "respecting" the worst aspects of religion (or any aspects)? Respect has nothing to do with it.

Depending what your objective is, you can look at this in two ways. Either you're mainly interested in explaining how people interact and the nature of moral "systems" – in which case you really do need to study religion in a detached way. Or you have determined religion is a blight on the body of mankind and needs to be eradicated (through education and persuasion), then you need to "know thy enemy" – and understand the role it plays so you can better replace it with something else.

(Having said all this, I remain skeptical of the ability of social sciences and psychology – and even evolutionary biology – to fully explain religion. Such explanations may never be completely satisfactory or "provable." This isn't because religion is "true," just a reflection of our inability to account for it. It is after all a highly weird phenomenon.)

Steve99 writes:

Dawkins writes primarily about the scientific aspects of atheism. Mackie and Martin write as philosophers. You may prefer the gentle playing with words of philosophers to the harsh rigour of science, but that has nothing to do with the truth or quality of the arguments.

Haidt's point, again: readers may assume Dawkins applies the "harsh rigour of science" when in fact he often is merely stating opinions. TGD is after all a polemic, not a scientific work, and his harsher words reflect his particular interest and approach (ie, refusing to admit irrational thought is in some way valid or worthy of discussion).

Finally, Harris asks why shouldn't atheists regard the repulsive aspects of religion with contempt? No reason at all. However, Haidt just asks us to recognize that doing so is "unscientific."

To me, that isn't a problem. I do what I feel is right and hold opinions based on a combination of reason and emotion. Whether it's scientific or not is irrelevant.

EB

178. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70045 by Eric Blair on September 13, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Getting back, yet again, to Haidt's article, he is simply reminding us that the basic dispute between the New Atheists and believers (he says fundamentalists but he may be wrong -- not a lot of response coming from them) is over morality -- differing opinions -- not science.

So it is with Sam Harris's point about the Aztecs having no wisdom to pass on becasue they practised human sacrifice and Dr. Benway's 1/10 "bad things" trumping the 9/10 good or innocuous things.

Haidt is saying it's possible we could learn something from the Aztecs, despite their practices, and, by implication, it's still valuable to know what those other 9 things are.

In any case, if we do make these decisions to curtail any study or interest in the "value" religion might have in society, we should at least recognize this is a "moralist" judgment -- a emotion-based opinion -- and not based in science (and the fact believers make similar emotion-based judgments all the time doesn't make our judgments more "scientific.")

EB

179. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69993 by Eric Blair on September 13, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I think that Haidt's main point, that Dawkins, Harris et al., do not look at the phenomenon of religion very scientifically, is a valid and important one.

Unfortunately, his hopeful conclusion about taking wisdom from all groups is as "moralist" as he accuses the New Atheists of being, and borders on silly relativism. It was an easy target for Harris but really a diversion.

To advance our understanding of both psychology and communal politics we need to approach the fact of religious people/communities today as an anthropologist would. That means with the intention of trying to describe rather than simply judge, as someone else said.

We may judge as well, as is our wont, but there's still a need to fit the "anomaly" of religion into our overall understanding of how human interact and why, not to mention evolution in particular.

Haidt's point about it being hard to look for wisdom in a different view once hostilities have started certainly rings true in light of most comments here.

EB

180. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69181 by Eric Blair on September 9, 2007 at 10:52 pm

This is cute and exquisitely carried off. It is of course satire, but could be seen also as irony (in its entirety) in that its true intended criticism is the opposite -- or something dramatically different -- from what it literally addresses.

Here, actually, is where JJ Ramsey may have a point. Does the author see Fascism as the opposite or even something dramatically different from religion? I suspect not. Yes, it's true that Fascism has few admirers and thus few obvious "good" points to quibble over, so it's a useful and entertaining way to show how the response of theists to Dawkins appears to atheists.

But most believers would not find this funny because they don't accept the new paradigm Dawkins et al. have presented. Which is, that religion qua region is basically all cut from the same irrational cloth. Distinctions, they say, miss the point: there is no evidence for any of it and one believer's dogma is as silly as the next because it just ain't true.

This in fact highlights why true debate is almost impossible between atheists and theists.

Atheists see religion (or at least the three big ones) as essentially monolithic in its key points, and most notably its bad points. Believers, not surprisingly, see mainly the differences, as these distinctions are what they live by.

How can you debate when you can't agree on the terms? Almost all the debates we've seen on this site have dissolved into the two sides launching lines of argument that never meet, side disputes or name-calling because of this basic failing.

