Baroness Warsi, co-chairman of the Tory Party, is reported as saying that prejudice against Muslims is seen as normal. The BBC claims that she will say (how I hate that - it's not news until it's said, and it's only then that the actual content and context can be judged) in a speech to Leicester University that prejudice has passed the dinner-table test. Well, I am wary of being prejudiced. I certainly try not to be, but I am also aware of having a very negative impression of Islam, a different impression from that which I held when it was the subject of academic study in my student days. But it is right to scrutinise one's views, so let's have a look at what's going on for me.
Obviously there is the effect of terrorism. It's not that Christians (say) haven't adopted terror tactics in the recent past: they have. The murder of doctors involved in abortion in the US comes to mind. Prior to that, the Klu Klux Klan had Christian associations, even though their behaviour defied any reasonable interpretation of Christianity. The divide in Ireland was on religious lines, and even Catholic priests were rather close to active terrorists. I guess the same may be true of the other side, though I know of no accounts. But in Ireland the primary motivation was political, not religious. Religious leaders sometimes spoke out against terrorist activity, though also some did not. But the horrific mass murders perpetrated by Islamist terrorists recently, both against the West and against their own co-religionists so appall decent people it is extremely hard not to be strongly influenced by them. And it has to be said that very prominent religious leaders have encouraged, or supported, such actions. Starting from Ayatola Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie, urging the murder of someone who had written a book he disapproved of (probably without reading it) some incredible, horrible, things have emerged from Islam. And, in the UK at least, recent events make one think that being the victim of a terrorist mass murder by someone who is not a Muslim is very much less likely than by a perpetrator who is a Muslim.
And all this is against a background of views that seem to be rooted in the 6th Century CE - if not more primitive than that. You only have to think of the uneducated imam who declared "Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes". This was in a sermon delivered at Tehran University. (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8631775.stm) It's not difficult to find other similar examples of a world view that seems to predate the ark. I know you also get idiotic, uneducated views promoted by Christians - the Creation Museum being an outstanding example - but even the brainless lunatics who still think the earth was created in 7 days on 22 October 4004 BCE don't think that the presence or absence of clothing is related to plate tectonics or vulcanism. Mind you, I know a few who think that God takes a personal and detailed interest in their parking requirements, and you only need to watch the NFL briefly to see that many players think he is a football fan and supports their team. Ignorance is a terrible affliction where ever it is found, but Islam seems to take pride in it.
Of course not all Muslims take such unsupportable views, but I wish a few more of those that don't would stand up and say so. It looks as though the authoritarian stance taken by not only teachers of Islam but also followers has something to do with this. Organised religion tends to be authoritarian. The Pope still tries it on from time to time, for example. But in the Christian West the church lost its hold over what people think and do at the time of the Enlightenment. Today most Christians embrace Enlightenment values, not least the freedom to think, and to say, and to write and publish what you believe. They also take the view, by and large, that this is a good thing because it provides an environment in which people can grow to their full potential, and in which something closer to the truth emerges through the discussion and criticism of the various views that people hold. If I cannot defend my views in a reasonable way when under rational criticism, there is at least something missing from my understanding of my own position. It is also rather likely that there is something wrong with the views themselves.
Religious leaders usually don't like educated people criticising or questioning them. On a trivial and local level I have personal experience of this. When I was a clergyman in Northampton I offered a course, an introduction to thinking theologically and realistically (I thought such a thing was possible!) in my own parish. The Vicar of the parish thought the material was good and suggested I open it to all the local churches. So I publicised it to the other clergy, so they could alert their people. Apart from in my own parish, there were no takers. I happened to meet one of the senior local clergy in the street and I asked him why he thought this was so. His reply was that it was because he hadn't told his congregation about it. He did not want them to be theologically educated, he said, because if they were they might start to question him, and that would never do. When the first session was held, in which I opened up some areas for discussion, someone objected and said she'd not be coming again because I was not telling her what to think. No indeed, I wanted her to be able to think for herself, something our predecessors had fought for and given their lives for, but which she was too frightened to do, so cowed was she by successive authoritarian clergy.
But in general, the hold that the church has over the minds of even its adherents, is greatly weakened today, thanks to education, and encouragement to learn, and to think for oneself, and to question things that do not appear to be true. Islam never had its own Enlightenment. The Golden Age in which great Islamic scholars both preserved and advanced knowledge in astronomy, philosophy and mathematics is long past. Just learn to recite the Koran, in a language you may well not understand, and settle for that, seems to be the way. Some think that women should not be educated at all. I guess that's for much the same reason as the Northampton clergy did not publicise my course - it would lead to them questioning the unfounded assumptions of the men, and that would never do.
