Author: Ophelia Benson

  • “The truth” versus the truth

    I’m breaking it into pieces, because it’s a large subject. Thomas Dixon also said

     I stand by my emphasis on the political aspects of all of this. Claims about the nature of reality and who has the authority to discover and describe it, and by what methods, are questions about power, and thus political. I don’t say that the Scopes or Galileo cases were nothing but politics, but I do say they were political.

    That’s true, but incomplete. That’s where the postmodern turn does its turning: in treating that idea (despite the disclaimer) as if it were complete, or if not complete then of predominating interest.

    The claim itself is in fact political. It’s a useful claim; useful to people who want to make science a matter of power rather than one of inquiry and evidence, of politics rather than truth. Yes, of course, priests and scientists are in some sense competing for “power”; their rivalry is certainly political (though a good deal more political on the religious side than the scientific side, which is not surprising, since politics and power are all religions have); but science, at any rate, is fundamentally about something else, so making power central just does obfuscate the real issues.

    Power and politics are ultimately irrelevant, because whoever wins, whoever is stronger, the truth is what it is. Power can decide “the truth” but it can’t determine the truth.

  • Akpabio and the Child Witch Commission

    In what appears to be another move to combat the allegations of witchcraft and child abuse, the governor of Akwa Ibom state, Chief Godswill Akpabio, has inaugurated a six member Commission to inquire into witchcraft accusations and child rights abuses in the state. He charged them to recommend appropriate actions to be taken to protect children from being branded witches and wizards in order to guard against future occurence. The governor asked the Commission to determine the veracity of all the allegations of witchcraft against children and infliction of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment upon such children and to examine the role and culpability of all the allegations and abuses or practices and make recommendations.

    He then urged the people of Akwa Ibom to cooperate with the Commission in order to ‘obliterate this blot from the pages of our history’. The Commission is chaired by Justice Godwin Abraham and has Barrister Theresa Obot, Dr Okon Edet Akaiso, Dr Essien Edward Essien, Rt Rev John Koko-Bassey, Barrister Uduak Victor Ekwere as members. The Commission was given six weeks to submit it report. Anyone who has been following the ‘child witch saga’ in Akwa Ibom state would regard this as a welcome development. Surely it is, particularly when looked at on the surface. But taking a critical look at this development, one wonders why the state government decided to set up this Commission after passing into law the child rights act which prohibits witchcraft acusations and child abuse. If the government had yet to determine the veracity of the allegations of witchcraft against children and infliction of degrading treatment on them why did it sign into law the child rights bill with sections that prohibit child witch stigmatization. That there is already an existing law enacted by the state implies that the government is not in doubt as to the veracity of the claims of witchcraft accusations and child abuse. So what is the rationale behind setting up this body? Does it mean that the allegations of witchcraft and child abuse were not verified before the government enacted the child rights law? If there is one thing any intelligent observer of the situation in Akwa Ibom is expecting from the government, it is not to setting up a body to inquire into the allegations of witchcraft, but to facilitate the enforcement and implementation of the child rights law which was enacted in 2008. Since this law came into force two years ago, Akwa Ibom has not recorded any successful prosecution. Not even one offender has been convicted or punished under the child rights law in the state. And this has nothing to do with the veracity of the allegations of witchcraft but everything to do with the gaps in the political will, in the policing and justice system in Akwa Ibom state. And if this Commission could at the end of the day succeed in closing these gaps and ensure the full implementation of the child rights act, then the whole idea of setting it up would have been worthwhile.

    But that seems unlikely. Going by the pronouncement of the government of Akwa Ibom particularly its reactions to the international media coverage of the problem of witchraft accusations and child abuse, some people think the government might at the end of the day have some hidden agenda for setting up the Commission. In August, CNN broadcast a report on child witch stigmatization in Akwa Ibom state. It highlighted the role of churches in fueling the problem, and what governemental including the UN- agencies were doing to address this menace. That report  on CNN angered the government of Akwa Ibom state for reasons I have yet to understand. Because the government was given the opportunity by CNN to state its case and present its own side of the story but it wasted it. The CNN reporter interviewed the Commissioner of Information to know what the government was doing to tackle the problem of witchcraft accusations and child abuse but the Commissioner used the space to attack individuals and NGOs whom he accused of exaggerating the problem and using it to raise money for themselves. The governor, in his own reaction, was visibly upset.  He also blamed the NGOs for using the same images to generate international sympathy and funds. However he outlined the efforts his government had made to tackle the problem including enacting the child rights law, providing free education to all children from primary to secondary level and making some donations to stigmatized children in Eket. The governor admitted that, after two years of enacting the law, not a single offender had been successfully prosecuted. It was not long after this broadcast on CNN, which rattled the Akwa Ibom state government, that the governor inaugurated this Commission.

