101. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107705 by Russell Blackford on January 5, 2008 at 2:58 am

Hurriedly ... someone has probably said this already ... but what's wrong with the good old ichthys symbol? Really, the Xians have had their own campaign going for centuries. (I'm assuming the whole thing is not some kind of hoax.)

102. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105514 by Russell Blackford on December 31, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Well, I just want to add to the chorus of praise for Bishop Harries. Obviously I don't agree with it all, but this is good discussion. If Harries was typical of current Christian thinkers, Christianity would not be such a problem; it might even be a force for good in the world. If his careful response were typical of Christian replies to atheistic views, engaging with the latter would be more worthwhile.

Contrast this article with the kind of gross distortion we've seen from many others, such as Mary Midgley.

103. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102526 by Russell Blackford on December 23, 2007 at 5:42 am

^That's the trouble of course - the lack of evidence could be explained in such a way, though it seems rather ad hoc. But my point was not so much to say that the lack of evidence falsifies the God hypothesis, even though I think it has that tendency pretty strongly. It was just to say that there could have been evidence, in principle, and if something equally impressive ... or even something a lot less impressive ... turns up, then I'll accept the God hypothesis as well-corroborated. Most of us would.

104. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102518 by Russell Blackford on December 23, 2007 at 4:37 am

Thank ... hmmm, I think Hermes might be the appropriate deity in this case ... it didn't have too much impact on public policy in the UK that Blair was drifting towards Roma.

105. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102512 by Russell Blackford on December 23, 2007 at 4:17 am

On the evidence topic, Paula (by the way, I like the fact that you are now using your real name; join the club ... and you as well, Steve), it's like this:

There may be some difficulties for God in providing adequate evidence at this stage, but it's His own fault. I still say that it shouldn't be beyond Him to demonstrate that he is indeed a very powerful being, even if it's difficult to prove literal omnipotence etc. In fact, He could actually make it very difficult for us to reject an accurate account of His actions, if He arranged for such an account to turn up, with adequate detail.

He could have rendered the whole thing moot at a much earlier date, just by creating the world in a way that was easy for primitive people to understand and dictating (to Moses, or Muhammad, or whomever) a holy book that actually got everything right.

If, when serious geology, astrophysics, biology, etc., got going in the 19th century, I don't think there would have been any reason not to believe in the Christian God if the evidence had been that the Earth is about 6,000-10,000 years old, and likewise for the Sun and the Moon; if fossils had appeared in an order that matched the predictions of diluvian theory; if diluvian theory had accurately accounted for geological formations; etc., etc. It would have been even better if the universe had been geocentric, and better still if there had been were waters above the Earth as well as waters under the Earth.

Imagine, going back further, if the entirety of our developing scientific knowledge since the days of Copernicus and Galileo had kept confirming the descriptions and implicit assumptions of the Bible or some other holy book. I'd say in those circumstances that the truth of the relevant religion would have been massively corroborated. It would have been even more irrational to disbelieve the words of the holy book than it is currently, in the real world, to disbelieve in the essentials of biological evolution, plate tectonics, astrophysics, and so on. Imagine all the conversions from the false faiths to the one described in the holy book.

I'm sure God, if He existed, could still find a way to rectify the current dismal situation, and to render it irrational to reject some particular account of His actions. But He's doing a rotten job of it so far for an omnipotent and omniscient being.

106. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102509 by Russell Blackford on December 23, 2007 at 4:00 am

Ho hum. Every time I come across the expression "fundamentalist atheist" I am just going to link to my considered position on the issue to save time:

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2007/10/fundamentalism.html

Take it or leave it, I'm afraid.

107. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102377 by Russell Blackford on December 22, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Just to be even-handed, someone with the kinds of investigative and analytical skills that are taught to journalists and lawyers would be a lot better equipped to delve into the evidence than a candlestick maker. It doesn't mean they'll find anything especially conclusive, but let's not make silly points.

108. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102376 by Russell Blackford on December 22, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Wow, someone who is totally unaware of the scholarly controversy surrounding the Josephus passage in particular. This site always has lots to amuse the passing traveller.

109. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #101715 by Russell Blackford on December 20, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Part of the trouble is that Christianity just may be good for the world, on balance, when you consider the realistic alternatives. I think the apposite question is a much narrower one. Would it be good for the world for Christianity to be able to impose its moral specific doctrines on the populations of Western societies? Of course, the answer to that may be "Yes", if you actually believe those doctrines (though not necessarily). But if you are not a Christian, you can see the power of the "No" case.

