Carrying on from a previous post which linked to the “Only A Game” Blog and its fascinating series of posted reviews on Charles Taylor’s “A Secular Age” - here is Part 4 “Religion” versus “Science” - It is in brief a description of the false dichotomy that the above phrase engenders not to mention the partisan psychology of many of its adherents.
Well worth a read.
I have recently finished reading The God Delusion. I have complicated feeling about the book. On one hand it is well written with interesting anecdotes. On the other hand it does appear to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The book could perhaps be shorter if this argument was more focused rather than attack every aspect of religion. An example is the argument “because we cannot explain X, god did it.” Dawkins first points out that this is not logically valid but then goes about explaining X with X in this case being complexity of life. This causes Dawkins’s critics to attack evolution but this distraction causes the invalid argument criticism to be forgotten.
The writing style is aimed at a general reader which necessarily involves some simplification of the arguments. I don’t think much is lost in the simplification but it does annoy philosophers. Most of the arguments are taken from Hume, Epicurus, etc so there is nothing new. What Dawkins brings to the debate is to contemporise them. Interestingly, there is very little overlap between Dawkins and Nietzsche although they have similar goals. Nietzsche would have blasted Dawkins’s humanism.
Dawkins has become infamous for his views on the non-existence of God. I feel I should mention the common criticism and note that they are wide of the mark. For those who criticize Dawkins for simply expressing his opinion, this hardly seems compatible with modern (free speech) or biblical (turn the other cheek) ethical standards. Others assume criticism of religion is the same as calling for its eradication. Dawkins does not calls for this in the book. Those that call Dawkins’s position a “religion”, a faith or an indoctrination method are usually committing ad hominem tu quoque. And finally a common criticism against Dawkins is agnosticism causes evil actions. I have not heard any valid causal connection between the two and it is a non sequitur as it stands. I suggest anyone trying to read the book to ignore previous views, either for or against.
He makes a good point on the source of morality in religion and almost taken from the pages of modern philosophy. Most religious people interpret religious texts to find a moral system. The literalists have an untenable position due to inconsistencies in the text. But what do we use to guide interpretation? Dawkins argues this interpretation must necessarily come from outside scripture. This undermines any claim that morality comes from holy books and puts religious morality on the same level as secular morality.
He also cites studies that different cultures have an instinctive grasp of a common morality. Reading between the lines, it is almost like calling for that to be the basis of morality. This reminds me of Hume’s attempt at founding morality on empirical observation. This approach to morality is incomplete since it only addresses morality when everyone is in agreement with moral law. For novel moral questions, our instinct is often silent.
Dawkins has no time for agnosticism. He distinguishes between two types of agnosticism. For the first type (which he calls Permanent Agnosticism in Principle) is a deistic God beyond the reach of evidence. He seems dismissive of this position and treats it as similar to ignosticism (the concept of God is meaningless). It is difficult to fathom Dawkin’s argument on this point. This brand of agnosticism is perhaps a distant relative of a postmodern God (in that the significance of God comes from the believer rather than from an objective source). The second type of agnosticism (Temporary Agnosticism in Practice) treats God as being inside and part of nature (an empirical hypothesis). Dawkins dismisses TAP because, in his view, the empirical evidence implies that there is no God. Before the postmodernists object to this argument, remember that most religious people believe God is very real and capable of physical manifestation. Dawkins’s book explicitly does not address Deism, Pantheonism, Buddhism or any similar world view. His argument is against the mainstream God of Abraham.
The aim of the book takes a controversial stance in today’s “tolerant” society. Dawkins sets out to deconvert believers whose belief is wavering. He recognises that it is impossible to deconvert a firm believer using rational argument and this is not his aim. The second and perhaps more difficult point is he equates religious instruction of children to child abuse. He argues that children never had a chance to make a free and informed decision to belong to religion. Children should therefore be protected from their parents. Liberals should note that an outside agency disrupting a family has a certain precedence; we allow the state to interfere with family affairs. But Dawkins assumes that free choice in belief is possible and I am not sure if that is true! When I child is part of a family, the teaching of some moral system is unavoidable. Independent thought can be encouraged but at some point this is oxymoronic - a young adult is told to have original thought and freedom. To obey this instruction is then not free or original! I find it difficult to imagine a society in which children are protected from the religion of their parents. The alternative is for parents to voluntarily not teach religion until early adulthood. I doubt many religions would agree to that constraint.
A final note: attaching the labels “militant”, “religious” or “fundamentalist” to Dawkins is ad hominem. If an argument is to be made against his religious position, please people, address his argument directly and don’t go after the man. It annoys me when implicit atheists (”the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it”) are grouped with other variants of atheism. The absence of belief is obviously not a type of religion or fundamentalism.