But none of the above is the primary cause of my worry about Islam. Just recently there has been a terrible, but similar, event in both Islamic Pakistan and Christian America. In both places there has been an assassination attempt on an prominent elected official. In Tuscon, Arizona, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire on Representative Gabrielle Giffords, seriously wounding her and killing several other people. At least, he has been indicted for the crime, and was apprended at the scene trying to reload his gun. In Pakistan Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was assassinated, confessedly by one of his own bodyguards. In both cases, this is not only murder, but also an attack on democracy itself.
In the Arizona case, there has been a lot of heart-searching, and some wild accusations, from both sides of the political divide. No-one approves of murdering members of the body politic no matter how much their views differ from one's own. The assumption at present is that the assassin is in some way mentally ill. In Pakistan too thousands mourned Governor Taseer. But, and it is an enormous but, in Pakistan some religious leaders have praised the governor's killer. (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12116764) Why? Because he was a liberal, a man who believed and said that Pakistan's blasphemy law is draconian and needs to be changed. Malik Mumtaz Hussein Qadri confessed to the murder and people gave him garlands. One religious leader said "No Muslim should attend the funeral or even try to pray for Salman Taseer or even express any kind of regret or sympathy over the incident". Some people supported Governor Taseer because he spoke up for minority rights. Other supported his murderer simply for religious reasons. The New York Times reported that the assassin "was showered by hundreds of supporters with rose petals and garlands. Moderate religious leaders refused to condemn the assassination, and some hard-line religious leaders appeared obliquely to condone the attack". (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/world/asia/06pakistan.html)
The difference is clear, and I don't think it is prejudice. In America those for and against Mrs Giffords' policies were equally horrified at the assassination attempt. Everyone sees and condemns it as an attack on democracy itself. In Pakistan while that view was also found, so was a vocal element, encouraged by some religious leaders, that supported the assassin for purely religious reasons. Christianity is not without its kooks and an insane fringe who will stoop to the murder of their opponents. They are a tiny minority condemned by almost all. In Islamic Pakistan those who support murder on religious grounds are at the very least a significant minority, maybe much more, and too large a proportion of more reasonable voices are intimidated into silence. That fundamental factor, a religious authoritarianism that is closely related to Fascism and is all too frequently found in Islam, is the source of my deep unease with Islam. I don't think it is prejudice. And it is opposed to all the human values I believe in. If a British Muslim leader would condemn such views and support Governor Taseer and human, Enlightenment, values I would be delighted. So far I have heard no such comment.
As everyone knows, my position is that religion is at best a mistake, one powered by deep emotional factors. But at least some adherents of religion retain human decency and value humanity itself. Others do not, and the sad fact is that Islam gives the impression of having the largest contingent of those whose fervour not only overcomes all reason but all human feeling as well.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Sunday, 9 January 2011
Big Dog Blog
Owning a dog has so many benefits. On top of the great enjoyment I've had from Laddie's company, taking him for walks has also led to my making human as well as canine friends. It's great to be out in the country on a lovely morning with a bunch of nice people, watching the dogs play. They naturally form a pack and get on with enjoying life together. This morning one new owner remarked that someone had got grumpy with him because the new owner's dog was friendly and the other guy's dog wasn't. Well! Like dog, like owner. I have only once met a dog with a questionable temperament which had a pleasant owner. Almost always an anti-social dog has learned his behaviour from his anti-social owner. Where the owners are sociable, so are the dogs.
I remember first meeting someone walking a Newfoundland. Wow, that's a big dog. Now I know several people who have them, all friendly. So I thought it would be fun to get all 5 dogs and their owners together on a bright morning, in front of Bonnie's camera. I suppose I thought they might actually line up and pose, which was a daft idea. The tripod was soon dispensed with, and replace by action shots of big dogs having fun. One owner was indisposed, so her dog also missed the party, but as those there want to do it again there will be another chance for her.
Shaun and Sue brought Winston and Molly. Molly is not so big as one might expect for a Newfie, but she makes up for it in energy and enthusiasm. Winston, recently rehomed from rescue, is dedicated to enjoying his new lease of life and throws himself into everything with abandon.
Mel and Julie brought the massive Darcy - 88kg, 194lbs, 13st 12lbs - who is 2, and their 7 month old puppy Bella. Bella is a typical puppy, apart from her size, and into everything. Darcy is laid back and rarely runs. But he has a very determined saunter, and can take some keeping up with.
It hadn't actually occured to me, until this morning, that the dogs might not get on when they met. But I needn't have worried, even briefly. They simply got to know each other and began to play together. The owners socialised just as well. Thankfully their introductory ritual does not involve sniffing rear ends. But dog owners always have a common interest to talk about.