The thing is, Christianity is not actually true; we can be fairly clear about that. But there's little realistic prospect, at the moment, of everyone suddenly converting to a rational, liberal, humanistic scepticism. A world without Christianity might be dominated by Islam, or by a raft of irrational secular ideologies, or by something worse that we can't imagine. I think there's every reason for taking a half-hearted approach to such a big, ill-defined question.

110. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101680 by Russell Blackford on December 20, 2007 at 6:12 pm

What a dangerous article.

I nearly broke my arm when I reached the final sentence and fell off my chair, laughing.

111. Abstinence Programs Face Rejection

Comment #100448 by Russell Blackford on December 18, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Yes, this is great news.

Teenagers are typically as randy as rabbits. We need educational programs that start with this truth, even if it's an inconvenient one. Teach them about contraception; teach them about safety; teach them about alternatives to vaginal intercourse; teach the girls about how to get help if they get pregnant. But don't assume you'll be able to teach them abstinence. They'll want to give and receive sexual pleasure ... and who can blame them? That has to be the starting point.

112. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #99774 by Russell Blackford on December 17, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Christmas is essentially a pagan festival anyway - not just in its historical origin but in the way it's celebrated.

113. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #97809 by Russell Blackford on December 12, 2007 at 5:05 pm

I love these people who already "know" something, so they can just dismiss pefectly rational arguments as necessarily being rationalisations of something they consider sinister.

114. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97223 by Russell Blackford on December 11, 2007 at 7:12 pm

I think the most essential point keeps getting lost, though someone may well have made it somewhere in the pages above.

It was quite proper for the late pope to apologise on behalf of the very organisation that he led for the multiple crimes of that very same organisation carried out in the name of the very same system of religious dogma that it continues to advocate. (I'm prepared to assume that this is what JP II actually did.)

How can Dawkins say anything remotely comparable about what was done by the Communist Party under Stalin in the name of a body of political dogma that was a variant of Marxist communism? Dawkins does not head the Communist Party and does not defend or any way share its system of dogma. Likewise for the Nazi atrocities.

Note that the pope did not apologise for the atrocities of other religions. Not even the current head of some communist group can really apologise for Stalin. Even the heads of fascist groups can't really apologise on behalf of the historical Nazi party and its leader - the most they can do is denounce them and try to distance themselves.

Of course, Dawkins could deplore the actions of Hitler and Stalin, as can anybody else, including Father Morris. It proves nothing. They were not done in his name or in the name of any beliefs that he shares or in that of any organisation that he leads or is otherwise remotely associated with.

Even taking the case at its strongest, these considerations alone expose the open letter as blatant opportunist grandstanding.

This is in addition to the points made above by various people about the detail of what kinds of dogma lead to atrocities, who committed the Nazi and Stalinist atrocities, what the atrocities actually were, etc., etc. Of course they were not committed in the name of atheism.

I should also add that comments about Ratzinger being an ex-Nazi don't help. It's demonstrably untrue, or at least a gross exaggeration, and it just makes the people who say such things - and all those associated with them - appear unreasonable.

115. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97162 by Russell Blackford on December 11, 2007 at 2:21 pm

A dear friend gave me a copy of Gray's book for my birthday a few months ago, and I wish I could like it. There's some interesting stuff in there, but I'm afraid that all too much of it is just like the above article: an anti-Enlightenment rant.

116. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96772 by Russell Blackford on December 10, 2007 at 10:14 pm

This open letter is a bit all over the place. Some things that it says are correct. But here's the real deal.

Atheism itself is not a source of evil. The source of evil lies in comprehensive, transformative, dogmatically-held systems of thought, once they have the might of the state at their disposal: once they have fire, swords, bombs, prisons, gas chambers, and the like.

These systems of thought include Nazism and various strains of communism, but also born-again protestant Christianity, Roman Catholicism, and hardline Islam.

Such worldviews or systems of thought contain seeds of fanaticism and totalitarianism because they demand that individuals and entire societies be transformed in toto, irrespective of the cost to ordinary, this-worldly human values, sympathies, and inclinations. If somebody who subscribes to such a system of thought obtains access to secular power, he (it's usually a he) is likely to do anything, no matter how destructive or cruel, to bring about whatever crazy ends the dogma insists upon.

Hence we have inquisitions, unspeakably evil tortures, suppression of inquiry, mass killings, and crusades; we have the inhuman rejection of art, love, music, sexuality, or whatever else might be hated and demonised by the system.

The exact nature of the horrors that a particular comprehensive, transformative, dogmatically-held worldview will bring about, if given the worldly power to do so, will depend on exactly what ends it sets itself and what means its leaders consider most effective.

It's true that some of these worldviews are not religious in any narrow sense (involving a supernatural being or principle), so it might be said that religion itself is not the problem.

