Year: 2010

  • Catholic child rape scandal spreads in Europe

    Walter Mixa, bishop for Augsburg and the German armed forces, offered to resign after admitting he used to hit children.

  • Ireland: Another Bishop Resigns

    Bishop James Moriarty did not challenge Dublin Archdiocese’s concealment of child-abuse complaints from police.

  • Theo Hobson reads Alister McGrath

    McGrath repeatedly claims that “faith entails no departure whatsoever from the rational high ground.”

  • Are you in, or are you out?

    You know how people like Massimo Pigliucci and others like to say that science has nothing to say about the supernatural? And therefore scientists who dispute religion are trespassing on other people’s territory and crossing their own borders without a passport and generally misbehaving? I’ve been thinking about that.

    I googled the two words just now, and found a nice helpful item by Victor Stenger. He quotes the National Academy of Sciences:

    Science is a way of knowing about the natural
    world. It is limited to explaining the natural
    world through natural causes. Science can say
    nothing about the supernatural. Whether God
    exists or not is a question about which science
    is neutral.

    That’s good, because it says exactly what I had in mind, what I’ve been thinking about –

    what I think is a crock of shit.

    Here’s why: there’s no such thing as “the supernatural.” Nobody cares about some general thing called “the supernatural.” People care about particular things that could be put under the heading “supernatural” but are not “the supernatural” themselves. And many or most of the things that people care about and that can be put under the heading “supernatural” are not really supernatural in a sense that would make science unable to say anything about them. And that includes “God” – except when the deist god is meant, which in fact it almost never is.

    “The supernatural” is just the name of a category, but what’s really in dispute is not a category, but a person, an agent. The supernatural is one thing, and “God” is another, and it’s a distraction to pretend that by walling off “the supernatural” from science it is possible to get science to agree that God is beyond dispute. The god that is meant when people say “God” – the god that will be in charge on National Prayer Day, when Obama tells us all to get busy praying – is not supernatural at all but heavily involved in human life. A god that really really is super-natural – altogether outside nature – is not the one that people care about and summon to tell us all what to do. The god of believers is a part of this world, however magic and elusive and tricky it is supposed to be.

    So saying “science can say nothing about the supernatural” is true enough as far as it goes (because it’s true by definition), but it’s irrelevant to god-talk.

  • Rust Belt Philosophy on NOMA

    Since so much of our knowledge supports and is supported by other knowledge, there are networks of dependencies that stretch across nearly all of what we believe about the world.

  • A political climate of nervous deference to ‘Faith’ groups

    We now have a situation in which a religious body representing a tiny number of people is able to cause a serious and expensive inconvenience by invoking their outraged religious sensibilities.

  • Why Africans are Religious

    A new study conducted by the Washington based Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life says that Africans are among the most religious people on earth. The study titled Tension and Tolerance: Islam and Christianity in Sub-Saharan Africa was based on more than 25,000 interviews conducted in more than 60 languages in 19 countries. According to the study at least half of all Christians in Sub-Saharan Africa believe Jesus will return in their lifetime. One in three Muslims in the region expect to see the re-establishment of the caliphate – the Islamic golden age – before they die. At least three out of ten people across much of Africa said they have experienced divine healing, seen the devil being driven out of a person, or received a direct revelation from God. About a quarter believe that sacrifices to ancestors can protect them from bad things happening. Sizeable percentages believe in charms and amulets. Many consult traditional religious healers, and sizable minorities keep animal skins and skulls in their homes.

    The study found that in many countries across the continent roughly nine in ten people say religion is very important in their lives.

    Do these findings surprise anyone? Surely they shouldn’t. Unless the person is not familiar with the situation in Africa.

    These findings do not surprise me at all. I am an African. I was born in Africa. I live and work in Africa. I am non-religious though I was born into a religious home. I attended religious schools. I had a typical (African) religious upbringing. I do not believe that Jesus will return again. I do not think that the Biblical Jesus existed and even if he did, I think he’s gone and gone forever. I can’t see the world coming under an Islamic caliphate except what we have been experiencing since September 11, 2001. I have never experienced divine healing and I don’t think those who claim to have experienced it are honest to themselves. I have not seen a devil being driven out of any person except some self-induced hysteria by some Pentecostal con artists. I have not received any revelation from God- unless maybe one day some godly people might claim that their god revealed this piece to me. I don’t believe that sacrifice to the ancestors will protect people from harm. Otherwise the ancestors would be alive today. I think charms and amulets are useless and consulting traditional healers and clerics is a waste of time.