And in such a popular dog-walking spot as Twywell Hills and Dales, there were lots of other walkers and dogs about. Most came across to inspect the massive bundle of play at close quarters. One or two of the passing dogs were momentarily put off by the sheer size of the Newfies, but a few friendly sniffs and licks and they joined in easily enough. One little boy out with his family and their Spaniel proved too interesting to Bella, who licked him in a way she knew to be friendly he was less sure about. And one passer-by asked how old Bella was. "7 months" came the reply. The inquirer was astonished and her response was very brief, with few enough letters for the fingers of one hand.
It was great fun. Bonnie took nearly 50 photos, which I have put, unedited, on Picasaweb. We'll do it again before too long.
I remember first meeting someone walking a Newfoundland. Wow, that's a big dog. Now I know several people who have them, all friendly. So I thought it would be fun to get all 5 dogs and their owners together on a bright morning, in front of Bonnie's camera. I suppose I thought they might actually line up and pose, which was a daft idea. The tripod was soon dispensed with, and replace by action shots of big dogs having fun. One owner was indisposed, so her dog also missed the party, but as those there want to do it again there will be another chance for her.
It hadn't actually occured to me, until this morning, that the dogs might not get on when they met. But I needn't have worried, even briefly. They simply got to know each other and began to play together. The owners socialised just as well. Thankfully their introductory ritual does not involve sniffing rear ends. But dog owners always have a common interest to talk about.
And in such a popular dog-walking spot as Twywell Hills and Dales, there were lots of other walkers and dogs about. Most came across to inspect the massive bundle of play at close quarters. One or two of the passing dogs were momentarily put off by the sheer size of the Newfies, but a few friendly sniffs and licks and they joined in easily enough. One little boy out with his family and their Spaniel proved too interesting to Bella, who licked him in a way she knew to be friendly he was less sure about. And one passer-by asked how old Bella was. "7 months" came the reply. The inquirer was astonished and her response was very brief, with few enough letters for the fingers of one hand.
It was great fun. Bonnie took nearly 50 photos, which I have put, unedited, on Picasaweb. We'll do it again before too long.
Friday, 7 January 2011
Summary of a longer post
My post below on Humanism, Science and Knowledge is probably too long and too badly written to be digestible. Here is a summary of what I intended to say.
- Humanism isn't about a love of logic, but Humanists do have a strong preference for the rational over the irrational. I concede that rationality is not as rigorous as it appears and that different cultures see different things as rational and irrational.
- Humanists tend to be humane, and often concede the values and benefits of other cultures. There is a potential problem down this route, as Humanists insist on the importance of ethics. But valuing various cultures leads to ethical relativism, and most Humanists I know also have a yen for ethical absolutism in that some things are definitely and always right or wrong.
- Beliefs are worthless without evidence. Evidence does not prove a belief or establish knowledge in any sense, but it does make disproof harder. There are good arguments, and now also good evidence, for the Sceptical position. But there is a world of difference between Thomas Kuhn and the sceptical tradition.
- What Humanism is about is asserting the worth of Humanity and Enlightenment values in order to maximise our potential, and I'm in favour of that.
Dog Blog
Very early in my dog-owing life I realised that going out in pouring rain at the dog's accustomed walk time was part of the deal. Sometimes this involved rather long walks as Laddie seemed to love playing in the rain, which is odd because he doesn't like getting his feet wet. But these days the Old Boy isn't up to a long walk any more. All he wants from a walk is to socialise - with other dogs certainly, but also with his human friends. His arthritis varies with the weather - cold and dry is best for him - so how far he can go and how much he can do is also very variable. He has developed a technique which involves finding a good spot and lying down there to get the weight off his feet and waiting for his mates to go past. On warm summer days this is fine for me - I take a book, some coffee, and enjoy the rest and chatting to the other dog owners. Cold winter mornings before dawn are a different proposition. I have a different priority: Laddie's bodily functions have to be attended to (absolutely an incidental for him) so I can go back to the warm indoors.
This going home business has developed into another barometer of how Laddie is feeling. When we were first walking together he had endless ways to prevaricate and avoid getting into the car. Now, if he's having a bad day, I only have to open the tailgate and he gets up, comes over, and climbs in. There are stages in between.
Today it was chucking it down, rain bordering on sleet, really nasty. Laddie was as keen to go out as always, but I didn't fancy the nature reserve we normally go to and socialise, so we went to a local park. My priority is simple: Laddie's natural functions and home. His priority was the same as always, socialise. So when we got there I headed for the trees for Laddie's convenience, Laddie stood sniffing the air, from which he can tell which dogs are in the park and in what direction and probably a whole lot more. The result of his nasal survey was negative - no-one he knew, no dogs. So he lay down on the sopping wet grass to wait.
My only option is encouragement, with biscuits, to wander a few steps and give peristalsis a chance to work. He saw no reason to accommodate me. After about 10 minutes of this I was wet, wet, wet, and he simply didn't care. Then suddenly someone we knew came into the park - someone walking an interestingly mis-matched pair of dogs, a Dachshund that barks a lot and a very friendly German Shepherd bitch. She's a nice dog, and rather focused on her ball.
