Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Science and Religion are Not Compatible

    They reach incompatible conclusions. This incompatibility is evident to any fair-minded person who looks.

  • Un-der-stan-ding met-a-phor

    Here’s a stupid remark. On a post of Russell Blackford’s on Bunting’s encounter with the hostile commenters there’s a guy defending Bunting’s reading of the book (despite not having read the book himself, but never mind). He said some really point-missing stuff about the whited sepulchre etc, and I tried yet again to explain it, saying that

    The point is that religion is ugly because it is used to dress up ugly things. Is that not obvious? The white tie and tails on an executioner are themselves ugly because of what they are doing. This is vastly more true of religion precisely because religion is supposed to be the heart of a heartless world, the fount of compassion, etc etc. Religion is made ugly by the many people who use it to justify cruelty.

    He replied, astonishingly

    Oh, please. Cruelty can be justified in the name of love, science, freedom, and so on. That hardly makes any of the latter ugly.

    Are you kidding me? Of course it fucking does! If someone is being cruel and justifies it by talking of love – that’s a very ugly version of ‘love.’ It’s not unknown, either. OJ Simpson made a career out of it. That love is another wart hog in a party dress.

    It’s so hard to abandon internet arguments when people are being obstinately stupid, you know? I’m hopeless at it.

  • H E Baber on Whether Religion is Replaceable

    What once was religion has already been parcelled out to a variety of different institutions and agents.

  • Resisting Templeton

    Daniel Dennett and Anthony Grayling decline to participate in a Templeton programme.

  • Christian Brother Jailed for Orphanage Abuse

    The judge said that as a ward of the state, there was no one the victim could turn to for help.

  • Iran Setting Up Special Court for Protesters

    A judiciary official says tribunals will process hundreds of ‘rioters’ and ‘thugs’ caught in security sweeps.

  • Defectors Spill the Beans About Scientology

    Physical violence permeated the international management team. Staffers are made to ‘confess sins.’

  • Teaching people to think may have the ancillary effect of destroying their credulity

    Jerry Coyne says why it’s nonsensical to say that atheists have to be quiet or else the Supreme Court will rule the teaching of evolution unconstitutional:

    And yes, it’s likely that teaching evolution probably promotes a critical examination of religious beliefs that may lead to rejecting faith. But teaching geology, physics, or astronomy does that, too. In fact, education in general leads to the rejection of faith…What Brown is really saying is that we should be worried about promoting rational values of any type, or any notion that beliefs require evidence. He doesn’t seem to realize the difference between cramming atheism down people’s throats and teaching them to think, which may have the ancillary effect of eroding faith…I repeat, so that Brown can get it: teaching evolution is not promoting atheism, it’s promoting a scientific truth. And the promotion of any scientific truth may have the ancillary effect of dispelling faith. This is almost inevitable, for the metier of science — rationality and dependence on evidence — is in absolute and irreconcilable conflict with the with the metier of faith: superstition and dependence on revelation. Too bad.

    Jason Rosenhouse points out how helpful Michael Ruse has been to the fight against creationism and ID:

    In 2004 he edited a book with William Dembski called Debating Design, published by Cambridge University Press. In doing so he effectively cut the legs out from under those fighting school board battles on the ground. It’s pretty hard to argue that the evolution/ID issue is a manufactured debate when Ruse has one of the most prestigious university presses in the world certifying that it is, indeed, a real debate. Making matters worse was the fact that the four essays Ruse chose to represent “Darwinism” added up to a very weak case for the good guys…More recently Ruse said, in a public debate with Dembski, that the book The Design Inference was a valuable contribution to science…When the ID folks were putting together a book in honor of Phillip Johnson, Ruse was happy to contribute an essay to a section entitled “Two Friendly Critics.”

    Oh…really? How odd then that he emailed Jerry Coyne just the other day to say: “I don’t know who does more damage, you and your kind or Phillip Johnson and his kind. I really don’t.”

    Strange fella.

  • Iran’s Post-Election

    As Iran’s 2009 presidential election authorities surprisingly announced on Saturday June 13th that hard-line incumbent Mahmood Ahmadinejad was re-elected with about two-thirds of the vote, Iranian people were immediately casting doubt on he authenticity of the results. At the same time, the “reformist” candidates of the regime, Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Sheikh Mehdi Kahroubi, sparked accusations of fraud and branded the election a total farce.