Perhaps the next debate can try to resolve this issue before it starts. Might make for less predictable results.

EB

181. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68854 by Eric Blair on September 9, 2007 at 12:11 am

Aitchkay wrote:

Eric Blair wrote
You tell them, and other religions, where their faith-based practices cross the line
The religious *are* told - frequently - but they don't seem to get the message. Afterall, they believe they have a mandate from god.

I don't think the problem is about our (alleged) failure to fully embrace diversity: being tolerant should not extend to tolerating bigotry, hatred and dogma.

I too believe "being tolerant should not extend to tolerating bigotry, hatred and dogma," as I said in my post.

But it's sticking our heads in the sand to say dealing with diversity isn't a problem. It's probably one of the most critical and difficult issues of our time, even without 9/11 tossing an ominous wrench into the works.

Part of the solution, I believe, will entail helping those who make up the new cultural groups, for whom religion is an inseparable part of their culture, feel part of the mainstream. Alienation breeds bitterness, fear and extremists who are ripe for the picking by religious zealots.

I'm not just talking about Muslims -- the too obvious targets -- but all groups whose religious or cultural values set them apart from the majority. That includes Bible-belt Christians, and self-isolating groups like Seventh Day Adventists and ultra-Orthodox Jews (though these present a significant challenge). The focus should be on convincing the grassroots -- the people -- not necessarily the leaders of their institutions that a secular society actually offers them benefits.

The best way to do this of course is through common, integrated, secular education. And that's why separating schools and religion is a crucial element in the old maxim of separating church and state. But while the lever of public funding can be mighty effective, it doesn't address all faiths. And outlawing faith-based schools undercuts the liberal democratic principles we're trying to support.

So it ain't goin to be easy, and we need the support of people from a broad range of backgrounds. We also need true commitment to both sides of the endeavour.

EB

182. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68619 by Eric Blair on September 7, 2007 at 10:55 pm

As I have said elsewhere, I wonder what the point of such "debates" is. Or the response here. To affirm that We won, They lost. Again, the point is?

No one bothered to respond to the following two paragraphs that to me expressed her most basic concerns:

But does Dawkins' approach advance human understanding? Does polemic increase our capacity to understand people who are very different from ourselves? Because it seems to me that this is the most urgent challenge facing every public intellectual today. We live in a crowded planet and bump into diversity in a way that no previous generation have ever done to the same extent: we have to increase our imaginations to grasp the enormous variety of human experience. Narrow certainties - wherever they come from - have unprecedented capacity to generate destruction.

There's a fascinating debate to be had between atheists and people of faith and, often, they can find the gulf between them is not nearly as wide or unbridgeable as is often suggested. Even when there is a gulf, both sides can find the process helpful in clarifying their positions - Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan's exchange for example. What I find hard to forgive of Dawkins is that he's led his huge army of admirers in the opposite direction, away from thoughtful engagement and towards a dangerous contemptuous arrogance.

All of our nations are facing the dilemma of accommodating cultural and racial diversity, which also includes religious diversity, without compromising the democratic principles we hold dear.

You don't achieve this balance by telling Muslims, say, that we will allow them to apply Sharia law and keep their daughters from going to school. But nor do you do so by saying, "You're welcome here but you should really stop being Muslim." Or, "We find your religion silly."

You tell them, and other religions, where their faith-based practices cross the line, in our liberal, secular society. Otherwise, we encourage them – sincerely – to join the mainstream, to express and share their traditions, even though we recognize that over time such sharing will change what the rest of us are.

How does this relate to Bunting's article? This ongoing balancing act is extremely tough, both intellectually and politically. It is not a "soft" approach, about simply "respecting" everyone. Nor is it about forced integration. And many people will fight such "reasonable accommodation," from those who make up the new "diversities" to those who see themselves as "true patriots."

The message to religious zealots, from all quarters, is that they are not going to dominate our society, nor will they be permitted to oppress their own people in segregated isolation. But neither will others be allowed to persecute, oppress or discriminate against them. We must work to convince them that their best interest really does lie in contributing to building a respectful secular society based on liberal democratic principles.

Dawkins may not see himself as having a role in this re-shaping of our world, but he does regardless because he is an influential thinker – more so after publishing The God Delusion and bringing the cause of atheism to the fore.