As soon as he saw her Laddie leaped to his feet, drew himself up to his full height (he's big for a Rough Collie) and sauntered over. She saw him, sniffed him quickly, and went off after her ball. By now Laddie's coat was waterlogged, but that didn't matter, he walked briskly after her. But she's young and ball-centred and was soon way off. A year or more ago he would have chased her, but he knows he can't do that now. But he also knows that dog walks are mainly circular, and having gone, she would return, so he lay down again and settled in to wait. It was still pouring down, and my priority was now to go home as soon as I could get Laddie back into the car.
I got out my box of biscuits, and tried to lure him back. No contest. His options are go get a biscuit or wait and socialise with a nice female. Well, what red-blooded male would choose the biscuit? In that circumstance he did what he always does: he puts his ears down against his head, looks steadfastly away from me, and simply ignores me. Water was running off my glasses and down my nose. After trying to exert my authority as Pack Leader without success I resorted to my authority as Human Being. This involves standing in front of him and taking his lead out of my pocket. It worked; he hauled himself to his feet and began to slowly plod back to the car, finding countless reasons to stop and sniff on the way, his reluctance obvious to anyone.
Back at the car he put his feet in his sitting area and waited to be lifted in. Then he gave me that look that accuses me of mean selfishness and cruelty when he was in with a chance. I gave him 3 biscuits and he forgave me, so we came home.
Some days recently he has been so poorly with his arthritis I have wondered whether it was right to extend his life. But those days are not too frequent, and on days like this when the Old Boy exhibits such character and is so full of himself and what he wants to do (especially in the case of bitches in season) and is so evidently enjoying himself, my worries are dispelled.
When we got home and he'd been dried and fed he was alternately affectionate and frisky and a transparently happy dog. It has been such a pleasure and privilege to share our home with him. Long may it continue to be so.
This going home business has developed into another barometer of how Laddie is feeling. When we were first walking together he had endless ways to prevaricate and avoid getting into the car. Now, if he's having a bad day, I only have to open the tailgate and he gets up, comes over, and climbs in. There are stages in between.
 |
| Laddie and his pal Finley |
My only option is encouragement, with biscuits, to wander a few steps and give peristalsis a chance to work. He saw no reason to accommodate me. After about 10 minutes of this I was wet, wet, wet, and he simply didn't care. Then suddenly someone we knew came into the park - someone walking an interestingly mis-matched pair of dogs, a Dachshund that barks a lot and a very friendly German Shepherd bitch. She's a nice dog, and rather focused on her ball.
As soon as he saw her Laddie leaped to his feet, drew himself up to his full height (he's big for a Rough Collie) and sauntered over. She saw him, sniffed him quickly, and went off after her ball. By now Laddie's coat was waterlogged, but that didn't matter, he walked briskly after her. But she's young and ball-centred and was soon way off. A year or more ago he would have chased her, but he knows he can't do that now. But he also knows that dog walks are mainly circular, and having gone, she would return, so he lay down again and settled in to wait. It was still pouring down, and my priority was now to go home as soon as I could get Laddie back into the car.
I got out my box of biscuits, and tried to lure him back. No contest. His options are go get a biscuit or wait and socialise with a nice female. Well, what red-blooded male would choose the biscuit? In that circumstance he did what he always does: he puts his ears down against his head, looks steadfastly away from me, and simply ignores me. Water was running off my glasses and down my nose. After trying to exert my authority as Pack Leader without success I resorted to my authority as Human Being. This involves standing in front of him and taking his lead out of my pocket. It worked; he hauled himself to his feet and began to slowly plod back to the car, finding countless reasons to stop and sniff on the way, his reluctance obvious to anyone.
 |
| A winter sunrise lights up Laddie |
Some days recently he has been so poorly with his arthritis I have wondered whether it was right to extend his life. But those days are not too frequent, and on days like this when the Old Boy exhibits such character and is so full of himself and what he wants to do (especially in the case of bitches in season) and is so evidently enjoying himself, my worries are dispelled.
 |
| Whose got control of the remote control? |
When we got home and he'd been dried and fed he was alternately affectionate and frisky and a transparently happy dog. It has been such a pleasure and privilege to share our home with him. Long may it continue to be so.
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Humanism, Science and Knowledge
Ollie! I have had an epiphany. I now understand why i am not a humanist - it is the humanist love of LOGIC. I do not love science, I no more believe in an objective world that we can uncover through recourse to logic and scientific investigation than I believe in god. It's all just another way of seeing the world, any of which can be correct for anyone. I believe that we construct meaning about our worlds. I'm surprised its taken me this long to be able to articulate it. The reason i was uncomfortable with humanism is because it required faith in logic. So while I don't believe in god, I can't get overly excited by logic either. Kayte.