    It was originally quoted from some staff of Interior Ministry that a second round would have been needed to determine the victor between Mousavi and Kahrubi, who according to them received respectively first and second place, while Ahmadinejad would have already been out of the race.

    Nationwide from Monday on, millions of disappointed people have taken part in the post-election demonstrations, carrying banners which said “Where’s my vote?” They protest against the “coup” plotted by the hardliners, supported by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader. Nationwide clashes erupted as riot police and the regime’s militia attacked demonstrators and universities in Iran. Several demonstrators have been reported killed and many activists arrested. Riot police continue to clamp down on a growing demonstration by supporters of the “reformist” candidates. Despite the regime’s repression, fresh waves of protests are reported nationwide and are thought to continue.

    Prior to the 2009 Iranian presidential election, a voting campaign was widely organised by the IRI and propagated by pro-IRI media both in and outside the country to bring as many people as possible to the urns to vote for one of the Mullahs’ candidates. A massive participation was announced by the regime as a proof positive that the IRI is “legitimate”. As Khamenei has constantly said, each vote is above all a “yes to the Islamic regime”. In the West, with the help of IRI’s lobby groups, exported journalists, resident Islamists, state mafia close to different candidates, this demagogical campaign was to portray a legitimate and reformable image of the IRI.

    A part of Iranian secular opposition, hoping that their vote to a “reformist” candidate would be considered as a “no” to Khamenei and his favoured candidate, President Ahmadinejad, fell into the regime’s trap and voted for Mousavi or Kahroubi as the lesser evils in a naive attempt to run President Ahmadinejad out of office.

    In actuality, since the inception of the IRI, there have never been fair elections in Iran. First, all candidates are pre-selected by the Guardians, Council, a watchdog institution that has the power to reject any candidates. Second, all elections have been rigged and fraudulent, so much so that among the pre-selected candidates by the Guardians’ Council, the regime capriciously picks one out of the urns.

    To look into the background of these four presidential candidates, we see their direct involvement in the crimes, repressive institutions, and the key government positions in the last thirty years of Mullahs’ regime.

    Apart from President Ahmadinejad, who is notorious for his thuggish behaviour and his black background in the repressive institutions of the regime, the other candidates have not a better past.

    Mohsen Rezaie was head of the Revolutionary Guards for over 10 years, Mehdi Kahroubi was a former parliamentary speaker, Mir Hossein Mousavi was PM for 8 years during Khomeini’s leadership. During this time, thousands of dissidents were summarily executed. As a Hezbollah and a disciple of Khomeini and a PM of Ali Khameini, Mousavi’s hands were washed in the blood of many Iranians. The 1988 massacre of political prisoners which was ordered by Khomeini was helped by his Ministry of Information. During the Iran-Iraq War, his regime sent thousands of Iranian children onto the mine-field in the war zone.

    After the 1979 revolution, new waves of people’s struggles against the ruling dictatorship have already started in Iran. They will gradually take form during the process of struggle; they are in their nature different from the issues of “reformist” opposition. Most people, even those who voted for the lesser evils, are not really concerned about power struggles within the Islamic regime. They want an end of the whole Islamic regime.

    Most Iranians especially the youth want a separation of religion from state; they wish a secular and democratic state. Hence, if they intensify their today’s struggles, they will gradually separate their ranks of struggles from the power struggle-related rallies of “reformist” opposition. Of course these rallies may not last a long time and will extinguish as soon as an inner compromise has been achieved, but the longer these take, the more polarised and organised the real opposition to the whole regime will be, to the point that they not only cry “death to the dictator”– hinting the Supreme Leader, Khamenei, — but also will directly target the whole regime by shouting across the whole country “death to the IRI”. The polarisation of our society does not forcibly mean a class issue; it assumes above all a freedom from the plague of the IRI and consequently a transfer of the power to people’s representatives.

    Of course many of those working for the IRI– those who do not have blood on their hands–are welcome to join the ranks of people, but this is only possible if people’s struggles turn into a solid and continuous freedom movement. We can not expect a Mullahs’ pre-selected president– Mousavi or Ahmadinejad alike– to join the camp of people because a freedom movement targets the whole Islamic regime by rejecting any form of political Islam.