    The reasons why Africans are the most religious people in the world are not far fetched. Africans go through religious indoctrination from cradle to grave. Africans are not allowed by family, society and the state to think, reason or live outside the religious box. In Africa religion is by force not by choice. Religion is by compulsion and not according to one’s conscience. Africans are brought up to believe that there is NO alternative to religion, when in fact there is. So in Africa, either you are religious or you are nobody – you are not a human being, you are nothing. There is too much social and political pressure on Africans to be religious and to remain religious. The social, political and sometimes economic price of leaving religion, renouncing religion or criticizing religion is so high.

    So Africans are religious willy nilly. Africans profess all sorts of religious crap even when they know it is all nonsense.

    At home, religious indoctrination is the first form of orientation an African child receives. At a very early and impressionable age, infants are taught to recite meaningless syllables called prayers. Children are brainwashed by parents with various religious and spritiual myths. Their minds are infused with all sorts of religious dogmas. Parents ensure that children are brought up in their faith – the faith of the family and the faith of their parents. Children are taught to believe and follow, and not to question religious teachings even when there is every reason to do so. Some of the findings of the Pew Forum constitute the ‘sacred’ teachings which African kids receive and are told not to challenge, examine, criticize or renounce. African children are brought up to believe them and to swallow them hook , line and sinker. Not to question one’s family religion is seen as virtous and as a mark of a good child. This religious tradition is upheld and handed down unchallenged from one generation to another in Africa.
    The religious brainwashing continues in schools. Most African colleges are religious indoctrination centers. Western missionaries and Arab jihadists brought formal education(the model widely used today) to the continent. They established schools to win converts and recruit new members, not really to educate Africans. So schools in Africa are covert churches and mosques. Education is faith based. And this religious tradition is still upheld in most schools across the continent. Some of the findings of the study are what African puplis are taught everyday in schools. They constitute what African students recite and memorize as part of their compulsory morning devotions.

    Pupils at one islamic primary school near my house in Ibadan sing this song everyday as part of their morning devotion.

    We are soldiers. We are soldiers.
    Fighting for Islam. Fighting for Islam
    In the name of Allah, we shall conquer, we shall conquer.

    Every morning these children are made to recite that they are Muslim children ; that they believe in Allah and Mohammed as his messenger. What do you expect from these children as adults after going through this religious drilling and being brainwashed by superstitious messages? Do you think they will ever grow up to say that religion – in this case Islam – is not important in their lives? As in their homes, African students are taught to blindly accept the so-called divine revelations without question. They are induced to try and have some encounter with God or to have some spiritual experience as a manifestation of faith or piety. Children and youths are made to believe that professing articles of faith is a mark of a good student, and that education is not complete without religion or belief in God. So why should anybody be surprised that most Africans attach so much importance to religion?

    This religionizing continues in politics and in the state houses across Africa. State power is used to endorse, promote and privilege religion. In Africa, prayer, piety and politics go together. Religion and politics mix. States are not separate from churches and mosques. So there is very high political pressure on individuals to be religious – and to remain religious and faithful even when they are not convinced of the religious teachings or would prefer to be faithless. Many African countries have adopted a religion or some religions as state or official religions. For instance in Morocco, the King is not only the president of the country, but also the commander of the faithful. So every Moroccan is under political pressure to be a faithful – an Islamic faithful, particularly a Sunni Islamic faithful. The president of Gambia, Yahya Jammeh, is addressed as Dr, Alhaji, Sheikh ….. among others. Some years ago he added to the list of his presidential duties praying for the citizens and trying to heal the sick, including those who have HIV/AIDS, using some verses in the Koran. In the self-styled Islamic republics, anyone who is not a Muslim cannot be president. Is there any special value that being a Muslim adds to the post of the president? None. In Gambia, the government erected magnificent mosques in all public schools in the country. Meanwhile these are schools without good classroom blocks, no libraries or laboratories.