It's also true that some of the modern non-religious or quasi-religious ideologies are actually worse than most traditional religions - though Nazism was so close to being a religion that it doesn't provide a good example of this. Nazism essentially continued the Christian hatred of the Jews with more modern and horribly effective means.

In any event, a bare non-belief in deities - or scepticism about them - does not possess any such power to breed fanatics and totalitarians.

Though some current religions are rather mild, that's only the case in environments where religious zeal has been de-fanged by secularism. Though some non-religious or quasi-religious ideologies are also horrible, that doesn't take away the fact that any religion which claims transformative power, and which demands to be taken with full seriousness and commitment, contains the seeds of horror of one kind or another. One thing we must never do again, wherever we can prevent it, is allow religious institutions to obtain secular, this-worldly power.

Unfortunately, Roman Catholicism in its current form has reverted to being one of the worst religions of the lot. I would hate to see it exercise secular power on any large scale: with modern technology and organisational methods at its disposal, it would soon begin to enforce its own religious and moral dogmas ... and it would undoubtedly perpetrate new kinds of cruelty, probably on a larger scale than was ever possible to it in its heyday.

What we actually need is a sophisticated, urbane scepticism about all these comprehensive transformative systems of dogma. That's what the good "Father" should be trying to provide. Let him offer to join in a movement that advocates scepticism about religion, as well as about communism, Nazism, and the like. Then maybe it's worth talking to him.

117. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #96430 by Russell Blackford on December 10, 2007 at 2:16 pm

I see that we have a new idiot who thinks that criticism of ideas is racism.

118. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #93065 by Russell Blackford on December 2, 2007 at 5:27 am

Sigh. I thought I'd get disagreements, though I also hoped some people would get a better understanding of what is at stake here.

Look, the law on this is pretty clear, so don't shoot the messenger on that. If I had been the judge I probably would have had to do the same thing, based on the evidence, and so would anyone else if they applied the law properly. It's no use criticising the judge.

So, the question is really should the law be changed in some way. Well, I don't think so - there are good reasons for letting teenagers make decisions about whether or not they will accept medical treatment.

Yes, as Sean says, there would probably have been a different result if the guy had been deluded in some more idiosyncratic way. But no court anywhere in the Western world is going to rule that someone who holds to a religion is thereby incompetent to make such decisions.

This case is nothing like situations where, as a matter of practicality society says you can't have a drivers' licence until you're 17 or whatever. Many teenagers may be mature enough at some earlier age, but it wouldn't be practical to send each one off individually to a judge to take evidence and assess their maturity. They just have to wait a bit. We make a lot of arbitrary cut-offs like that in the law because it would be impractical to do otherwise.

But when it comes to strapping down someone who may feel deeply violated, may wish to resist, etc., presumably forcing sedation on the person ... yes, it's quite different. It would be wrong to say that we (the state) are entitled to use what amounts to violence on you for your own good as seen by us (until you reach some arbitrary age).

We are not just asking that the person wait for awhile to apply for a drivers' licence. We, as the state, are using force against the person to invade his body against his will.

As I said, don't complain about the law. Go to the root of the particular problem, which is the religious beliefs themselves. The only way forward is continuing to cast doubt on religion, not attacking laws that we'd approve of in other situations, or judges who are merely applying them.

119. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93027 by Russell Blackford on December 2, 2007 at 2:38 am

I really can't bear to watch D'Souza, though I should force myself to grit my teeth through more of his segments. From the bits I've browsed so far, it seems to me that Dennett wins. Although he gets confused at times - with all his notes and mikes not working and whatever - he comes across as sincere, as knowing his stuff, and basically being on top of it all and adding something substantial to the culture's pool of ideas.

From what I've seen here of D'Souza, it just comes across as not-very-sincere ranting. I expect that the audience they debated in front of would have tended to see it the same way. Although his performance has a sort of polish to it and a lot of aggression, D'Souza looks pretty bad compared to Dennett.

On the other hand, if exactly the same thing had been presented on D'Souza's turf, with different vibes coming from the audience and more sense of D'Souza connecting, I might have had a quite different sense of who "won".

I may be wrong in my impressions. Maybe I need to watch more of it to have a properly informed opinion.

120. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #92921 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Actually, I think this was the right legal outcome. You can't have the state, via its courts, ordering that people be strapped down against their will, and be physically forced to have medical treatment that they don't want and which they may even struggle against. Well, you can but we normally should not let the state do that once we're convinced that we're dealing with somebody who really does know his own mind - and the judge was in a better position to assess that than anyone here.

It is not analogous to drivers' licences; just think about the two situations in detail for a moment. A driver's licence is a privilege that you apply for. It is not something that is physically forced on you against your will like a blood transfusion that you don't want.