Sounds like you've been visited by the Spirit of Thomas Kuhn, Kayte, in paper form (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962) maybe! This isn't the place for a discussion of his ideas. There are plenty of learned critical articles on the web. Suffice it to say that Kuhn himself denounced some of the applications of his ideas that his less level-headed followers espoused, and that non-Western critics accuse him of being taken in by a totally Western paradigm.
Now, I'd better take your main points seriously - Humanism and Logic, and belief in anything.
I don't think it is true that Humanists necessary love Logic. I do think it's true that Humanists say that they are rational, and that they reject the irrational. But that's not the same thing. Formal Logic, it seems to me (and I am not a Logician) holds irrespective of time and culture in the same way that arithmetic and algebra do. Thus 365 and 101101101 are the same thing whether a culture uses decimal or binary numbers. But whether they agree it is the number of days in a year (which also has to do with Solar and Lunar calendars) is another matter.
Rationality is more woolly than Logic, and what appears rational to one person may not appear so to someone from a different thought background.
That leads many Humanists into a problem, because Humanists assert that they are ethical. I don't know if any research has been done about what is meant by this, and how individual Humanists deal with conflicts between the different ethical schools. But because they tend also to be humane, many of the Humanists I know are caught between a respectful approach to cultures that leads to relativism in ethics, and a desire for absolutist ethics, so that some things (at least) can be condemned as unethical and definitely wrong at all times and in all places.
Fortunately most Humanists are tolerant, and as far as I know there are no schisms in Humanism along these lines, just lively and healthy discussions. For me one of the main attractions of Humanism is that this discussion can take place, founded on a general agreement that Humanity is somehow important and that people are valuable in themselves.
So I think there is a link between Humanism and Rationality, but quite where it leads is another matter.
Now about belief - you use the phrase "I believe that we construct meaning..." As you know, I am a Sceptic in the tradition of Pyrrho. Their position was to criticise beliefs without advancing any of their own, because if they claimed to believe anything they were vulnerable to their own criticism. In general Scepticism is not convinced that we know what we think we know. That's a bit of an understatement. Some Sceptics would go much further. I'd be prepared to defend the position that it borders on the ridiculous to advance a belief without any sort of evidence. Is that what you're doing? How do you know we construct meaning, for example? What makes you think that? There are arguments, but is there any evidence?
Beware - I am not claiming that evidence justifies a belief, far less proves it. But it does make one work harder to disprove it. There is a better (more rational) case for accepting a belief that has some supporting evidence than for one that has none, and better still if the evidence against is strong.
For as long as I've been thinking seriously at all I have started from the Sceptical point of view: it has long seemed to me that the general arguments are strong, and for even longer I have been impressed by the ease with which some cherished beliefs turn out to be built on sand. But now - really recently - there are at least 3 types of evidence that make the Sceptical position appear stronger still.
First there is work of the kind done by the biologist Andrew Parker who seems to show that colour is created in our brains and does not exist in the external world, or even in the eye. Second there is the kind of work done in Cosmology which seems to show that we cannot detect at least 75% of the Universe that is actually out there (and all around us). What we can detect is necessarily a selection that proved enough for evolution, and what we make of it is necessarily an interpretation of that selection. Third there is the kind of work done by Psychologists working with Illusion - how we can be quite sure that something is before our very eyes (or another sense) when demonstrably it is not.
So I am leaning towards the view that, at very least, we create a lot more of the world than we think. What we think we know is a lot less certain than we normally assume. I could go further and cite the work done with twins that seems to show that our decisions, interests and habits of thought are much more influenced by our genes than most of us would find comfortable. Certainly we do not choose what we are thinking about, what we like, or to whom we are attracted. Nor do we choose what arguments we find convincing. These things come, somehow, from below.
With this background, belief becomes a far more dangerous and interesting topic! But what has any of that to do with science? I think there are a few things to say.
1. Science uses reason to test knowledge, but reason cannot establish knowledge. Great advances do not come from deduction or induction but imagination. There is first the hypothesis, and then the prediction of what will be the case if the hypothesis is correct, and then the testing regime. But then, you knew I am convinced by Karl Popper.
2. The results of science exhibit certain charactistics:
* they work - we fly the Atlantic and use computers and microwave ovens and go to doctors and undergo cardiac surgery.
* they are repeatable, i.e. they can, in principle, be tested independently by anyone, anywhere, any time.
* they are provisional, always ready to give way to a better explanation of the observed facts.