    Of course, in terms of their loyalty to the Supreme Leader and Islam as an ideology of state, there is no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, but let us see: in an odd twist of irony, if Mousavi wants to consolidate people’s position, he is constitutionally not in the position to do so. Under the cover of an Islamic regime, no president has such a power to clean up Mullahs and pave the path for a real democracy in Iran– presidential position is constitutionally so powerless that no president can challenge the Supreme Leader. The Islamic Constitution permits little power for the president vis-à-vis the absolute power of the Supreme Leader who rules over powers of executive, legislative, and judiciary.

    The question nowadays is how the Iranian people can one day acquire their full freedom and what steps must be tactically taken initially. We should give our people respect for the courageous struggles they are presently showing with empty hands against one of the most brutal regimes of our history. In the long-term, it is advised that our heroic people with the kind of self-organisation, self-esteem, courage, and patience needed for a regime change in Iran, must first consolidate their ranks before any premature rupture with the ranks of better organised “reformist” opposition.

    It is evident and quite predictable that to halt the vibrancy of people’s struggles, there is a possible compromise in the air between a “reformist” president candidate like Mousavi and the Supreme Leader. In such a case, whoever the next president is, the regime will spread its bloody clutches for another four or eight years. If the Iranians who want a regime change give up their ongoing struggles, they will dig their own graves. Therefore, these people must use the current protest actions to recruit, organise, and plan their further and final freedom-struggles.

    Gaps between people and any faction of the regime, including Mousavi, emerge and persist as long as the Islamic regime exists. Most of the gaps in daily attitudes of people are flagrantly perceptible. This is what substantially explains the lack of an Islamic influence in our new generation who desire a secular Iran. This ideal is of course ignored by the regime and its “reformist” candidates. Different segments of Iranian society are aware that under the IRI all Islamic inequalities are justified in so far as they are the consequences of three decades of repression in Iran–man vs. woman, “sayyed” (Muhammad’s descendants) vs. non-sayyed, Muslim vs. non-Muslim, insider vs. outsider, etc.

    Although the younger generation suffers from a tangible lack of leadership, they have experienced with their flesh and blood the plague of the Islamic regime. They know that the IRI is essentially incapable of being reformed and the main problem of Iran is the IRI entirely, not a scapegoat of it called today “hardliners”.

    Because of a 14-century domination of an intolerant belief system over all aspects of Iranian social life, subjects like Islam and the related issues have not been discussed by Iranian intellectuals. There has been a fear among people to talk about these matters. Therefore, issues like secularism, democracy, modernity, social justice, gender equality, independence from foreign domination of “Islamo-Arab” culture, have not been serious civic issues of the past generations. Today, thanks to the plague of the Mullahs’ regime, the youth generation are more aware of such issues and this awareness creates the main gap between the Islamic regime, which in people’s consciousness represents an inspiration of a new “Islamo-Arab” invasion, and the Iranian civic society in struggles for freedom, democracy, and secularism.

  • Jean Kazez on Metaphors and Book Titles

    God: A Biography – what, God was born in Brooklyn? Walking with God – what’s next, going to the movies with God?

  • The Tension Between Theocracy and Democracy

    God’s will and the people’s wants are not always compatible.

  • The Philosophy of Jokes

    What is it to find something funny? What kind of thing is humour? How do we explain it?

  • C of E Pitching a Fit at the Beeb

    Wants to know why the BBC is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Anglican church.

  • Jonathan Derbyshire: How the Left Lost its Language

    We ought to return to the arguments over the weight we accord liberty and equality.

  • Down on your knees

    The Church of England is gearing up to give the BBC a damn good scolding for being so mean to Christianity and so nice to Islam.

    Concerns over the appointment of Aaqil Ahmed, who was poached by the corporation from Channel 4 last month, will be raised in a Church document to be published tomorrow…Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, met with Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director-general, in March to challenge him about the issue. Now a motion prepared for the Synod calls on the corporation to explain the decline in its coverage of religion and its failure to provide enough programming during key Christian festivals.

    Sorry to be clueless, but what’s the deal here? Is the archbishop of Canterbury the boss of the BBC? Is the BBC a branch of the church of England? Is the church of England the boss of everything that happens in England? What is all this? Why does the archbish get to challenge the BBC’s director-general about the BBC’s appointments? Why does the Synod get to call on the corporation to explain things? How does all this work? What kind of power, exactly, do they have? Apart from all those bishops in the House of Lords, of course. What kind of temporal political power do they have? What entitles them to be so bossy and so explain-yourselfy?

