201. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

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

FK wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

202. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

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

FK wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

203. God's honest truth?

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

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

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

EB

204. God's honest truth?

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

Quine wrote:

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

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

EB

205. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

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

Fanusi Khiyal wrote

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

206. God's honest truth?

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

Russell Blackford wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

207. God's honest truth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

208. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

This could be expressed as :

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

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

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

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

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

My conclusions from this are:

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

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

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

EB

209. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

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

Dr. Benway wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nOrrs1 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

EB

210. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Otherwise, who cares what they believe.

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

EB

211. A Revelation

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

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

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

EB

212. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

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

Goldy wrote :

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

Well put.

Freelance Cynic wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

213. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

214. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

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

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

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

EB

215. The Price of Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

But that's another debate.

EB

216. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

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

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

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

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

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

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

217. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

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

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

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

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

EB

218. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

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

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

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

EB

219. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

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

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

127. Comment by Simon Packer

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

Why on earth should anybody take these claims seriously?

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

EB

220. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

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

Re: #75828 by steve99 – comments on enabling

Two trains of thought here –

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

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

In either case, the remedy is straightforward, if not always easy. We do not need to apologize for applying the same principles and laws of liberal democracy to religious people as to anyone else. Of course, we should do so consistently and without prejudice, and with the aim to making reasonable accommodation of diversity in the interest of building a harmonious and open society. But this does not mean we slip into relativism.

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

EB

221. A Face-Off Over Faith

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

Yes, it is getting tiresome.

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

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

EB

222. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

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

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

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

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

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

EB

223. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

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

"He could have done it with even fewer words:

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

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

EB

224. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

225. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

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

Dr. Benway wrote:

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

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

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

Liveliest Crib wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

226. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

227. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

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

I have several problems with Dawkins' argument:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This argument seems now quite banal and obvious.

EB

228. Religion as a Force for Good

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

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

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

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

EB

229. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

230. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

231. Keeping the faith at school

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

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

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

EB

232. Root and Branch

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

Quine wrote:

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

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

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

EB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

234. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

235. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

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

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

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


EB

236. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

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

Janus wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve99 writes:

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

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

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

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

EB

237. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

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

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

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

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

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

EB

238. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

240. The smallest signs of retreat

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

Aitchkay wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

241. The smallest signs of retreat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

242. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

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

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

Richard Morgan wrote:

Really?

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

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

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

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

EB

243. Creationism raised as Ont. election issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

EB

244. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

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

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

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

EB

245. The importance of doubt

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

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

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

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

EB

246. This human's life, decoded

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

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

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

EB

247. The importance of doubt

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

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

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

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

EB

248. The importance of doubt

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

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

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

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

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

EB

249.