Anti Citizen One
There has been several creationism news articles recently. Instead of the usual analysis, I present four thought experiments that relate indirectly to the issues.
Thought experiment:
You have won a lottery (by random draw of a winner). There are three explanations for your winning:
1) It was part of God’s plan for you to win.
2) You were the only one to enter the lottery so winning was inevitable.
3) Many tickets were distributed and you won by chance.
If you don’t know how many tickets were distributed, is it possible to decide which possibility is correct?
Thought experiment:
You see a rock archway in a sea cliff. If any part of the arch was removed, the structure would collapse. The rock archway could have been formed by:
1) Being created in its current form.
2) Created by erosion to form its current shape.
If you are uncertain about the truth of 2, can you infer 1?
Thought experiment:
You see an illusion in which the magician appears to vanish and reappear. You might conclude one of the following:
1) The magician can really vanish and reappear at will.
2) The magician has performed an illusion and you do not know the method.
If you are uncertain about the truth of 2, can you infer 1?
Thought experiment:
If belief X causes life to be full of unhappiness, reckless behavior, materialistic concerns or immorality, is it
1) false
2) true
3) unknown as to is truth or falsity.
If we are unclear as to the religious instinct, it is stated thus:
There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should not wish to learn. St Augustine
Further reading: Who are the British creationists?
Anti Citizen One
In other news, India’s use of brain scans in courts dismays critics
PS. I have been thinking about these ideas for a while but it seems they are half remembered examples from Dawkins.
PPS “Nitimur in vetitum, semper cupimusque negata” (Ovid), we strive after the forbidden.
Over on the “Only a Game” blog there is an interesting series of reviews on Charles “Chuck” Taylor’s latest book “A Secular Age”.
Charles Taylor is considered possibly the greatest living philosopher in the english speaking world. I must admit rather shamefully to not having heard of him until recently. He is an interesting guy and is in many respects an intellectual descendent of Wittgenstein.
A practising Catholic he nonetheless holds views that are a very unconventional fit to what most people expect a Catholic to be. He is clearly an original thinker. His latest book “A Secular Age” charts the historical development of religion in the west leading up to and including secularism. His study focuses on how society has undergone the transition from a time when it was virtually impossible not to believe in God to a time where even those of the strongest and most determined faith accept that their is but one of many options available to them.
Rather than post a copy of somebody elses review (I haven’t read the book yet) I thought i’d just link to them. It makes interesting reading and the book is top of my wishlist. It is a serial review - here are the first three in the series:
On the same blog an excellent (though sarcastic) post on the horrors of a “science pope” (warning may contain Feyerabend).
I have returned from holiday and I have been busy reading.
Yes Man by Danny Wallace
After enjoying his previous book “Join Me”, I was looking forward to a new series of adventures of Danny. He vows to say YES to every opportunity or suggestion that presents itself. This temporarily leads to his new appreciation of life and to enjoy embracing opportunities. After a time this reverses to a weariness of this irresponsible life style.
‘…I don’t want to be like I was, but I’m so sick of saying Yes. All it does is tire me. It was supposed to help. It was supposed to be exciting.’
Ian put his pool cue down, and nodded, sadly.
‘What Yes giveth,’ he said, ‘Yes also taketh away.’
Danny begins to question the value of Yes and the existential value of his project.
What was I doing with my life? I mean, really? What was the point in all this? To waste six hours of my day on a train? To wake up confused and bewildered in a Dutch hotel room? To severely annoy my ex-girlfriend? What was I gaining from this, really? Apart from a car and some mild abuse?
He does find new energy to persist saying Yes to life. It begins to become instinctual and effortless.
…I wasn’t saying Yes because I was playing the Yes game. I’d all but forgotten about that. I wasn’t saying Yes to prove anything to myself any more, or to Ian, or to anyone else. I was saying Yes because I wanted to. I was saying Yes because all of a sudden it was coming naturally.
The book ends with a transition away from “Yes” to a more settled and mature way of life. To gratuitously quote Nietzsche, he would have approved of Danny’s embrace of life:
“Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life” Zarathustra
but probably would not have agreed with saying Yes to all opportunities. Sometimes No is necessary.
“All-satisfiedness, which knoweth how to taste everything, that is not the best taste! I honour the refractory, fastidious tongues and stomachs, which have learned to say “I” and “Yea” and “Nay.” To chew and digest everything, however- that is the genuine swine-nature! Ever to say YEA that hath only the ass learned, and those like it!” Zarathustra
The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson
The Gospel is a parody and reductio ad absurdum against the Intelligent Design movement. The core argument is if religion can be taught in schools and given legal protection, then this spoof religion, featuring the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) as God, is equally deserving of the same benefits.