Early on, debating contrary ideas about religion can illuminate and clarify but sooner or later, especially on a topic so sensitive and personal to so many people, the public discourse needs to move to engagement and seeking areas of agreement, not difference.

Bunting suggests Dawkins' approach is not helpful in moving in this direction. She may or may not be right about Dawkins, but the response here to her article suggests she has a point.

EB

183. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68592 by Eric Blair on September 7, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Eric Blair: I'm not sure suggestions of wilful mendacity help matters. (Then again, I'm not sure where any of these public debates lead...)

Richard Morgan wrote:

Really?

Oh dear.
OK - public debate is a vital part of any democracy, enabling the airing of conflicting ideas/ideologies, usually allowing people to form intelligent opinions after having seen both sides of the case. That is the theory, anyway.(Could somebody say it better for me please, my grasp of the English language is not what it was, sniff. Dr Benway? Russell Blackford? even pewkatchoo?)

I'm not questioning debate in general but these debates. What exactly is "the case"? That God exists? That religion is bad?

Do they actually change anyone's position? More likely, we go away just more entrenched in our previous position and bearing a little more animosity toward the other side. Maybe "better prepared" for our own "debates" which likewise don't change minds.

Sorry, I may be cynical but I sometimes wonder about the point of debating whether John Cornwell or some other willing dupe is a fool for believing what they believe. Or, rather, the particular set of arguments they put forward today are silly.

EB

184. Creationism raised as Ont. election issue

Comment #68552 by Eric Blair on September 7, 2007 at 3:10 pm

As anyone who has lived in Ontario can tell you, the contradiction between public money going to separate schools but not other faith-based schools is a real can of worms but sooner or later it has to be dealt with -- but probably later. The best solution is to merge the RC system with the public system but that won't be a slam-dunk.

Separate schools in Ontario (and the former "Protestant" schools in Quebec) were legally protected as minority institutions (French and English, respectively) in our founding British North America Act in 1867. That act was superseded by our own constitution in 1982 but no one has dared apply logic to the situation in Ontario. (The nominally Protestant system in Quebec was transformed into an English system in the 1980s that includes Catholics alongside everyone else.)

One problem is the separate system in Ontario no longer represents just French people (in fact, very few French-Canadians) and is almost as big as the public system. It has its own tax base (taxpayers choose which system they want to pay school taxes to), along with govt grants, and it represents millions of dollars in capital and human investment.

Many people see it as better academically than the public system, so it attracts non-RCs. However, it still retains elements of RC instruction and "values" to the extent that some schools will not hire non-RC teachers (despite laws against such discrimination).

I don't think the people of Ontario want to fund other faith-based schools -- which is why Tory is going against the grain here -- but they don't want to take on the task of "dis-establishing" the separate system, either. They'll just let this issue die, and Tory and his party with it.

EB

185. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68335 by Eric Blair on September 6, 2007 at 10:11 pm

RD is no doubt quite justified in his anger but I'm surprised he's surprised. RD is after all an influential figure and his book tells believers they are out of their heads. Many don't like being told that. (Let's face it, The God Delusion does not really lay the groundwork for a "respectful" discussion and Cornwell is just the latest to get his back up.)

I'm not sure suggestions of wilful mendacity help matters. (Then again, I'm not sure where any of these public debates lead...)

EB

186. The importance of doubt

Comment #67804 by Eric Blair on September 4, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Further to my first post, I wasn't suggesting RD should lie about his opinions. However, he might put them in context and be guided in his response by the situation.

Fundamentalists want him to confirm their worst fears that teaching evolution in schools will tend to undermine Christianity. So they will ask if he believes this. He can reply honestly, with some perspective, along the lines of: "I see evolutionary theory as incompatible with Christian beliefs. Some other scientists, and many Christians, disagree with me. What's important to me is that evolution is based on scientific evidence, while explanations of the universe based on religious beliefs are not." Then let the believers sort out what that means for them.

Another point that Dawkins doesn't seem to accept is that moderate Christians generally belong to the less dogmatic churches and thus have an interest in promoting public secularism, as they recognize not to do so invites the more dogmatic faiths -- notably literalist Protestant Christians, conservative Catholics and of course Muslims -- to try to impose their will on the public in one way or another.

EB

187. This human's life, decoded

Comment #67802 by Eric Blair on September 4, 2007 at 9:29 pm

I would go further than Bonzai and say that psychology, evolutionary or otherwise, is still a pseudo-science. It may "harden" in time but has a ways to go in terms of applying scientific principles.