    In Africa, politicians have made it look as if to be a good citizen one must be religious or expressly pious. African politicians have made it seem as if theocracy, not democracy, is the best form of government, and that the Bible and the Koran are the best constitutions. In fact the Bible and the Koran are the best constitution no country ever had. African politicians strive to ensure that state legislations are based on these‘holy books’ and that any policy, program or proposal that is not in line with the sacred texts are thrown out. Another reason why there is high level of piety in Africa is because most Africans do not think for themselves. They allow clerics to think for them. Africans consult their priests, bishops,sheikhs, marabous, traditional medicine men and women whenever they have problems or when they want to embark on a major project. And they accept whatever they give them including charms like holy water, olive oil as solutions and remedies. They do whatever they recommend they do including carrying out ritual killing and sacrifice.

    Lastly Africans are deeply religious due to lack of human rights, particularly religious freedom in Africa. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. Some may argue that the high religiosity in Africa should be due to ‘too much religious freedom’. No, it is not so. Rather it is due to no guarantee of religious freedom, no protection of freedom of conscience. Africans do not enjoy or exercise their freedom of religion or belief. Africans are denied this basic human right with impunity by state and non state actors. Africans are forced to be religious or to remain religious. That is why they are ‘too religious’. The mechanisms to protect and defend the full human rights of those who change their religion or renounce or criticize religious beliefs or those do not profess any religion at all are weak or non-existent. Religious believers and non believers are not equal before the law. Many Africans are religious because they don’t want to be in the minority. They don’t want to renounce what the majority upholds. They don’t want to denounce what the state or society reveres. Many Africans are religious because they just want to play along.
    Africans are among the most religious people on earth due to failure of family upbringing, failure of human rights and the rule of law, failure of educational system, social and political pressure and bad governance. Africans are religious because they cannot but be religious.

    About the Author

    Leo Igwe is Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Humanist Movement.
  • So that they could learn respect

    Two Belfast girls, age 12 and 14, were going to be sent to Pakistan by their parents, for “education.” A judge issued a forced marriage protection order to prevent this little jaunt.

    He said: “I find as a fact that there is a present real and substantial risk that G and D will be forced by their parents to marry against their wishes.”…He found the real reason G and D were to be sent to Pakistan in 2007 was “so that they could learn ‘respect’ as an overarching filial duty which I hold in the context of this family means obedience overriding their full and free choice.”

    Ah yes, ‘respect’ as an overarching filial duty, meaning people never have lives of their own, because they are always the property of their parents. Life under that arrangement is always vicarious, either upwards or downwards, and never simply a matter primarily for the person whose life it is. Excessive submission on the one hand and excessive authority on the other and never a decent proportionality.

  • Laws against child marriage violate boys’ rights

    ‘For example, imagine a young man of 13 or 14 years of age who wants to have sex.’ He has rights too you know!

  • Belfast court blocks forced marriage

    The judge imposed a forced marriage protection order for the girls aged 12 and 14.

  • Saudi cleric fired for advocating sanity

    He suggested that women and men should be allowed to mix socially. Blasphemy!

  • Addressing questions is one thing, answering them is another

    One of the places we’ve seen this claim that science has nothing to say about God or other religious beliefs lately is in the article about Francisco Ayala in the Times after he won the Templeton Prize.

    Professor Ayala…won the prize for his contribution to the question “Does scientific knowledge contradict religious belief?”…[Ayala] says science and religion cannot be in contradiction because they address different questions. It is only when either subject oversteps its boundary, as he believes is the case with Professor Dawkins, that a contradiction arises, he said.

    That’s a recipe for epistemic chaos. We can’t have hermetically sealed ways of “addressing” questions – not if we want to get things right. Ways of addressing questions have to be consistent with each other, at least. The claim that science and religion address different questions only works if you admit that religion – when it comes to addressing questions – is simply a branch of fiction. This means you’re admitting that religion doesn’t really address questions at all, if “address questions” is taken to mean raising questions in the hope of answering them.

    You can’t do both. You can’t say that they’re radically different, and still maintain that religion does anything other than raise questions only for the sake of giving answers that don’t have to meet any criteria.

  • The beliefs that underlie the demands

    A line from Sam Harris’s The End of Faith (p 128):

    …we are confronted by people who hold beliefs for which there is no rational justification and which therefore cannot even be discussed, and yet these are the very beliefs that underlie many of the demands they are likely to make upon us.

    This is why NOMA, in addition to being wrong as a description, is no use. It’s also why the much-repeated claim that science has nothing to say about God or other religious beliefs is flawed. If religious beliefs are immune to any kind of rational, this-world inquiry or dispute, then we are abandoned to a world in which unreasonable, protected beliefs get to tell us what to do.