    The world is watching. And many are wondering what could be the real motive behind setting up this august body. It is only time that will tell what the actual mission of this Commission is.  I hope at the end of the day, this Commission would not be used to witch hunt individuals and groups particularly those whom the government accuses of using the witchcraft problem to dent the image of the state internationally.

    I hope the Commission will not be used to undermine the work of NGOs who are complimenting the efforts of the government in the fight against child witch stigmatization. The Commission should be used to recognize the selfless efforts and the humanitarian gestures of individuals and groups who have worked over the years under very dangerous circumstances to tackle this social scourge with little or no assistance from the government. The Commission should work to fill in the gaps in the response by the state to this embarrassing phenomena and facilitate the total eradication of child witch stigmatization in Akwa Ibom.

    About the Author

    Leo Igwe, IHEU Representative in West Africa, lives in Ibadan.
  • Metametameta discussion of science ‘n’ religion

    Meta times 3 because commenting on Thomas Dixon’s comments on Eric MacDonald’s review of Dixon’s book. Dixon says, in reply to Eric’s reply to him, that it is becoming clear how their approaches differ.

    I think the bottom line is that I’m not happy to generalise about ‘religion’ in the way that you want to, nor to treat all ‘religion’ as if it were at one, extreme end of the spectrum in terms of scriptural literalism and authoritarianism; nor to suppose that there is just one ‘paradigmatic’ singular relationship between religion and science.

    The trouble with that is, for some purposes it is necessary to generalize about religion in that way. Granted, religions differ, and the word can refer to different things – but when the subject under discussion is science and religion and whether there is or is not a conflict between them, then it becomes necessary to focus on the areas where there is conflict or potential for conflict. Otherwise the real issues are simply evaded, and what’s the point of that? Apart from a public relations exercise, that is.

    Believers and fans of religion like to do that, of course. There is no conflict between science and, say, liking to get together with people to sing churchy music once a week. Indeed not. But there is conflict with religion understood in other ways, and that’s what should be addressed, not the parts that pretty much everyone agrees are not in conflict. Religion-as-ritual is not the issue, so discussions of Science&Religion really aren’t about religion defined that way. The site of the conflict is epistemology, so that’s the place to discuss it.

  • Chapter 19 of Murphy report: main points

    “Walsh agreed to go to a psychiatrist and was ‘grateful that he had been given a second chance’.”

  • Chapter 19

    If you want to give yourself a shock, just search for Tony Walsh on Google News and behold the torrent of Irish coverage. Then start to read some of it. Read Mary Raftery’s article in the Irish Times.

    Archbishops, bishops, chancellors, vicars general, parish priests – the list of senior clerics who knew of Walsh’s serial sexual abuse of children is virtually endless. From the very first complaints brought to the archdiocese, a bare two days after Walsh’s ordination in 1978, and for the succeeding 17 years, these pillars of the church sat on their detailed knowledge of Walsh’s abominable predations on children, shielding him from the law, deliberately deciding to keep his crimes hidden from the civil authorities. In the course of those 17 years, until the archdiocese finally decided in 1995 to co-operate with Garda investigations, Walsh abused well over 100 children according to the chapter published yesterday. Here we find out that archbishops Dermot Ryan, Kevin McNamara and Desmond Connell all had detailed knowledge of Walsh’s criminal activities.

    Bishop Eamonn Walsh (a trained barrister, incidentally) was sufficiently well-aware of the criminal nature of Walsh’s activities to know that he should be reported to the Garda; and second, that Bishop Walsh did not report him, and nor of course did any of his fellow bishops. It consequently shows an extraordinary detachment from reality for Bishop Walsh to have claimed last year that merely suggesting that gardaí be informed of crimes committed in some way excuses or exonerates him from responsibility for his part in the culture of cover-up in the Dublin archdiocese.

