Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Zimbabwe: Activists Appear in Court

    Jestina Mukoko and 31 others, some with bloodied and swollen faces, appeared in court on Monday.

  • Hedges says

    Another entry in the ‘religion makes people nicer’ contest – Barney Zwarts, religion editor of The Age, offering a subtle, thoughtful, elegant rumination on the ‘new’ atheists.

    This brilliant book highlights what is obvious to most reasonable observers: that these fundamentalist atheists, with their vapid, complacent self-righteousness and their facile and unjustifiable certainties, are the precise mirror image of the fundamentalist Christians, Muslims etc they so despise…Like Christian radicals, the new atheists have built squalid little belief systems that serve themselves and their own power, that seek to scare people about what they do not understand, and to use this fear to justify cruelty and war. “They ask us to kneel before little idols that look and act like them, telling us that one day, if we trust enough in God or reason, we will have everything we desire.”

    He goes on that way for the whole review, and offers not one word of evidence. He doesn’t quote so much as half a sentence to back up any of that frenzied nonsense – that last quote is Hedges, not any of the sqalid little atheists who ask us to kneel before little idols in their image.

    Hedges finds the agenda of the new atheists – Hitchens, Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others – equally intolerant and dangerous. It is intolerant because it is based on a closed worldview that dismisses all other views without even examining them. It tries to reduce sacred texts to instruction manuals. It tells us what is right and wrong not according to God but “the purity of the rational mind”, allowing no dissent – and wraps the intolerance in Enlightenment virtues. It is dangerous because, like religious utopian views, it believes that if it can eradicate other views, this will lead to a perfect society – which justifies butchering or expelling those with other views.

    Those are pretty strong claims to offer in a major newspaper with no trace of quotation, especially when the charges are not in fact true. What those quotation marks on “the purity of the rational mind” are supposed to refer to I don’t know, and I strongly suspect they’re just slapped onto a phrase pulled out of the air – and the childishly ridiculous charge that any of them think anything so stupid as that ‘if it can eradicate other views, this will lead to a perfect society’ is 1. not true and 2. simply taken undigested and unexamined from Hedges’s book. Hedges makes that charge ad nauseam in his toe-curlingly bad book, as I pointed out last April, and this religion editor (ah, so that’s it…) at The Age is simply recycling them as if they had been handed down on gold plates by the Angel Moroni – for real. None of the ‘new’ atheists is anywhere near stupid enough to think that an end of religion would produce ‘a perfect society.’

    The new atheists, Hedges says, know how to make humanity perfect and must therefore eradicate the competing visions that pollute society and lead people astray. Harris calls Muslims deranged, Dennett would allow aspects of religion – its art and music and rituals – to be preserved only in some sort of zoo.

    Well now he’s just admitting it himself – Hedges says. Yes, Hedges says, but Hedges is 1. wrong and 2. in a frothing rage, so maybe it would be clever to check what ‘Hedges says’ before repeating his grotesque claims as if they were well-known facts.

    I wish I could be his editor for just five minutes.

  • Andrew Brown Kicks ‘the New Atheism’

    Some atheists actively believe there is no god. It’s an outrage.

  • Could it be Pretty Obvious There’s No God?

    If we look at the world around us, do we find that there’s no god? Stephen Law asks.

  • Review of Chris Hedges on Atheism

    Takes Hedges’s wild claims at face value, and endorses them.

  • Many Teenagers Don’t Keep Virginity Pledges

    The notion that it has to be either a virginity pledge or encouraging teens to have sex is a false dichotomy.

  • Judge Delays Ruling on Zimbabwe Activists

    Morgan Tsvangirai has threatened to suspend negotiations with ZANU-PF over the case.

  • Senior Judge Calls for Sharia Divorces

    Baroness Butler-Sloss wants religious divorce to precede civil divorce for Muslim couples.

  • Scientific Illiteracy of the Rich and Famous

    Obama got MMR wrong; Demi Moore recommended ‘highly trained medical leeches.’

  • Philosophers Weigh In on God

    Contemporary Christian philosophers often content themselves with pulling up the drawbridge.

  • Grayling on Ideas That Could Save Humanity

    Good ideas should be stashed somewhere so that we don’t have to keep reinventing them.

  • Fighting Straw Men: Mary Midgley and Scientific Discourse

    Mary Midgley’s publisher Routledge calls her a fighter of “scientific pretension” – but what remains with the reader is her passion for science’s defamation.