Ask your local HMO whether they prefer to pay for hard science (psychiatry, ie drugs) or soft science (psycho-therapy). Unfair comparison, I know, but it's down the same road ...

EB

188. The importance of doubt

Comment #67487 by Eric Blair on September 3, 2007 at 3:15 pm

I'm heartened to see we agree about the political stuff, which is really all the matters. (I don't take such agreement for granted.)

Being open to (subject to?) doubt and ambiguity is part of being intellectually awake. So Cornwell is asking us to accept that moderate Christians are intellectually awake, in a way that fundamentalists are not.

If seeing moderates' views as absurd doesn't impede getting along in the political arena, then it's unimportant. (Though it does form an obstacle if one is curious enough to want to understand why they believe such stuff, which I think RD might want to, given his profession.)

EB

189. The importance of doubt

Comment #67445 by Eric Blair on September 3, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Politics, whether it means keeping Creationism out of schools or finding reasonable, effective responses to militant Islam, is still -- as you know -- the art of the possible. If that means some level of "deception," so be it.

Political action requires allies, especially when you're in the minority (as atheists surely are). You take what you get, and try to hide your contempt.

Compromise sometimes means getting dirty. Not everyone can tolerate this. But barking from the sidelines at those who are trying to balance social harmony -- an important principle arising from the Enlightment -- with the need to protect ourselves is of little help.

(I am happy to read that doubt and ambiguity do not intrude on your life, based presumably on knowledge of certitude.)

EB

190. In God we doubt

Comment #67442 by Eric Blair on September 3, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Yet again many here have found an argument "for religion" where none is intended.

This is another personal confession from a "fallen" believer who sees his lack of belief as not necessarily a good thing -- especially since it doesn't comfort him as his faith once did, apparently.

It's basically a plea for understanding, for what he is now now and the believer he once was, and, more important, for the many believers like him for whom doubt and ambivalence are key to their response to dogma.

"What a fuckwit" shows that once again an attempt to build a bridge across an apparently widening intellectual chasm has been contemptously rebuffed.

EB

191. The importance of doubt

Comment #67238 by Eric Blair on September 2, 2007 at 10:39 pm

I am surprised so many here have glossed over Cornwell's main point. He is saying Dawkins' refusal to understand or "respect" religious moderates – and Christian moderates especially – undermines the social consensus needed to deal with the real threat posed by religious extremists.

RD has admitted he is not especially politically astute, and that his dedication to logic and science may often eclipse his willingness to compromise for the sake of a practical objective (for example, he won't downplay his view that evolution is incompatible with any form of Christianity, even though he knows this doesn't help moderate Christians fighting Bible-thumpers trying to bring Creationism into schools).

Of course, RD can think and say what he wants, like anyone else. But he has become, whether he likes it or not, a symbolic figure representing atheists and even science itself. He's also among a broad group of intellectual leaders who people in Britain and North America look to for guidance and wisdom on building a harmonious secular society that can deal with threats like religious extremism, from within and without.

In this context, RD's attitude toward moderate Christians is important and serves as a model to others. Hence Cornwell's article.

Cornwell says doubt and ambiguity about dogma are ongoing realities for many moderate Christians – and even some supposed hard-line believers. This is not presented (in my view) as an argument for the validity or value of Christianity, but simply to say that these mainstream Christians are for the most part from the same intellectual tradition as Dawkins – post-Enlightenment rationalism.

Because of this, they are often hard-pressed to explain exactly what they believe and why, even to themselves. But, Cornwell says, this doesn't stop them from believing (some of the time, anyway) and questioning.

Moreover, he suggests, they are as resistant to unthinking dogmatism in politics and the public arena, and as supportive of public secularism as … well, as atheists like Dawkins. In a word, they are natural allies in present battles against religious extremism, not "fellow travellers" with the enemy.

But, rather than accept this, RD tars all believers with the same brush, seeing such distinctions as ultimately trivial.

Here I think Dawkins has let an opinion, albeit an educated one, take on the weight of near cientific theory. While he waffles on his attitude toward individual moderate believers, often allowing that many are good if misguided folk, his general abstract view is less accepting: he says the "moderate" faith of the many provides justification and "tolerance" of the extreme or literalist faith of the few.

In some way it seems he believes – as some have put it in this site – moderate Christians are responsible not only for the extremism of their Bible Belt co-religionists but for that of Muslim terrorists as well. By refusing to abandon their own "harmless" irrationalism, they leave the door open for irrationalism that is deadly.