I think we can all look forward to a time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one-third for Intelligent Design, one-third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one-third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
The book takes several of the classical arguments (First Cause, Ontological, Design, Logical arguments) and adapts them to suit the FSM. The fact that their logic is flawed is presumably intended as a criticism of the original arguments. There is also an amusing spoof of Genesis featuring the FMS as a very incompetent, slightly insane, ego-maniacal creator God. One or two sections are intended as an improvement of Christian values. The Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts” basically reduce to “be tolerant of others”, “have a good time” and “don’t be religiously pretentious”.
All in all a good read for people interested in the Intelligent Design movement.
I will write a review of Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig when I have a chance.
Anti Citizen One
A schoolgirl may have to wait until next month for the outcome of her legal bid to topple a school’s decision to exclude her for wearing a Sikh bangle. BBC
I have been interested in case of Sarika Watkins-Singh and her exclusion from school for wearing a ceremonial braclet which is apparently a requirement in Sikhism. The UK high court will rule on this in a few weeks. This case really cuts to the heart of the issue of uniforms and freedom of belief - unlike the Lydia Playfoot case (the Silver Ring Thing) which is entirely optional within Christianity. The high court ruled against Lydia Playfoot back in July 2007 saying her human rights were not violated.
My main reservation with Sarika Watkins-Singh’s case is that if a major religion’s dress code takes precidence over a school uniform, why not a minor religion? And if a minor religion, why not a religion of a few or even one person? Any why then can’t atheists have a choice? It makes school uniforms uninforcable…
And even though I think Sikhism is more likely false than true, I actually support this case as it maintains free speech and free expression. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Anti Citizen One
I thought I would post on something slightly off the beaten track for a change and write about something I have read recently that intrigued me.
In the April 2008 edition of National Geographic magazine there was a remarkable and touching article on Anthropological studies on Chimp culture in their own environment. In particular it was focusing on how Chimps are using spears to hunt, but also how the environment in which certain colonies such as the Fongoli live in (non-rain forested) has forced them to adapt and adopt new behaviours. Naturally enough this research intrigues those who are studying the evolution of man, and the subtitle to the article “Almost Human” reflects this.
In the article there was a chart listing variations in Chimp culture across different regions of Africa, an observation that initially astounded scientists but which is now common currency, after all human culture has a great many variations (chopsticks or forks?). One practise intrigued me immensely, and this is that the Fongoli, Bossou, Gombe and Tai chimp communities have been observed performing both individual and social rain dances.
A storm can provoke chimps in most groups to show off with a frenetic or rhythmic display.
And the Tai community has been observed going one better, performing a rain dance prior to a downpour. And research suggests this is not mere coincidence, these communities seem to consistantly perform these dances before major storms.
I am intrigued, as are the anthropologists studying them, at the seemingly religious nature of the behaviour.
You’re in awe when you see this… The chimpanzees go into a quasi-trance, dancing even when they’re alone, with no spectators, as if they were ritually celebrating the rainstorm. Pascal Gagneux - University of California at San Diego
Other researchers have noted a sense of appreciation or even “reverence” for nature exhibited in Chimpanzee behaviour. And this is extraordinary (in my opinion) as any anthropologist or primatologist studying the behaviour and culture of our closest specieal relatives would be cautious in the extreme not to allow anthropomorphic intepretations to spoil their observations. And this is obvious by the measured use of simile in their descriptions - “as if they were” - rather than “they were”. But this cautious approach does not make the observations any less remarkable, and as Wittgenstein said a simile (to be meaningful) must be meaningful when the simile is dropped. Thus one may suggest that what has been witnessed is ritual behaviour very similar to that performed by human cultures, though one may not state that as a definitive claim just yet.
So what does all this mean, and why do I find it interesting? Well it seems to me to suggest (and this is my intepretation of the material) that there is reasonable grounds to propose that ritual and religious behaviours are natural cultural phenomenon. And if one accepts that proposition then we can start to entertain the challenging and in some quarters unfashionable perspective that religious behaviour (and religion) may be useful.
Let me add a philosophical/theological caveat to this. I am by no means proposing that the existence of a natural religion or natural religious urge is in any way indicative of a God, gods, spirits and the whole panoply of metaphysical beliefs that are advanced by one religion or another. Indeed I would argue (whilst not wearing my religious hat) that if one could demonstrate an innate religiousity as being a cultural phenomenon shared with (and possibly inherited from) our closest specieal relatives then we can begin to analyse metaphysics as the “fairy-tales” by which our ancestors sought to suppliment and explain these traits.
I am therefore content to settle with the theory that religious culture has natural origins, and that it serves (or served or may come to serve) some sort of important social function. And along with such Postmodernist theologions as Don Cupitt I could be motivated to suggest that religion has a healthy future if it were to detach itself from certain metaphysical doctrines.