The law worked "badly" in this instance, but there are many other cases where it works "well" and we'd not want it changed. The problem here was not the law or the judge. One thing the judge should definitely not have done (and I hope no one here is suggesting this) was inquire into the truth or otherwise of the boy's religious beliefs. That would be an unacceptable violation of the separation of church and state.

I know people are upset by this sort of thing, but it happens because of harmful religious beliefs, not because the law should be changed or because a particular judge was incompetent in applying it. For as long as people have these sorts of religious beliefs and socialise their young relatives into them, we will get such outcomes from time to time. Today a 14 year old teenage boy, tomorrow maybe a 41 year old woman.

It's not the age that matters. Once you have someone who really does know his own mind, and really doesn't want medical treatment, and refuses it for his own reasons, however misguided, there's not much the law can or should do about it. You need to address the root of the problem.

121. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92896 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Bonzai, I agree that the evidence against a providential deity is very strong. So strong, that it looks to me that the fine-tuning was not done by anything even like the wishy-washy god of the deists, whch tends to have something to do with goodness and the like. If you ascribe fine-tuning to a deity, that deity starts to look more like a cosmic mad scientist conducting a cruel experiment.

The truth of the matter may be this. If you already believe in revelation, can somehow rationalise away the evidence against a providential and beneficent god, and just feel a psychological conviction about religion, the fine-tuning argument will seem like powerful confirmation.

Conversely, if you find the supposed revelations unconvincing, find the evidence against any kind of providential and benevolent god overwhelming, don't see any signs of disembodied spirits floating around (so invoking one now is invoking something totally new as part of the total ontology, and is thus ad hoc), and are impressed by humans' tendencies to reach for explanations of phenomena that rely on intelligent agency (and by how often such explanations fail even when they are initially psychologically satisfying), then you are likely to look for some kind of mechanism that explains how the constants are what they are and how they have turned out to allow complexity.

That may not be an easy point to package up, but I think it's close to the truth of the matter.

Obviously, I'm in the camp of those who see the evidence against a providential, benevolent god as strong, think the evidence of revelation is unimpressive, etc. Debating this in front of people from the other camp would be difficult, though. Dennett didn't have to do that, but such debates have a wide range of audiences.

122. Evolution Debate Led to Ouster, Official Says

Comment #92866 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Could someone explain to me why it's better to be sacked? It looks like a constructive dismissal to me. I doubt that the "resignation" would prejudice any legal rights she might have. From a PR viewpoint, "forced out" works pretty much as well as "sacked".

Or do people have some other aspect in mind? I'm just curious about what y'all are getting at, not contesting it.

123. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92861 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Why should the train be out of control if abortion is not actually morally wrong? A million or a billion acts that are morally permissible don't add up to an act that is morally impermissible. Not usually, anyway.

I think the most that can be said is this:

Even though abortion is not morally wrong, it is a traumatic experience to go through. Hence, we should not stop women from having abortions if, in their circumstances, they decide it is best for them. However, we should try to provide better education on contraception so that fewer women are confronted with unwanted pregnancies and faced with the choice of either going through something traumatic or becoming mothers when they don't want to be.

Actually, there's a further twist. Even if we could agree that abortion is morally impermissible, it doesn't follow that the state should prohibit it. But we needn't go into the difference between moral principles and political principles.

124. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92858 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 3:42 pm

People here often seem to miss the strength of the fine-tuning argument. It's not really that the universe is fine-tuned for life. It's that the universe is fine-tuned for any sort of complexity at all. It looks as if there has to be an explanation as to how there is an internally-complex universe, when almost any combination of possible physical constants and other basic givens would yield a universe without complexity - perhaps one that doesn't last long enough, perhaps one that never expands, perhaps one that expands too fast, etc. I think that it is actually tempting to say, "A powerful intelligent agency must be responsible." That's the kind of answer that many people find psychologically satisfying.

Bringing out why this might be more psychologically satisfying than intellectually helpful is actually quite difficult.

I think that the fine-tuning argument is the most powerful weapon in the theists' armoury, because it can at least tempt us to deism ... and once we reach deism, it may seem natural to wonder whether there isn't something to revelation after all.

I don't think the argument from fine-tuning should compel any commitment to belief. It has a lot of difficulties, but they are not straightforward to explain in real time. I've always thought that hammering this argument would be the best approach for a theist in live debates. The best strategy is to make deism seem plausible, then ask if it is plausible to stop at deism when the deist god could easily reveal itself, take an interest in its creation, etc.

I haven't watched this debate yet, but that's how I would handle the brief if assigned the theist side of one these debates.