To me, this is simply an argument, an opinion that has no particular evidence or logic. In the end, it's a prejudice based on disdain that atheists like Dawkins need to reconsider in view of its implications for social relations in a world that needs understanding and acceptance of reasonable compromise as much as rigid commitment to abstract truth.

EB

192. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #64127 by Eric Blair on August 17, 2007 at 11:34 pm

This is probably a bit off topic but I'm wondering whether there is a way to construct "outer circles of 'qualified' knowledge" to deal with things like "judgment" or "wisdom" (basically informed opinion) where there is little or no verifiable evidence to support it.

For example, we can "know" very little about social and political history. History presents us with a few verifiable facts surrounded by multiple hypotheses, not even true theories in the scientific sense.

Yet we (humans) routinely make judgments and assume we can "learn from the past" every day on important and concrete things.

To give a timely example, for a while it was commonplace to argue that George Bush should have learned from Vietnam that the appetite of American for a sustained war was limited, and so decide not to invade Iraq.

Vietnam serves as an analogy but whether it is the "wrong" or "right" analogy can be debated, with some expectation that a consensus is possible -- even though it is not in any true way provable.

The same point can be made by going back to the writings of de Toqueville who said that "democratic" armies (meaning Americans) required a fuller and sustained moral purpose or appeal to self-interest to remain committed to war -- or words to that effect -- than did "aristocratic" armies. (My recollection may be off a bit but it doesn't affect my point).

So, whether recalling de Toqueville or Vietnam or FDR's "political" wisdom in being reluctant to commit the US to war before Pearl Harbour, Bush might have decided not to invade Iraq based on .... what? Opinion? Educated guesses that the American people were pyschologically the same in 2003 as in 1968 or 1940?

This is how people think and make decisions every day ("learning from history" is just one example), yet it's all beyond the pale of science and, in the case of arguments from history, never will be subject to application of the scientific method.

So, as data-acquiring machines, how do we suddenly turn around and form an "opinion" that is based not on "facts" but other opinions and hypotheses? Is not "wisdom" totally irrational and as silly as appealing for divine guidance? How do our brains even come to these conclusions?

Any thoughts? Am I missing the point here?

EB

193. God not out of the question for most Canadians

Comment #63939 by Eric Blair on August 16, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Came in on this one late but as a Canadian couldn't resist.

I never took biology in high school (early '70s) but somehow came to understand evolution. On the other hand lots of religious people I know don't see any contradiction between evolution and more literal Christianity -- or they just don't think about it.

That's one problem with a poll like this -- there are no follow up questions, like "So if the world is only 10,000 years old I guess you think carbon-dating that goes back millions of years is nonsense?"

Part of the explanation is that Canadians, being nothing if not polite, never question each others' religion or lack of it, so don't discuss such things.

EB

194. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63715 by Eric Blair on August 15, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Not sure where chiropractic fits in this scheme of things, ie, science or superstition. All I can say it's worked for me for 25 years.

The reason why many New Age treatments are so popular is because (a) traditional medicine doesn't have a remedy for many ailments and (b) we really want and expect a remedy.

Many ailments whose "real" causes overlap with stress or psychosomatic factors befuddle MDs, so desperate patients look elsewhere -- usually urged on by a friend who says "it worked for them."

I know many chiropractors are quacks and charlatans, and demand endless treatments and do questionable things like treat young children. And I have investigated what traditional treatments offer (which has been helpful), and look for things I can do to "manage" back problems myself.

But still, on occasion,when push comes to "crack" I visit my quack.

EB

195. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63542 by Eric Blair on August 14, 2007 at 6:20 pm

It's worth noting that one often-unnoticed result of the US constitutional separation of church and state is that the state doesn't control the church either, as, say, the state at one time did in England. Not sure how many founding fathers were mindful of this but it is true after all that America was greatly influenced by religious "out-groups" fleeing persecution, beginning of course with the Puritans, and continuing with Mormons, Quakers, Amish, Monnites, even Catholics on occasion.

How the nation that's praised for formally separating church and state in this way ended up being one of the most religious and home to the most fundamentalist believers is a fascinating question.