3. It isn't true, as some people think, that new discoveries overthrow old. At least, not necessarily. The Phlogiston Theory was demonstrably wrong. But Einstein did not disprove Newton. He did show that Newton's assumption of a fixed space and time was inadequate at speeds close to that of light, but Newton's Laws of Motion are incorporated in General Relativity and work perfectly well at normal speeds. And neither General Relativity or Newton's Laws of Motion are susceptible to cultural changes.
And what has that got to do with Humanism? Humanism respects Science in a way it cannot respect religion because the characteristics of Science place it on the side of reason, and religion is on the other side. But it is more concerned with Ethics, and living life well, giving people as good opportunities to live their lives to the maximum of their potential as possible. I find that to be something I am enthusiastic about.
Sounds like you've been visited by the Spirit of Thomas Kuhn, Kayte, in paper form (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962) maybe! This isn't the place for a discussion of his ideas. There are plenty of learned critical articles on the web. Suffice it to say that Kuhn himself denounced some of the applications of his ideas that his less level-headed followers espoused, and that non-Western critics accuse him of being taken in by a totally Western paradigm.
Now, I'd better take your main points seriously - Humanism and Logic, and belief in anything.
I don't think it is true that Humanists necessary love Logic. I do think it's true that Humanists say that they are rational, and that they reject the irrational. But that's not the same thing. Formal Logic, it seems to me (and I am not a Logician) holds irrespective of time and culture in the same way that arithmetic and algebra do. Thus 365 and 101101101 are the same thing whether a culture uses decimal or binary numbers. But whether they agree it is the number of days in a year (which also has to do with Solar and Lunar calendars) is another matter.
Rationality is more woolly than Logic, and what appears rational to one person may not appear so to someone from a different thought background.
That leads many Humanists into a problem, because Humanists assert that they are ethical. I don't know if any research has been done about what is meant by this, and how individual Humanists deal with conflicts between the different ethical schools. But because they tend also to be humane, many of the Humanists I know are caught between a respectful approach to cultures that leads to relativism in ethics, and a desire for absolutist ethics, so that some things (at least) can be condemned as unethical and definitely wrong at all times and in all places.
Fortunately most Humanists are tolerant, and as far as I know there are no schisms in Humanism along these lines, just lively and healthy discussions. For me one of the main attractions of Humanism is that this discussion can take place, founded on a general agreement that Humanity is somehow important and that people are valuable in themselves.
So I think there is a link between Humanism and Rationality, but quite where it leads is another matter.
Now about belief - you use the phrase "I believe that we construct meaning..." As you know, I am a Sceptic in the tradition of Pyrrho. Their position was to criticise beliefs without advancing any of their own, because if they claimed to believe anything they were vulnerable to their own criticism. In general Scepticism is not convinced that we know what we think we know. That's a bit of an understatement. Some Sceptics would go much further. I'd be prepared to defend the position that it borders on the ridiculous to advance a belief without any sort of evidence. Is that what you're doing? How do you know we construct meaning, for example? What makes you think that? There are arguments, but is there any evidence?
Beware - I am not claiming that evidence justifies a belief, far less proves it. But it does make one work harder to disprove it. There is a better (more rational) case for accepting a belief that has some supporting evidence than for one that has none, and better still if the evidence against is strong.
For as long as I've been thinking seriously at all I have started from the Sceptical point of view: it has long seemed to me that the general arguments are strong, and for even longer I have been impressed by the ease with which some cherished beliefs turn out to be built on sand. But now - really recently - there are at least 3 types of evidence that make the Sceptical position appear stronger still.
First there is work of the kind done by the biologist Andrew Parker who seems to show that colour is created in our brains and does not exist in the external world, or even in the eye. Second there is the kind of work done in Cosmology which seems to show that we cannot detect at least 75% of the Universe that is actually out there (and all around us). What we can detect is necessarily a selection that proved enough for evolution, and what we make of it is necessarily an interpretation of that selection. Third there is the kind of work done by Psychologists working with Illusion - how we can be quite sure that something is before our very eyes (or another sense) when demonstrably it is not.
So I am leaning towards the view that, at very least, we create a lot more of the world than we think. What we think we know is a lot less certain than we normally assume. I could go further and cite the work done with twins that seems to show that our decisions, interests and habits of thought are much more influenced by our genes than most of us would find comfortable. Certainly we do not choose what we are thinking about, what we like, or to whom we are attracted. Nor do we choose what arguments we find convincing. These things come, somehow, from below.
With this background, belief becomes a far more dangerous and interesting topic! But what has any of that to do with science? I think there are a few things to say.
1. Science uses reason to test knowledge, but reason cannot establish knowledge. Great advances do not come from deduction or induction but imagination. There is first the hypothesis, and then the prediction of what will be the case if the hypothesis is correct, and then the testing regime. But then, you knew I am convinced by Karl Popper.
2. The results of science exhibit certain charactistics:
* they work - we fly the Atlantic and use computers and microwave ovens and go to doctors and undergo cardiac surgery.