    Observe two of her statements: “Genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, any more than atoms can be jealous”[1] and “Reason’s just another faith”[2]. In many of her writings, she refers to scientists as “prophets”, science as an inclusive institution, or evolution as religion[3].

    Many will know the typical antiscience mantras – cropping up like weeds in what should be a growth of knowledge and not its stifling. Creationists or anti-Darwinists play the victim-card, stating the scientific community ostracizes anyone who “dares” speak out against the “doctrine” of Darwinism. Of course, if they simply went to any biology conference or read a biology journal, they would see the ones at the forefront of critiquing (strands of) evolutionary theory are, well, biologists themselves. There is no mullah-like governance deciding “This shall not be considered science!”

    Thus it was that the title ‘Evolution as Religion’ leapt out at me. I initially thought that, as a highly regarded moral philosopher, Midgley would provide some answer to this dilemma of why science has become hated and distrusted. I thought that by juxtaposing evolution, which she calls the “creation myth of our age”[4], with traditional religious myths I would gain some insight. But – alas – it was not to be.

    Her first apparent stumbling block is the now infamous debacle regarding Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene[5]. Her lack of understanding of the gene-centered view of biology had her fumbling, Nearly 20 years later, she is unrelenting in her attitude. In a 2005 interview, she stated:

    I’m not anti-science. What I object to is improper science sold as science. I understand Dawkins thinks he was talking about the survival potential of certain lines rather than the motives of the genes themselves, but I believe he is mistaken. [Scientists] are unaware of when they start bringing their own political and psychological views into the argument. There’s nothing wrong with scientists having such views as long as they are aware of what they are doing … Dawkins may argue that he is using selfishness as a metaphor but he must have been aware of how the concept might be interpreted and used. And Dawkins has to take some responsibility for that.

    It seems she has still missed the point entirely. But this introduces the first claim we can lay against her: Her attack on Straw Men.

    According to Midgley, Dawkins “must have been aware” of how the concept of selfishness would be seen. As Stangroom highlights, Dawkins constantly stated the contrary throughout The Selfish Gene. It seems that every time Dawkins mentioned he was not supporting selfishness, wickedness, and so on, Midgley ignored it.

    In her ‘Evolution as Religion’ article, she writes:

    Evolution is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. It influences not just our thought but also our feelings and actions in a way which goes far beyond … a biological theory. In calling it a myth I am not saying that it is a false story. I mean that it has great symbolic power, which is independent of its truth. Is the word religion appropriate to it? This depends [how] we understand that very elastic word. I have chosen it deliberately because I want to draw attention to the remarkable variety of elements which it covers…[6]

    Therefore, Midgley must be “aware of how the concept might be interpreted and used”. Therefore, she shouldn’t be surprised if creationists or Intelligent Design proponents prop her up as support for their anti-science side. She must be aware, as she claims of Dawkins, of the usage of language and terms.

    I was surprised to see that New Scientist asked Midgley to comment on the impact of Reason.

    Midgley begins her article[7] by assessing the great Nehru, the first prime-minister of independent India. Nehru speaks about placing his trust in materialistic science over and above superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Nehru, an atheist, believed that “the future belongs to science and to those who make friends with science”[8] This is a view I agree with heartily and was therefore interested to see if maybe the philosopher had any decent criticisms.

    She correctly sees Nehru’s statement as a manifesto for Reason – but she dismisses it as such because Nehru says “science alone”. She inflects the usual view of the elitism of science, which she defines as “[a] trademark of scientism”. She then defines Scientism as “the belief in the unconditional supremacy of physical science – or of Science with a capital ‘S’ – over all forms of thought.” Once again, she places it within a definition of her own choosing, then critiques this new definition. This is very essence of the Straw man Fallacy. She says:

    [T]aken literally, Nehru’s proposition is odd. We might think, for instance, that we obviously need things, such as good laws, good institutions and a clear understanding of history, as well as science, to solve the problems he named (superstition, hunger, poverty, etc.). He surely knew this, but he put science first because he thought it was the only cure for what he considered the central cause of present evils – religion.