The challenge for atheists is to come up with a response that is cogent ... yet simple and clear enough, and sufficiently independent of other assumptions, to be expressed in real time in a live debate. The best approaches, I think, are the ones that build on problems with whether positing God is a genuine explanatory advance.

125. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92670 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 6:15 am

Wow, a naked (so to speak) appeal to the "yuck" factor.

126. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92664 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 5:12 am

Vaal, someone should immediately produce a re-written version of Lady Chatterley's Lover with the words "John Thomas" altered appropriately wherever they appear.

127. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92662 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 5:09 am

Keith, I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I do think that Pat Condell's video was a bit over the top, if taken literally, and that it was legit for Steve to raise questions about it ... e.g. just how literally it was meant, blah, blah.

But your analysis of the bigger picture sounds about right to me.

128. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92657 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 4:03 am

You can never step entirely outside of your own values, but you can always ask yourself, "What are my deepest, most enduring values?", and use your answer to that question to judge your more immediate responses, prejudices, emotions, so-called "moral intuitions", socialisation, etc., either "endorsing" these things or "disowning" them. Unfortunately, there's no more objective platform than that. Anyway, that's my approach to moral philosophy. Lots of others disagree of course. :)

129. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92652 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 3:32 am

Hey, I thought I was the only one with the "y'all" around here.

130. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92648 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 3:16 am

Y'all should read Sarah Hrdy's big book for scientific data, but she's a controversial writer. She thinks that monogamy is a good social compromise, but that polygyny and polyandry are perfectly natural ways to run a society that work in some circumstances. She has quite a lot of anthropological data.

For those who are raising points about how society as a whole should operate, the thing is that those of us who are kind of supporting RD are not suggesting that there should be a single template that covers everybody in a society. At least, I don't interpret anyone as saying that. I think we're past the stage of thinking about one template for all.

What I, at least, am arguing is not that we should all be going around having sex with each other (unless we actually want to; I have nothing against it, either). I'm certainly not advocating that society adopt patriarchal polgyny, which is a pretty terrible system.

Rather, it's just that that we can all be sophisticated enough to realise that monogamy is a social compromise ("social fiction" is not quite right). Some societies have reached other social compromises (some of which may work better than others in the various circumstances, so I'm not advocating a naive moral relativism about it). There is no transcendent basis for any particular sexual arrangments; it may be wise for people, especially family-oriented couples, to be monogamous a lot of the time, or even all the time if it works out that way; but there's no reason to be inflexible about it.

In my case, I'm also arguing that once we realise all this we can see that demanding an open-ended, all-circumstances pledge of a sexual partner never to have sex with anyone else is unreasonable, and hence the wrong thing to do. Whether our partners ever actually do have sex with anyone else is another thing; they may well not. But they should not feel pressured into always being monogamous in all circumstances on pain of receiving our jealous displeasure. If they do choose to be monogamous - for a period or for the rest of their lives - it should be up to them. Hence, I would feel that I was acting immorally if I ever demanded a promise of that kind. I would be ashamed to make such a demand.

On the other hand, to take a reasonably clear example, two people who are actually trying to have a child would have every reason to agree to act monogamously, and so might many people who are currently focused on pooling resources to raise kids. But there are other people who don't want kids, or who won't have them for years, or who had them a long time ago, or who are gay, or whatever.

And even people in conventional family situations might find their way around the problems in some other inventive way that I can't immediately imagine. It's all a matter of circumstances.

The trouble is that traditional religious existing sexual morality is such a one-size-fits-all thing ... and even though it may actually make sense for a lot of relatively conventional and family-oriented heteosexual couples, the religious don't support it in that limited way. Rather, they claim it is an absolute requirement. Worse, they will sometimes rationalise it on the ground that sex is only for procreation, not recreation, that non-reproductive sex is wrong, that sexual pleasure is somehow problematic in itself and must be redeemed by its procreative potential, that sexual lust is "sinful", that the extreme pleasures that can be experienced in sex are of no value and are mere hedonism (I say that there's nothing "mere" about it; pleasure is good), etc., etc. All of this religious moralising about sex is just so much bullshit.

Once we see that the traditions of the religions have no authority over us, we can be so much more rational and clear-thinking about what the point of sexual morality actually is, and about what kinds of restraint are reasonable to ask for in what circumstances. When we start to think like that and reason our way through it rigorously, we may find that our vision of what we are morally required to do, or not do, is considerably transformed.

131. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92598 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 9:48 pm

In my opinion, the best stance to take is that the jury is still out on whether Islam can find the internal resources to embrace religious toleration, the rule of secular law, freedom of speech, the Millian harm principle and the distinction between "sin" and crime, equality of the sexes, and so on. A lot of Christians have embraced those things to an extent that seemed inconceivable, even forty years ago. Of course, a lot haven't. It's not at all obvious to me that Islam can't find the resources ... but it is obvious to me that very few Muslims, as a proportion of the total number in the world, have done so as yet.