    “BBC 3 tackles religion rarely but does so from the angle of the freak show, and many of the Channel 4 programmes concerned with Christianity, in contrast to those featuring other faiths, seem to be of a sensationalist or unduly critical nature.”…The main Christian documentary broadcast for Easter [last] year, called The Secrets of the 12 Disciples, cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Pope’s leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.

    Yes…But you guys are Protestants, remember? You’re supposed to have some doubts about the legitimacy of the Pope’s leadership of the Roman Catholic Church yourselves! Have you forgotten all this? Have you forgotten your own history? Bloody Mary? Foxe’s Book of Martyrs? Latimer and Ridley? We shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out? Ring a bell, any of that? It had quite a lot to do with the pope. Surely you remember.

    Ah yes but that was then; now the pope is a bulwark against secularism, and the enemy is everyone who doesn’t want to grovel to religion, like that god damn atheist BBC.

    Nigel Holmes, a General Synod member and former BBC producer, who has tabled the motion and who wrote the paper, said that the Church needed to tackle the issue at a time when the future of religious broadcasting was under threat…”Religion is higher on the political agenda than ever before and we are crying out for programmes that give a moral view.”

    And religion alone can do that of course because religion alone is moral while everything else is inherently and adamantly anti-moral. This is common knowledge.

    A spokesman for the BBC said…”The BBC’s commitment to religion and ethics broadcasting is unequivocal. As the majority faith of the UK, Christians are and will remain a central audience for the BBC’s religious and ethics television and other output.”

    See? Religion and ethics are the same subject, they go together like waffles and syrup or god and bothering. Got that? So no worries: the church of England will harmoniously combine with the Roman Catholic Church and Islam to impose religion and theocracy on everyone else. Can’t say fairer than that can you.

  • Unveil Women in Iran!

    Women!

    The women’s liberation movement in Iran has earned the respect and admiration of all. It has not let the Islamic regime to rest for even one second. Any progression of this movement is tantamount to a huge set back of this misogynous regime. There has been 30 years of constant conflict and battle between women’s liberation movement and the Islamic regime. By imposing the Islamic veil and gender apartheid, the Islamic regime has kept the society in captivity.

    Today, the mass protest movement has resolutely come forth. Society is in an upheaval. The balance of forces has turned towards people and liberation from tyranny. It is exactly in such situation that the brave and freedom loving women in Iran should conquer yet another milestone in their struggle against the Islamic regime, against slavery and misogyny in defence of people, freedom and equality. It is high time to throw the veils out and put an end to gender apartheid. It is high time to unveil, this symbol of women’s slavery and subservience.

    Brave and libertarian women!

    Let us make history in the name of liberation. Let us mark the name of women’s liberation movement in Iran in the history of women’s liberation against Islamic misogyny. Unveiling, during these historic days will take us forward and send shivers down the regime’s spine.

    Long Live Women’s Liberation
    No to Women’s suppression!
    No to Women’s Oppression!

    Azar Majedi
    17 June 2009

  • Mick Hume on Liberty in the Age of Terror

    Chastises Grayling for looking to written constitutions to protect rights.

  • The God-given Right to Bad-mouth Queers

    The bill could ban Christians voicing traditional views on sexuality! Except that it couldn’t.

  • Witchcraft Not Compatible With Catholicism

    They wear such funny clothes, and there are all those candles and incantations – it just won’t do.

  • A little epistemic humility would go a long way

    Jerry Coyne quoted Tom Clark the other day; I want to quote another passage from the same article, ‘Reality and Its Rivals: Putting Epistemology First’.

    Of course, many non-empirically based convictions are relatively harmless as guides to behavior so long as they’re confined to our private lives. Beliefs in god, astrology, psychic powers, cosmic consciousness and so forth can be the epistemic equivalent of victimless crimes. But the presumption of such beliefs – that there are reliable alternatives to empiricism – isn’t so benign when carried into the public arena…To imagine that one’s worldview, whether religious or secular, is beyond disconfirmation helps to license an absolutism which brooks no dissent and countenances the demonization of those with different ideas…A little epistemic humility would go a long way toward reducing the ideological tribalism underlying the culture wars. (What’s ironic is that populist suspicion of bi-coastal know-it-alls gets it precisely backwards: empiricists are just those who realize they don’t know it all.

    The whole article is an excellent antidote to all the muddle about naturalism and supernaturalism and methdological versus philosophical naturalism that’s been splashing around lately, ever since Chris Mooney got the urge to lecture Jerry Coyne on civility to theists. Enjoy.