Author: Ophelia Benson

  • A gentle tactful loving reminder

    Use the formatting tools at the top of the comment box, willya! Half of you are typing in html, after Josh went to all the trouble of giving us tools, and you’re doing the wrong ones so they’re showing up and it looks stupid and bad. Whatsa matta wichoo?

    I don’t mean it; you know I love you; but pull yourselves together.

    (No I know, it’s not really half. It’s just a few. But we don’t want to embarrass The Few, so let’s say it’s half.)

  • 50 Voices of Disbelief Review in First Things

    New atheism, pooh pooh, new atheists, yawn, new atheism, sheer banality, new atheists, will go away soon, new atheism, we all hates it.

  • Your mission, should you choose to accept it

    “New” atheism is often accused of proselytizing, but I don’t think that’s right.

    It’s not really proselytizing. We don’t have the explicit goal of turning everyone atheist. We don’t even really have the implicit goal of doing that. We know it’s vanishingly unlikely, and not necessarily desirable (most of us know that – maybe all of us do – it probably depends on exactly what is meant). Our goals are short of that – speaking broadly.

    The most basic is probably to humble the claims somewhat – to chip away at the public assumption that there is nothing dubious about theism – that it’s perfectly reasonable to talk about God as one would talk about Gordon Brown or Sarah Palin. It is to remind everyone that belief is not necessarily the default option – that there are reasons not to believe – that the reasons not to believe are better than the reasons to believe – that it is better to restrict belief to claims that can be tested and investigated and that any claims that are officially beyond the competence of science are thereby rendered at least less reliable.

    So, related to that and stemming from it, another goal is to push back against all this incessant public goddy talk and “faith”-mongering. It is, frankly, to discredit public goddy talk – to make it more obvious that it is not likely to be true – in an effort to reduce it. It is an effort to get all this god stuff out of our faces.

    Now that perhaps does look like proselytizing in the sense meant. But I don’t care. We’ve had years of this nonsense, and we’re tired of it. We’re not raiding churches – but we’re arguing with the Washington Post and the BBC and the Guardian and National Prayer Day. Should we stop doing that because it may be true that on average religion makes people happy? No.

    Another, overlapping goal is to make more space for atheists – to de-delegitimize atheism – to de-other it – to point out there are lots of us and we have the better case so stop trying to bully us. It is also to point out and rebuke the lies people tell about us – unblushing brazen hardened lies.

    The very presence and energy of the lies is a sign that this goal, at the very least, is hard to gainsay. Atheism is neither criminal nor immoral, yet it is steadily and noisily demonized. That points to something poisonous about theism. We do get to resist – we do get to call out the lies – we do get to defend ourselves.

  • Uncredible Hallq disputes Pigliucci

    Why try to turn these disagreements into proof that the New (read: Bad) Atheists are screwing everything up?

  • Herr Bischof, the tan suits you and I love the brooch

    A really nice touch – it’s not just that Bishop Walter Mixa has now admitted that he used to beat the children in a Bavarian orphanage –

    Accusations have also surfaced of financial irregularities at the orphanage’s foundation.

    A lawyer hired by the foundation has raised questions about thousands of dollars spent on wine, art, jewelry and even a tanning bed while Bishop Mixa was chairman of the foundation’s board, from 1975 to 1996, while he was a priest in the town of Schrobenhausen.

    Isn’t that just typical. The Irish Catholic church sent a lot of the money the government gave it for the care of children in its prisons to Rome while the children slept in the cold and wore rags and ate crap and got next to no schooling. It’s interesting to see that the Bavarian Catholic church apparently used its money-intended-for-child-prisoners on luxury items for itself – at least one supposes it wasn’t hanging the art in the children’s dormitories and giving them pretty bracelets for their birthdays and serving them wine at dinner and letting them use the tanning bed when they were looking a little pallid.

  • Halal, Haram, and Negis

    If you walk at random in a Muslim district in the West, especially in Western Europe, you will certainly find somewhere, at least in one corner, an Islamic butcher’s shop with the word “halal” written on its shop-window. For the products of meat, the word “halal” is a badge of Islamic quality.

    Muslims believe that since blood is not ritually a pure substance, slaughter is necessary to promote the thorough draining of all of the animal’s blood. Furthermore, the verse “Bismillah al Rahman Al Rahim”, in the name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful, is necessary to render the meat halal or lawful to eat.