EB

196. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62387 by Eric Blair on August 9, 2007 at 2:28 pm

I find this discussion rather arcane and relevant to only a limited number of either atheists or believers. Most of us are mainly concerned with practical implications for our own lives or for society broadly. In this respect, the article seems based on a premise that I question, as raised in the following quotes:

Atheists keep telling me that there is no dogma and therefore no agenda to atheism, but if that is the case then why do these New Atheists seem so keen on pushing an anti-theism agenda? If it's just the political stuff that bugs you, then why can't you just fight the politics without having to convert everyone to your metaphysics?" –From comments by Mike C at Friendly Atheist

The dizzying pace of change can be painful, and we live in the midst of an explosion of knowledge which challenges our capacity to adapt. But clinging to outmoded certitudes and faulty worldviews imposes a heavy risk: not just to the individual, but to the effective functioning of representative democracy.

The second quote (from BlackSun him/herself) seems to respond to the first, saying religious "worldviews" pose a threat to democracy. This kind of blanket statement, without qualification, gets atheists in trouble and undermines the legitimate campaign for greater secularism in public life.

As Mike C asks, why not focus primarily on the political manifestations of this threat, rather than the mindset behind it. (Certainly, you can work on changing people's attitudes and views – just as we do with racism, for example – but what really counts is the actions such views produce.)

Certain religious views do threaten democracy, notably where religious leaders and/or institutions try to impose their views on a legal system or on a government. In this case, though, the key fight is still in the political arena and in most Western democracies those fighting against the imposition of such views and for the maintenance of secularism include people of moderate faith.

The argument here is similar to the expressed opinions of Dawkins and Harris that moderate believers provide support and comfort to extreme believers because they too accept the existence of things they can't provide evidence for. This is a hypothesis, with only limited and generally inferred supporting evidence, that is further muddied by vague definitions of who are these moderate believers and how exactly they "support" extremists.

Dawkins/Harris have argued that Western democracies in general and moderate believers in particular give religious views too much and undue "respect." It's not clear, again, exactly what they mean by this and "respect" is probably the wrong word.

Those who follow liberal democratic principles, whatever their religion or lack of it, generally see some recognition and accommodation of differences as vital to social harmony.

The problem is that some push accommodation too far toward complete "relativism," whereby any set of beliefs amd practices arising form those beliefs is as valuable and acceptable as any other – and in doing so eclipse or simply overlook the tenets of liberal democracy.

This is an error in political judgment, which may stem from residual white European"guilt," an overemphasis on the value of social harmony or misunderstanding of how liberal democratic principles should be applied.

But there's no evidence (that I know of) that moderate religious people are more likely to make these errors than those with no religion. (And more extreme/fundamentalist believers are actually less likely to take a "relativist" position toward believers of a different religion.)

One reason why moderate or "mainstream" believers may be blamed for relativism is because they make up likely the biggest "bloc" of people in Wetsern societies (though, besides being "moderate," they are hardly uniform in their beliefs or other characteristics). It doesn't make sense to focus on pronouncing their worldview as "faulty," which is only likely to alienate them and make them suspicious of any atheist-supported initiatives, when their support is essential to continue the ongoing movement toward greater secularization.

EB

197. A force for good?

Comment #60617 by Eric Blair on August 2, 2007 at 1:10 pm

RB, I very much agree with you, especially regarding Catholics. I would not necessarily include them as moderates (many are but many are not), even though they tend not to be highly visible.

This is one type of Christianity where I do care what they specifically believe -- notably regarding birth control, abortion, the death penalty and gay marriage. I suspect many (in North America and Europe anyway) take a moderate stance on these, at least in terms of public policy (with the exception of the death penalty, which they probably oppose).

I think Dawkins and Harris are consumed with the intellectual debate, being academics. I'm more concerned about what happens in public institutions.

EB

198. A force for good?

Comment #60058 by Eric Blair on July 31, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Looks like we've strayed into politics, hungarianelephant, which is inevitable.

As far as the C of E's declaration goes, you should always separate the institution from its members -- even though I happen to agree with its statement.

Invading Iraq had little to do with fighting jihadists (it was a convenient target, Saddam was a burr in the side of Bush, an enemy of Israel and it seemed a great way to remind everyone of how powerful the US is -- oops).

Four years later it sure hasn't squashed the terrorist problem. It's also opened up a new era where the US and its close friends can decide how best to solve world's problems, with no reference to the UN or any other group of lesser powers.

I suspect we disagree on this but the reluctance of moderates, whether Christian or Muslim, to line up behind the US has little to do with religion. In fact, I would say this reflects their adherence to liberal democratic principles, even in international affairs.