What we really need right now is for the supposedly liberal Muslims like Ed Husain and Waleed Aly to say that they embrace all those things wholeheartedly. If they do so, I don't think it helps to tell them that there are no resources in Islam for it to be possible.

All we can do is tell them why we are concerned about Islam's record and about whether it is compatible with those values. We can tell them why our wariness about Islam is rational and is not "Islamophobia" (which would be an irrational fear of Islam). We can put the pressure on them to affirm all the important secular values.

But if they actually do so (to greater or lesser extent) as individuals, it's no use us telling them that Islam doesn't "really" allow it - citing passages in the Koran, or the hadith, or whatever, at them. Some of the things that Husain is saying in this debate are very welcome.

The secular values that I mentioned are supposed to be values that people with many worldviews can embrace as political values. By all means let's put the heat on Muslims (and Catholics, etc.) to do so, but I see no utility in arguing that their traditions preclude them ever embracing secular political values. We can't know in advance what scope there is for future reinterpretation of those religious traditions.

132. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92564 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 7:20 pm

I have mixed feelings about these debates. The way to win is not to have the most cogent case - it's to have a format that favours you, a certain plausibility or confident aggression in real time, an audience that's on your side ...

I do wonder whether debating someone totally beyond the pale like D'Souza just lends him credibility.

That said, they can be entertaining and they also do some good. I suppose I'm happier to at the idea of a debate between two rational people - e.g. Ed Hussain and AHA - than a debate giving the impression that someone D'Souza is reputable.

133. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92532 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 5:51 pm

I must admit that I, too, initially assumed that this would be about some kind of spontaneous support for the poor teacher having her life and work ruined by a crazy system of so-called "justice". Obviously, I was naive, or maybe just in too sunny a mood today.

Sigh.

The madness never ends.

134. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92516 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 4:59 pm

No, that's just envy. :)

135. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92506 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 4:34 pm

We've seem figures like this before, so it's not that surprising ... but all the same. Some days, I just don't know whether to despair at all the idiocy in the world or whether to laugh. I'm in a particularly good mood at the moment so I'm shaking my head and laughing. I'll despair later.

136. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92502 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 4:17 pm

I've posted enough about my own views on this thread. I find myself continuing to agree with most of what Beth is saying - perhaps all of it, but I won't commit myself that far because I've only skimmed all the new posts this morning.

I'd like to focus on something else. There is really no school of thought called "New Atheism", or whatever. There are various independent thinkers who have in common that they reject religion. You can't expect them to toe some party line or to censor their views on various topics for fear of harming some kind of atheist cause.

Personally, I would go further than Richard on this issue, but whether he's right or wrong you can't expect him to play politics, adopt cunning, insincere formulations, etc. If he's suspicious of sexual jealousy and inflexible requirements relating to monogamy, and if he feels like saying so, then he should go ahead and say so. I salute him for it, even if this particular article has flaws (as he's acknowledged).

I'm not even sure it will be harmful to any so-called cause. I think we're all better off if we stop pretending that the very same morality as the religious insist upon can be justified on a secular basis. It can't be. The clearest, cleanest answer to religious dogmatists is always - "Yes, morality can be given a rational justification, but not your sick notion of morality. Live with it." The sooner we get that idea out there, rather than beating about the bush, the better off we'll be.

137. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92220 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 4:47 am

Flagellant, it'll probably fall on deaf ears. But I agree it's a good move that the government there could make.

I think one of the best things that Western governments can do in the midst of this current and ongoing crisis about the future of religion and its influence is simply clean up their own statute books, so as to give much stronger protection to freedom of speech and to get rid of prohibitions that have no good secular justification (though I know that I'll get argument even here if I offer my own complete wish list of statutes I want to see repealed).

Let's seize back our Enlightenment.

138. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92219 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 4:39 am

It really is so hard to know what to do. As Martin Amis has mused elsewhere, you can find yourself fantasising about very tough political action, but that won't help the poor of Sudan or even whatever secularised middle class exists there.

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

Comment #92216 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 4:28 am

Bonzai, we're not far apart - I am happy for DSW to carry out his research program, and I realise he's not making an egregious mistake such as confusing utility with truth. However, I think that his comment about "silliness" is a bit ... well, silly.