* they are repeatable, i.e. they can, in principle, be tested independently by anyone, anywhere, any time.
* they are provisional, always ready to give way to a better explanation of the observed facts.
3. It isn't true, as some people think, that new discoveries overthrow old. At least, not necessarily. The Phlogiston Theory was demonstrably wrong. But Einstein did not disprove Newton. He did show that Newton's assumption of a fixed space and time was inadequate at speeds close to that of light, but Newton's Laws of Motion are incorporated in General Relativity and work perfectly well at normal speeds. And neither General Relativity or Newton's Laws of Motion are susceptible to cultural changes.
And what has that got to do with Humanism? Humanism respects Science in a way it cannot respect religion because the characteristics of Science place it on the side of reason, and religion is on the other side. But it is more concerned with Ethics, and living life well, giving people as good opportunities to live their lives to the maximum of their potential as possible. I find that to be something I am enthusiastic about.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
Bristol murder
Of course it's tragic, of course the poor girl's parents and partner are in agony, of course the majority of the population is interested and sympathetic, and of course there is a lot of coverage on TV and in the papers.
BUT there is something wrong somewhere. The coverage on TV and in the papers is giving a clear impression. Walking the dog today I was chatting to someone and mentioned my concern. To which he replied "So what? The fucking pervert should swing". My point exactly. For Jo Yeates to get justice a proper trial has to be held in which the accused person is presumed innocent and the prosecution have to prove their case. Otherwise there is no justice. And the media is creating a climate in which everyone is sure that her landlord did it, so what chance is there of an unbiased jury?
BUT there is something wrong somewhere. The coverage on TV and in the papers is giving a clear impression. Walking the dog today I was chatting to someone and mentioned my concern. To which he replied "So what? The fucking pervert should swing". My point exactly. For Jo Yeates to get justice a proper trial has to be held in which the accused person is presumed innocent and the prosecution have to prove their case. Otherwise there is no justice. And the media is creating a climate in which everyone is sure that her landlord did it, so what chance is there of an unbiased jury?
Secular New Year
The first day of 2011 and the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to get me to read the King James version of the bible on the one hand, while members of one religion are bombing and murdering members of another religion on the other hand.
It is no surprise that a churchman recommends bible reading. But the evidence of the terrible damage that uninstructed bible reading can do is plain to see. It is a collection of writings from many periods, informed by many and various prejudices but zero knowledge, representing a variety of autocratic and misogynistic attitudes that, when filtered by Enlightenment sensibilities is not absolutely without merit. Reading it intelligently and profitably requires specialist education, sadly lacking in most believers. The best modern translations come with introductory notes, and are made with a knowledge of the original languages that has only been available comparatively recently. On the other hand the King James version, now 500 years old, was made with comparative ignorance, especially of Hebrew, and into a form of English so different from our own that many of the sonorous phrases it contains themselves require translation.
So one has to suppose that Dr Williams is recommending bible reading for its literary value. Some passages do read very well, not least the more dramatic, and blood-thirsty, stories in the Old Testament. But these do not exemplify the values I'd want any children of mine to acquire. Or there is that ever-popular passage in the New Testament for reading at weddings in which St Paul extols love. I could once have given an hour's lecture on the meaning of the Greek word agape which St Paul uses, which has little to do with what is going on in the minds of most of the couples whose weddings I have conducted.
But it does read well aloud: the structure of the prose is marvellous. I sincerely hope that is what Dr Williams had in mind. But I doubt it.
I had met and worked with many thoughtful Christians who were willing to study to understand the relevance of the Bible for today and whose moral values were empowered by their sympathy, their empathy and their rationality. Their faith somehow withstood the shocks that such a courageous approach will give it, and I have nothing but admiration for them.
Unfortunately I have also been confronted by others whose ignorance was only equalled by their arrogance, and these have sadly been the majority. These are people whose instincts are closer to those of the Bronze Age authors of the Old Testament and who are temperamentally inclined towards intolerance and bigotry which does not stop far short of violence if at all. It's shocking when two apparently sweet old ladies call at your door to bring you good news about the love of Jesus and, when opposed in argument, inform you of the punishment that awaits you after death with ill-disguised relish. I forget which of the ancient sages of Christianity it was who taught that one of the joys of Heaven was watching the damned suffer in Hell - but he has his followers today.
Religion encourages believers to see themselves as different and better than others. At one place where I worked there were 3 Baptist churches. The regular, main-stream, Baptists joined in with the other local churches and while they generally held stricter views than the others, were pleasant enough people it was easy to associate with. The other two were splinters of the first, and one a splinter of the other, though I forget which was which. These were the Full Gospel Baptists and a group rejoicing in the name of the Strict & Peculiar Baptists, which was extremely apt for them. These two small congregations kept themselves apart from all other Christians, and from each other, as they each thought that they alone were saved, and the rest destined for Hell.