    The word halal refers, here, to meat killed and prepared in line with Islamic dietary laws. Jewish and Islamic religions require slaughter to be carried out with a cut to the neck or throat, rather than the more widespread method of stunning with a bolt into the head before slaughter.

    Generally, halal means anything permissible under Islamic law, in contrast to haram, that which is forbidden. This includes behaviour, speech, dress, conduct. The term halal is also used to judge the right of sexuality after marriage, even temporary marriage, that is a Shiite tradition called “Sigheh,” which is blamed by other sects of Islam as a “legalised” prostitution. Vaginal intercourse or rape by a man of his female slave, a married woman whose husband has been killed by Muslim invaders, and a non-Muslim prisoner of war is halal — in this light, many political female prisoners of the Islamic Republic of Iran who were considered “non-Muslims” were” legally” raped by their guards before being executed.

    In an extended sense, halal means fairness of business dealing or other types of transaction or activity. Therefore, it represents values that are held in high regard by Muslims. It contains standards for social norms, morals, foods and other services that meet Islamic regulations. Needless to say, in Islamic countries, these are the only available standards for Muslims and non-Muslim minorities alike.

    Slaughter is an old tradition of Jewish and Islamic clan society. As a matter of best practice, the killed animal is supposed to be distributed among the members of the clan right after being slaughtered so that each family can have fresh meat to eat. Like many other traditions, this one was also taken over by Islam.

    Halal bloodshed can be also a reason for honour killing in Islamic societies. Honour killing is committed by male family members against female family members who are perceived to have brought dishonour upon the family. A female can be targeted by her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, having sex outside marriage, or even being the victim of rape.

    Halal has nothing to do with prophylactic, hygienic, precautions or medical meaning. To better understand halal, we must see what its opposite term “haram” means. Haram has roots in revulsion which is an old instinct of evolution. Revulsion is a sense of loathing without any logical reason or clear explanation. As an instinct, it was a necessary reaction of early human beings when exposed to an unknown food, unknown object, or an unconventional situation.

    The object of revulsion is culturally conditioned. It means whatever is repulsive for the members of a given society do not necessarily provoke the same revulsion for others. In a historical sense, the terms like halal and haram are nothing but the instinctive reflections which were integrated into Islam. In many cases, Islamic commandments and rituals are not only the traditional reflections of desert dwellers of pre-Islamic Arabia, but also based on the Prophet Muhammad’s habits, his sexual preferences, his favourite things, and his dietary habits.

    Since sexuality is taboo in Islam, sexual organs, vaginal secretion and sperm are considered as “negis” (loathsome and impure). Therefore, they should not be touched – if they are unintentionally touched, ceremonial washing and rituals must be done. Not only urine and excrement of human and carnivores, but also blood and any slimy substance secreted by a mucous membrane of the body have more or less a similar sense of negis. Needless to say, all these secreted or mucous substances, regardless of their odour and colour, belong to healthy functions of our bodies.

    Not only non Muslims, ethnic groups, slaves and women, but even animals in Islam are not free from this discrimination. Dogs and pigs are the most negis animals. Term of “negis” characterises their absolute and unchangeable impurity. Pork meat and alcoholic drinks are absolutely haram. The dog as a “negis” animal can never be proper pet in a Muslim house. Touching a dog, especially a dog’s saliva, requires ritually hygienic procedure to get the hand clean — if a dog eats from a dish, the dish must be ceremonially washed seven times, the first time with sand. The dog, despite all its uses in many ways and its irrefutable faith in its master, is discriminated as a negis creature.

    While marriage of Muslim men with women of the Book (Muslims, Christians and Jews), based on Islamic rituals, can be permitted, all other varieties of marriage between Muslim women and non- Muslim men are considered haram. As a patriarchal religion, Islam granted a concession only to Muslim men. Muslim women are not allowed to marry men outside of Islam (unless they convert to Islam). No marriage is permitted between Muslims and “Mushriks” (atheists, polytheists, other members of belief systems which are considered by Muslims negis). The Koran says, “A believing slave woman is better than a mushrik woman”!

    As mentioned, terms like halal, haram, and negis are not more than rituals of particular conditions and environment. These terms have no logic and scientific credentials at all. They are only the legacy of per-Islamic values of the Arabian clan- society which still impose themselves on today’s society.

    About the Author

    Jahanshah Rashidian is an Iranian-born German writer in several languages.
  • Catholic church crumbles across Europe

    Raping or beating children, spending orphanage money on wine and jewelry, refusing to admit – it all adds up.

  • 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.