I'm more tolerant of religion than some here - I even kind of like the good old C of E - but I do think it's important to subject religious claims to sceptical scrutiny, not only because I think they are all false but also because the people who are supposedly the religious experts so often claim the authority to push views that are actually harmful. I know there have been some examples where political grandstanding by the Great Queen Spider cult hasn't worked, e.g. in Canada, but there are all too many cases where it has worked, or at least caused terrible headaches, or where some other Abrahamic strain has done real damage.

Ideally, I'd like to live in a world where people have abandoned any belief in religion as we've known it and fallen back - well, if not all the way to atheism at least to something vague like pantheism or deism. I'd even be content if they kept their precious theism and everything that goes with it if they held on to it with some healthy doubt, especially when the doctrines of their pet Abrahamic sect otherwise lead them to interfere with their lives of their neighbours.

For that reason, it's not at all silly to go on casting doubt on the truth-claims of religion.

Of course, there can be levels of fanaticism or mental inflexibility that really are silly. I'd hate to see the atheistic cultishness that some here have referred to ... but pace Janus I think I already have seen examples of it from time to time, including that very recent trainwreck over at Pharyngula when Steve got attacked bitterly by some commenters after raising a quite reasonable issue in a non-trollish way.

140. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92175 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 2:29 am

On the main topic, our sexual jealousy frequently makes us inclined to try to stop our sexual partners having sex with anyone else. There are reasons why that might have been adaptive in the EEA, but it's an incredibly selfish attitude, and I'd be ashamed of it. It's saying that our own sexual jealousy takes precedence over someone else's joy and perhaps deep feelings.

As rational, conscious beings, we are capable of realising that this is not a justifiable attitude. Sure, a period of agreed monogamy may be a good idea in quite specific circumstances (as in when two people are trying to have a baby and really want it to be the product of their genes ... or when they're flat out looking after a newborn). But no one has ever gone anywhere near defending the idea that it is bad, irrespective of circumstances, to be non-monogamous, or how it can be justifiable to pressure a sexual partner into promising to have sex with no one else, irrespective of the circumstances. What I can't understand is why people keep coming out with this stuff even though it has no rational basis. For Poseidon's sake, we can do better. Just step back from your socialisation into a religious "morality" that supports everything that is worst about our nature.

141. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92161 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 1:56 am

I can't recall the detail with Clinton, if I ever knew it, but that kind of question sounds to me like one that should never be asked because it is massively prejudicial without being probative. We really should be keeping questions like that out of our legal system.

J.L. Mackie, in his wonderful book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong has similar views about lying (I take it he has in mind journalists and the like. Here is Mackie on pages 182-83: " Truth-telling naturally goes along with cooperation; it is not obviously reasonable to tell the truth to a competitor or an enemy. A question may be seen as an intrusion, perhaps backed by an assumption of a right to intrude, which the person questioned may deny or resent. Where, for one reason or another, it is not possible to tell the inquirer to mind his own business, a lie may be an appropriate defence of privacy."

In my case, I find it hard to be other than truthful, even to competitors and enemies ... but Mackie was a very wise man.

142. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92119 by Russell Blackford on November 29, 2007 at 10:33 pm

I second the point that Beth has been making a lot of sense on this thread.

143. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92049 by Russell Blackford on November 29, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Well, lots of sexual relationships - even heterosexual ones - have nothing to do with children. Many people are having (heterosexual) sex at an age when they are not even thinking about having children for years ahead. Many are doing so at an age when they've had whatever children they will have and don't want more. Many other people are childless by choice. Yes, the presence of plans to have children, or of actual children and their demands on time and energy, may well affect how some people should arrange their sex lives, but even if that consideration was once the norm for most people most of the time ... well, it certainly isn't now.

If the people involved are gay, children are even less likely to be a factor in the moral equation - though of course some gays do have child-care responsibilities and it may in some cases affect how they should lead their lives.

Etc.

It really does come down to shifting individual circumstances, and none of it justifies the kind of blanket, inflexible morality that has been taught in the past.

None of it justifies extracting broad promises of "faithfulness" no matter the circumstances of people from time to time. None of it justifies the social expectation that people will, or should, extract mutual promises of that kind. None of it justifies making demands of others based on sexual jealousy, which is an emotion to be ashamed of.

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

Comment #92044 by Russell Blackford on November 29, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Bonzai, aren't you being a bit harsh? I for one am not saying that David Sloan Wilson is a bad person or that his research program is worthless, or anything like that. We just have to be careful in how much we assess truth claims for the utilitarian consequences of holding them, rather than for their actual truth.

I must admit, that I'm not entirely opposed to Wilson's way of thinking because I think that most people have incorrect beliefs about morality - I mean,in particular, that they are incorrect at the meta-ethical level - and I'm prepared to put up with this if their actual norms, dispositions of character, etc., lead to them to behave in ways that are not harmful to others. But it's not ideal.