The militants of every faith are prepared to underwrite tactics that would be condemned as war crimes by anyone else. There have been examples of this in 2010 that made my blood run cold. And from there it is only a short step to those who find in their Scriptures not just permission but encouragement to slaughter innocent men, women and children. Sometimes this is because of a disagreement about matters of belief which are unsupported on both sides. Religious belief always boils down to a matter of opinion. Sometimes it is out of passion for the perceived will of God and in callous disregard for whoever finds themselves a victim. Thus worshippers at a church today, and at several mosques and religious festivals throughout last year have been viciously butchered, just as God ordered his prophet Elijah to butcher the prophets of different god, and his people to indiscriminately slaughter the citizens of Jericho, according to the Old Testament.
If religion were solely a matter of reason and rationality, only the most evil people of today would have anything to do with it. Unfortunately it is an emotional matter, and adherence to a religion almost as gut-level as sexual preference, and therefore beyond the reach of reason most of the time. That way even good people get caught up in it.
It is no surprise that a churchman recommends bible reading. But the evidence of the terrible damage that uninstructed bible reading can do is plain to see. It is a collection of writings from many periods, informed by many and various prejudices but zero knowledge, representing a variety of autocratic and misogynistic attitudes that, when filtered by Enlightenment sensibilities is not absolutely without merit. Reading it intelligently and profitably requires specialist education, sadly lacking in most believers. The best modern translations come with introductory notes, and are made with a knowledge of the original languages that has only been available comparatively recently. On the other hand the King James version, now 500 years old, was made with comparative ignorance, especially of Hebrew, and into a form of English so different from our own that many of the sonorous phrases it contains themselves require translation.
So one has to suppose that Dr Williams is recommending bible reading for its literary value. Some passages do read very well, not least the more dramatic, and blood-thirsty, stories in the Old Testament. But these do not exemplify the values I'd want any children of mine to acquire. Or there is that ever-popular passage in the New Testament for reading at weddings in which St Paul extols love. I could once have given an hour's lecture on the meaning of the Greek word agape which St Paul uses, which has little to do with what is going on in the minds of most of the couples whose weddings I have conducted.
But it does read well aloud: the structure of the prose is marvellous. I sincerely hope that is what Dr Williams had in mind. But I doubt it.
I had met and worked with many thoughtful Christians who were willing to study to understand the relevance of the Bible for today and whose moral values were empowered by their sympathy, their empathy and their rationality. Their faith somehow withstood the shocks that such a courageous approach will give it, and I have nothing but admiration for them.
Unfortunately I have also been confronted by others whose ignorance was only equalled by their arrogance, and these have sadly been the majority. These are people whose instincts are closer to those of the Bronze Age authors of the Old Testament and who are temperamentally inclined towards intolerance and bigotry which does not stop far short of violence if at all. It's shocking when two apparently sweet old ladies call at your door to bring you good news about the love of Jesus and, when opposed in argument, inform you of the punishment that awaits you after death with ill-disguised relish. I forget which of the ancient sages of Christianity it was who taught that one of the joys of Heaven was watching the damned suffer in Hell - but he has his followers today.
Religion encourages believers to see themselves as different and better than others. At one place where I worked there were 3 Baptist churches. The regular, main-stream, Baptists joined in with the other local churches and while they generally held stricter views than the others, were pleasant enough people it was easy to associate with. The other two were splinters of the first, and one a splinter of the other, though I forget which was which. These were the Full Gospel Baptists and a group rejoicing in the name of the Strict & Peculiar Baptists, which was extremely apt for them. These two small congregations kept themselves apart from all other Christians, and from each other, as they each thought that they alone were saved, and the rest destined for Hell.
The militants of every faith are prepared to underwrite tactics that would be condemned as war crimes by anyone else. There have been examples of this in 2010 that made my blood run cold. And from there it is only a short step to those who find in their Scriptures not just permission but encouragement to slaughter innocent men, women and children. Sometimes this is because of a disagreement about matters of belief which are unsupported on both sides. Religious belief always boils down to a matter of opinion. Sometimes it is out of passion for the perceived will of God and in callous disregard for whoever finds themselves a victim. Thus worshippers at a church today, and at several mosques and religious festivals throughout last year have been viciously butchered, just as God ordered his prophet Elijah to butcher the prophets of different god, and his people to indiscriminately slaughter the citizens of Jericho, according to the Old Testament.
If religion were solely a matter of reason and rationality, only the most evil people of today would have anything to do with it. Unfortunately it is an emotional matter, and adherence to a religion almost as gut-level as sexual preference, and therefore beyond the reach of reason most of the time. That way even good people get caught up in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)