Counterpoint is our friend Hitchens, the good atheist who hops into bed with..! who other than GWB, a rightwing Christian and habitual shredder of liberal values.

As I say, more politics here than strongly felt religion or lack of belief.

EB

199. A force for good?

Comment #59741 by Eric Blair on July 30, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Thanks for the nod to my "pseudonym-sake," though of course he was much more than the creator of Big Brother. To me, he was pursuer of "truth," at least inasmuch as it can be defined in a practical and common sense way, and one who abhorred orthodoxy, illogic and lies, even when he found it among his supposed allies.

One thing he did very well was to castigate the left, which he generally associated himself with, for misunderstanding the right and what motivated them. And in times of crisis, he understood the importance of facing the true enemy – fascism – even if that entailed making common cause with some distasteful elements of society.

All this to say that while I can understand the ongoing "war on religious moderates" by atheists evident on this site and others, I find it tiresome, misdirected and not very enlightening.

Almost every believer who defends religion (inevitably, "their" religion) here defines it in a "vague" way. Is this just to confound and confuse atheists? Or maybe that's what they believe. (Either way, I say, So what? We can't "debate" what some individual believes…)

So it's not the "usual" way to define religion. Well, besides the fundies (I'm speaking more of Christians here), who actually believes this "usual" definition? That's the point I was trying to make in my early post.

Most Christians' beliefs are pretty slippery and changeable, because of ignorance and because they don't think about them very much in detail. Because tradition and community are more important to them than trying to make sense of the virgin birth, etc.

But make no mistake – they aren't likely to give up this collection of vague beliefs. They also – well, some of them anyway – see these beliefs providing the underlying bulwark for their morality and social conscience.

These last points are what's important to me. Inevitably, in the ongoing campaign against extremism, religious or otherwise, and against other kinds of social injustice, Christian moderates are generally progressive liberal democrats who favour free speech and related principles, and secular public institutions.

I find it mind-boggling that people like Dawkins and Harris (Hitchens obviously to a lesser extent, given his current political allies – a position I strongly disagree with, by the way) would constantly go out of their way to alienate the same element of our western societies whom they will someday count on to fight the larger struggle against the forces of extremism and illiberalism, based on their ill-supported opinion that moderates somehow justify the beliefs of extremists.

In Orwell's day, the parallel is the rigid left in Britain eschewing any alliance with the Churchillian right wing to prepare for the looming war with Hitler and Mussolini. In Germany, a similar feud between Stalinist Communists and more moderate Socialists resulted in both being wiped out by Hitler's storm troopers.

My comments here are in many ways unfair, of course, as Vallely willingly engaged in a debate about whether religion is or isn't a "force for good." My own response is it can be both good and evil -- like most human ideologies -- but there's no way to prove we'd be better off with it or without it. And we're stuck with it (in its broadest forms), so live with it and try to mitigate its worst expressions.

I think George would have said something similar...

EB

200. A force for good?

Comment #59135 by Eric Blair on July 27, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Paul Vallely is not making debating points (in the first part of his article) – he's trying to state what he believes and why. To call it "cherry-picking" or "vacuous" or say that it contradicts what "church leaders" say – or, as Dawkins does, that it's "intellectual cowardice – is pointless.

I'm sure he knows he's occupying a sliver of real estate between Christianity and deism, but that sliver is important to him and he's unlikely to abandon it. What's more, there are probably lots of people like him (at least in the West), though they don't often think about it enough to realize it.

Opinion polls about religion and what people say they believe are notoriously slippery. Ask many Christians if they believe what's in the Apostles Creed and they'll say, "Generally." What's that mean?

Read Dan Dennett again. People say they "believe" for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with actually examining the things they say they believe and saying, "Yes, that's what I believe."

Simple ignorance is part of it (and most churches don't really encourage too deep explication of the Bible.) Hitchens for one takes great delight in showing how even so-called religious experts don't understand basics of their faith. One recent example – linked to this site, I think – was that, despite what most Catholics think, the Immaculate Conception refers not to Jesus' conception but the Virgin Mary's.

Dawkins seems especially frustrated at this "hypocrisy" of moderate Christians –his C of E friends and colleagues, one suspects – of (almost) acknowledging the inane-ness of their professed faith yet refusing to give up the habit.

You just have to accept they're kind of like smokers. They know it doesn't make any sense but they do it any way.

The problem, of course, is "second-hand smoke."

EB