Two final notes. The uncanny ability of these Chimps to perform the raindance prior to the actual rain (though we have no reason to believe they perform the dance with such intent) reminds me of various Shamanic cultures where raindances are performed. Most likely as with the Chimps an awareness of meteorology is at play, and the dance is performed at such a time as it is most likely to be successful. But is it not possible that like the Chimps this meteorological awareness is perhaps a subconscious reaction to the elements? It is said that prior to an electrical storm the hairs on the back of the neck stand on end. If the raindance has deep unconscious roots, then even though we think we know better, should we not tolerate the claim that the raindance makes the rain come? It may be a false-causality from our perspective but it seems to work for those cultures who cherish it still. And lets be fair- if among our number somebody claimed to be able to do something marvellous and yet when pressed to perform the feat was consistently unable to do so surely eventually we would tire of his boasts, and yet medicine men and ritual specialists abound accross the worlds many cultures, indicative perhaps that they have a reasonably balanced expectation to performance ratio. In other words, they seem to be able to do what they claim to be able to do. And finally I wish to reiterate that the innate religiousity that it is claimed is being observed in nature is a very different kind of religion from institutions and heirarchies and metaphysics. I really think the operative word that connects the observations of Chimp behaviour with human religious urges is “reverence” and I would be content to leave it all at that. Richard Dawkins famed secularist and atheist by means of a reductio once pointed out how awesome the universe is - and how much he enjoys revelling in it - without inferring design, purpose, divinity etc. I don’t know whether he would appreciate the suggestion, but I can’t help but feel that he in his encounter with the natural world exhibits a certain deal of “reverence”. And that reverence above anything else is the definitive essence of what religion is (and perhaps should) be.
NGM article (again) here.
Short NYTimes article here.
Short interview with a Chimp Observer for the Jane Goodall Institute here.
A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word “cult” to describe the Church of Scientology.
The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.
…
Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: “I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: ‘Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.’ The Guardian
The mind boggles. Under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1985, “a person is guilty of an offense if they [...] display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. The word cult, in this context, is a critical term but also it is the central point of the protest. Does that mean all criticism of “new religious movements” (the non-perjorative term) is illegal? Based on the police action, the answer seems to be YES.
The police clearly over stepped their bounds and authority - the teenager has something known in subversive circles as “legal rights” under the “European Convention on Human Rights” (section 10 if you are interested). Secondly, criticism as part of a peaceful protest is not “threatening, abusive or insulting”.
The police should ask for the prosecution to be dropped and issue guidance to all officers as to what is “threatening, abusive or insulting” to prevent this happening in future. Remember tolerance does not mean refraining from criticism.
Anti Citizen One
Comments on a recent lecture by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor which had many references to atheism. On one hand, he says Catholisism is very clear on theology.
Catholic Christianity is characterised by [...] the clarity of its theology which brings theology and philosophy together and gives us an articulate intellectual expression of the knowledge born of faith[...]
On on the other, he states that God is unknowable. How can you have a clear study of a fundamentally unknowable entity? This is a contradiction.
A God who can be spoken of comfortably and clearly by human beings cannot be the true God. Si comprehendis, non est Deus, said St Augustine: ‘if you understand, it is not God’.
He accuses atheism as being a “product” of straw man logic. Does he notice that (implicit) atheism is the starting belief system of humans (i.e. babies)? The burden of proof is not on atheists to proof unbelief - Russell’s tea pot, etc.
How much of modern unbelief is a product of a facile, deductive treatment of God, so that the God who is often rejected by people is the product of our thinking rather than being God in the mystery of his life?
Also, I detected an anti postmodernist tone:
To some extent this is the effect of the privatisation of religion today: religion comes to be treated as a matter of personal need rather than as a truth that makes an unavoidable claim on us. I heard of a Muslim scholar recently who expressed an admiration for Pope Benedict on the grounds that he thought that Benedict understood exactly what religion is about. ‘Pope Benedict knows,’ he said, ‘that religion is about truth and not social cohesion.’ A very accurate remark I think.
TS Eliot once observed that it was a dangerous inversion to advocate Christianity not because of its truth, but because of its benefit.
Only a modern person would think that religion is a private matter, something the individual does in his or her solitude, but the tradition of Catholicism is that Christianity is profoundly social.
and later:
One of the things which I challenge is the desire to separate Christianity from rational inquiry
And I noticed an interesting wording in this section that ties in with existentialism and my series on the TV series B5:
His remark brings to mind that other haunting statement, so common now that I don’t know who said it first: ‘If there is no God, there is no one to tell us who we are.’
I know who I am, thanks. And that person is a non constant entity.
I also was reading about the Templeton Prize of which I generally disapprove. This is another attempt to unify Chritianity with rationality and science. If they want to play by rationality’s rules, they better stick to the rules.
Anti Citizen One
Recent Comments