    Senior people. Masses of them. With detailed knowledge of what Walsh was doing. And they sat on it. For seventeen years.

    Amen.

  • Scale of Walsh cover-up by church is breathtaking

    Archbishops, bishops, chancellors, vicars general, parish priests – the list of senior clerics who knew of Walsh’s serial sexual abuse of children is virtually endless.

  • Scientist alleges religious discrimination in hiring

    University scientists wondered to each other in internal e-mails if Gaskell’s religion would interfere with the job, which included public outreach.

  • Dickens is not cozy hot chocolate reading

    Great Expectations is a bitter, tragic novel.

  • Steiner Waldorf Schools Part 3: racism

    Yet more reasons to think that Steiner schools are all based on pseudoscience: Steiner’s Spiritual Science.

  • Guardian leaks police documents on Assange

    “The case against Assange is laid out in police material held in Stockholm to which the Guardian received unauthorised access.”

  • Israel: rabbi issues anti-Arab edict

    Forbidding Jews to rent flats or sell property to non-Jews; Arab students are bullied and threatened.

  • Kenan Malik on Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly

    The more that liberals concede on free speech and Muslim sensitivities, the more that Islamists gain a spurious moral legitimacy.

  • Bad Faith awards 2010

    And the winner is – Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, head of the UK Islamic Sharia Council.

  • The F word

    The Hitchens-Blair debate was on one of the local public radio stations the other day, and I listened to a few minutes of it; something caught my attention that I hadn’t noticed at the time (because I mostly read it, and watched only a bit). What caught my attention (because it irritated the bejeezis out of me) was Blair’s insistent unctuous repetition of the word “faith.” It occurred to me that Hitchens used that word little if at all, and that I should check the transcript to see what the proportions were. They were as I suspected. It’s quite amusing to use the search function (CTRL + F) and see Blair’s sections speckled like measles with the highlighted word.

    This is bad. This is annoying and bad; it’s annoying because it’s bad. “Faith” is a decidedly hooray-word, but it has become a pervasive synonym for religion, which gives pro-religion people an opportunity to load the dice, and to pat themselves on the back multiple times in every conversation. The word should be “religion,” which is a neutral, factual, descriptive word as opposed to an emotive one. “Atheism” and “theism” are the same kind of word – dispassionate and factual. There is no equivalent of “faith” for atheism, which puts us at a disadvantage. This use of “faith” should be challenged regularly. It’s a question-begging device, and I say the hell with it.

    Check out just one sample from Blair:

    I do say at least accept that there are people doing great work, day in, day out, who genuinely are not prejudiced or bigoted, but are working with people who are afflicted by famine and disease and poverty and they are doing it inspired by their faith. And of course it’s the case that not everybody — of course it’s the case that you do not have to be a person of faith in order to do good work, I’ve never claimed that, I would never claim that. I know lots of people, many, many people, who are people not of faith at all, but who do fantastic and decent work for their communities and for the world. My claim is just very simple, there are nonetheless people who are inspired by their faith to do good.

    This is a big reason I find the “interfaith” outreach stuff from Christopher Stedman so irritating: he’s an atheist, yet he does that thing with the F word – he leans on it as heavily as Blair does. Doing that implies that religion is a good thing, and doing that implies that atheism is a bad thing. Clearly Stedman doesn’t intend that, but he should be more aware of rhetorical effects.

  • Rosenhouse on Dixon on Religion and Science

    Conflicts over who is authorized to produce and disseminate knowledge are conflicts between science and religion.

  • Massimo Pigliucci on Objectivist politics

    By far the weakest point of the Objectivist conception of rights is that they limit themselves to what are called negative rights.

  • Martin Gardner on Oprah and woo

    She promotes, as frequent guests, people who preach views that are medically worthless and in a few cases can even lead to death.

  • Pamela Ronald on trying to counter woo on TV

    Which is difficult when the producers cut all the examples (such as reduced insecticide use, disease resistant papaya, Golden rice).

  • “Rock star of science” peddles pseudoscience

    Mehmet Oz is an alarmist about GM crops.