  • Clay Shirky’s Rant about women

    Not enough women have what it takes to behave like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks.

  • Brain-training games are just games

    They don’t improve general cognitive abilities.

  • Indonesia: court upholds blasphemy law

    If Indonesia’s constitutional court had overturned the law, other religions would have been allowed to practice freely.

  • The religious lobby and women’s rights

    Why would a modernising ‘New’ Labour, which claims to uphold the rights of women and minorities, seek to expand the religious sector?

  • Somalia: no music on the radio for you

    Islamists told all stations to stop broadcasting music because it’s “unIslamic.” All but two submitted.

  • The male voice is what expertise comes to sound like

    NPR’s On the Media did a piece about the disproportionate number of men in the media, including NPR and On the Media. An NYU professor did a blog rant on the subject awhile ago, and On the Media brought him (yes, him, and they did the irony-check) to talk about the issue. He said women aren’t quick enough to say “Me me me me look at me I’m good me me me.”

    CLAY SHIRKY: I said it then, I believe it now. I think the concern for how other people think about you is one of the sources of essentially work paralysis among women.
    One of the big skills that you need, and my institution does not do a good job of inculcating this in women – there are not enough institutions that do – one of the big skills is to be able to do what you want to do without caring what other people think.
    BROOKE GLADSTONE: You have to acknowledge the fact that when women put themselves out there, they’re called “biatches.” The word “shrill” is applied to them. They are not called “leaders.” They are not called “strong.”
    CLAY SHIRKY: That is right.
    BROOKE GLADSTONE: They’re called “strident – hags.”
    CLAY SHIRKY: Yes.
    BROOKE GLADSTONE: And it’s a pain in the – butt.

    Yes it is. And I’ll tell you why. There is more than one way for people to think about you, and some kinds of indifference are easier than others. Gladstone and Shirky sum up that difference very briskly in that brief passage. Allow me to explain. It is one thing to be considered – however disapprovingly – tough and aggressive and strong and ballsy. It is another to be considered a shrill strident hag bitch.

    That’s all there is to it, really. That’s why Gladstone says it’s a pain in the ass. Yes it damn well is. Being considered strong and tough is not all that unpleasant even if the people who consider you that detest you. Being considered a shrill strident hag bitch is a whole different thing. And what Gladstone says is no lie: it takes very little for people to call a woman a bitch – or, as we have seen, shrill and strident.

    So women can’t win no matter what they do. Either they hang back and don’t get the top jobs because they didn’t grab for them, or they grab for the top jobs and spend the rest of their lives as shrill strident hag bitches.

    BROOKE GLADSTONE: You write, “Women aren’t just bad at behaving like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks, they are bad at behaving like self-promoting narcissists, anti-social obsessives or pompous blowhards, even a little bit, even temporarily, when it would be in their best interests to do so. Whatever bad things you can say about those behaviors, you can’t say they are underrepresented among people who have changed the world.”

    Okay – I do better with that one. I’m very very very good at behaving like an anti-social obsessive. I’m a *genius at that. Top of the class. And I’m not too bad at the pompous blowhard thing, and I do a fair bit of the self-promoting narcissism routine too.

    CLAY SHIRKY: I’ll tell you though, the reaction that has surprised me most is that any number of people, many of them women, have come forward and said, essentially, women have a different way of getting along in the world, we’re more social, we’re more nurturing, and so forth.
    And I have two problems with that attitude. The first is, essentially, that if you flowered up the language a little bit, you could dump that into a Victorian almanac.
    And the second is that all of that kind of nurturing, social junk imagines that the best role we can imagine for women in the workplace is as kind of middle-management mommies, right?

    God yes. I squawked when I heard that part. I squawked and I threw some things. It drives me crazy when women buy into that crap.

    BROOKE GLADSTONE: In your view, what is the impact of having so many more male voices as experts and sources than women?
    CLAY SHIRKY: I think one of the big impacts is that the male voice is what expertise comes to sound like. And so, even from someone who doesn’t go in with a formally sexist bias about whether men are more expert than women in general, you may just unconsciously flip through to those parts of the rolodex.
    Someone somewhere has to say, we have to change the fact of the representation before we change people’s mental model of what expertise sounds like because if we just wait, we will always lag the cultural change rather than leading it.

    The male voice is what expertise comes to sound like – that is exactly it.