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

Comment #92002 by Russell Blackford on November 29, 2007 at 5:10 pm

If we were talking about laws or conventional moral norms, Wilson would have a point. We do in fact judge those things by whether they help the community function, or whether they are successful in preventing harms, or by some similar standard. But that can't apply to what beliefs people have, at least not in the simplistic way that Wilson says. I mean, there could, I suppose be circumstances where it's good to have some Noble Lies around. But most of us cringe at the idea and would hope that any such circumstances are rare. Perhaps we just do value the truth too much.

In any event, I'd be softer on religion if it didn't do so much actual harm.

146. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91997 by Russell Blackford on November 29, 2007 at 5:02 pm

I should add that if two people have actually promised to act in a certain way, then of course breaking the promise is bad - no more and no less than breaking any other promise about something of comparable importance to those involved. However, I think it's wrong to pressure someone else make such a promise ... at least if it's framed in the usual broad terms. I have never done so and never will.

There could of course be narrower circumstances where people have a rational basis to be monogamous and to promise to be - e.g. during a period when they are actually trying to have a child together. In those circumstances, it won't work if the woman has sex with another man, and if she can't have sex with anyone else perhaps it's best for him not to either, out of solidarity. Leave aside all the complications of gays, bisexuals, women who are strong-willed enough to confine themselves to oral sex with a lover, etc., for the moment.

The point is that these things can indeed be complicated and have to be worked out by the individuals involved, in their particular circumstances. They may have reasons to promise certain things in a particular situation, and if they then break a promise on something important that is wrong. But the broad and inflexible requirement of monogamy in religious morality is not only unjustified; it is itself immoral, and socialising young people into that way of thinking is an immoral act, much like socialising young people into believing in non-existent deities.

147. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91935 by Russell Blackford on November 29, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Well done, Richard. It took some courage to publish this, and you'll cop flak for it, even from other secular people. But I agree with you one hundred per cent. In fact, one of the things that disappointed me a bit about The God Delusion was that it was rather soft on sexual jealousy in the relevant passage.

Sexual jealousy is a flawed basis for morality. Expecting other people to be sexually "faithful", i.e. demanding that someone not have sex with anyone else just because she happens to be having sex with you, is an outrageous demand, yet our culture accepts it as not only acceptable but virtuous. (Muslim polygamy is even worse - a man with four wives is making that same outrageous demand of four people.)

What should be said over and over is that there definitely is a rational basis for morality. There are good reasons to be kind, non-violent, etc., and to try to teach those virtues to others. It's just that there's no rational basis for the miserable morality of the religious.

148. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91577 by Russell Blackford on November 28, 2007 at 3:23 pm

This is terribly worrying. Turkey has been successful as a modern liberal, secular nation, despite also being a nation whose people are mainly Muslims. It has been a bright beacon for the idea that Islam and modernity are compatible, something that I'd very much like to believe is true. Unfortunately, it seems to be going backwards of late.

I really hope it can turn this around and show us once more what a liberal Muslim culture can be. A good place to start would be by refusing to censor ideas.

149. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #91041 by Russell Blackford on November 27, 2007 at 4:26 am

When he says that we need to be able to make distinctions, Morris has a point. But here's another point: we desperately need to get beyond people wondering aloud (hmmm, "just wondering") about whether somebody like Martin Amis is being racist when he expresses views on contemporary political Islam.

Islam is not a genetic variation; it is a belief system. As such, it is ... along with whatever particular varieties of it may concern us ... fair game for attack, just like any other belief system. It is no more immune to attack than communism (or some particular variety thereof), monetarism, Keynesianism, Roman Catholicism, Satanism, Randian libertarianism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Sikhism, Buddhism, any of the strands of what we call "Hinduism", Shinto, wicca (perhaps of some specific kind), Sartrean existentialism, Scientology, the religious system of the Aztecs, or whatever beliefs were tied up in ancient Middle Eastern fire worship. They are all open to criticism on their merits.

Criticising someone for where she fits into some kind of clinal variation of genes and superficial phenotypical traits, such as skin colour, is obviously irrational - though it took a long time for people to work this out, and there are plenty around who still don't get it. Racism, in other words, is not only ugly and nasty but clearly irrational and indefensible.

Criticising particular belief systems and worrying about how they might motivate the relevant believers are perfectly rational activities. In fact, this sort of criticism is absolutely necessary. We have to find a way to stop people trying to suppress legitimate criticism of ideas by conflating it with racism.

150. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #91010 by Russell Blackford on November 27, 2007 at 12:43 am

I'm really looking forward to receiving my single advancing hoard. I promise to spend it wisely.