    To me Nehru is important (India is my ancestral homeland and I have grown up in the same culture, which causes an ‘irrational’ affinity for that beautiful land and people). Sir Salman Rushdie – a man who would be my hero, if I had heroes – writes:

    [Gandhi, and Ghandi] alone was responsible for the transformation of the demand for independence into a nationwide mass movement that mobilised every class of society against the imperialist; yet the free India that came into being, divided and committed to a programme of modernization and industrialization, was not the India of his dreams. His sometime disciple, Jawaharlal Nehru, was the arch-proponent of modernization, and it is Nehru’s vision, not Gandhi’s, that was eventually – and perhaps inevitably – preferred.[9] [emphasis mine]

    Nehru’s view then is well defended. It was the destruction of Nehru’s secular prospect that led afterwards to the many terrible things in India[10] – all done in the name of a god which Nehru warned people about. Midgley is incorrect in her assessment of Nehru’s views.

    Nehru was not about limiting thought – quite the opposite. To propose that the love and trust and value of science are somehow traceable to this bizarre notion of Scientism is a major mistake.

    Consider the debate between Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould, regarding punctuated equilibrium. The philosopher Kim Sterelny has written a brilliant account of it entitled Dawkins vs. Gould. Sterelny lucidly outlines each argument and allows the reader to decide, stating that he himself favours Dawkins’ standard Darwinian explanations. My reason for raising this is to show: Yes there is conflict amongst scientists, about science. But that does not mean science as a whole is mistaken or religious or dominated by elitist positions.

    Yes the general public might be confused or upset by the scary elitist men. But that is changing, as we attempt to make people aware of the beauty of science.

    REFERENCES

    1. Mary Midgley ‘Gene Juggling’, Philosophy, vol. 54, no. 210 (1979), pp. 439.

    2. Mary Midgley (2008) ‘Reason’s just another faith’. New Scientist, Vol. 199, No. 2666. P.50

    3. Mary Midgley (1987) “Evolution as a religion: A comparison of prophecies.” Zygon, Vol. 22, No. 2 June, PP 179-194). All these terms can actually be found in just this one rather horrible lecture.

    4. Ibid. p. 179

    5. Jeremy Stangroom ‘Misunderstanding Richard Dawkins’

    6. Midgley (1987), op. cit., p. 179

    7. Midgley (2008) op. cit., P. 50

    8. As cited in Midgley (2008)

    9. Salman Rushdie ‘Gandhi Now’ in Step Across This Line: Collected Non-Fiction 1992-2002. London: Vintage, p. 283

    10. Ibid

    Further reading: see Roger Scruton’s appreciation of Midgley.

  • Johann Hari on Harold Pinter

    Pinter often fumed about tyranny, but equally fumed about people who resisted it.

  • Even Atheists Can Go to Heaven

    ‘Only’ 39 % of Xians believe the bible is the literal word of God; 18 % think it’s a book written by humans.

  • Ponzi Schemes and Credulity Work Together

    How an expert on gullibility and financial scams could fall prey to a hustler like Madoff.

  • Times Should Read its Own Bad Stats Column

    ‘Public opinion has moved sharply,’ the Times said – but actually it hasn’t.

  • Ben Goldacre Offers The Year in Bad Science

    When you line these jokers up side by side you realise what a vast and unwinnable fight we face.

  • Girls go to school to show the world their heads

    From the risible to the disgusting – Islam Online phones the Taliban in Swat to discuss their policy on ordering girls not to go to school.

    Muslim Khan, a former seaman who has spent two years in the United States in late 1990s, contends that girls are bound to get religious education only. “Yes, education is a must for every man and woman (in Islam), but women are bound to acquire religious education only,” he said. “They go to school without observing Pardah (veil), which is against Islamic norms.”

    So…education is a must for every man and woman (in Islam) but women are allowed to get only ‘religious’ education which of course is not education at all. Why are women allowed to get religious education only? Well, because if they got the real thing they might be able to escape, and that is not allowed (in Islam). But anyway – that’s beside the point because the sluts go to school without wearing bags, which is against Islamic norms, and therefore the sluts simply have to be locked up at home for life – real purdah as opposed to portable purdah. Who says? Silly question. See this gun? That’s who says.

    Asked what if girls observe pardah, would they be allowed to attend schools, the spokesman said that the issue has been discussed by the TTS. “But the problem is that despite our warnings, only a few girls observed pardah. Therefore, we have decided to stop them from attending the schools.”

    You see how it is. Our hands are tied. We tried – we gave it our best shot – we gave them every opportunity – but the filthy whores simply would not observe pardah. Therefore, we have decided to imprison them.

    Security analysts do not give much importance to TTS’s warning. “No doubt it will create panic among the girls and their parents, but it will not last for a long time,” said Hamid Mir, an Islamabad-based security analyst.

    Oh yes, quite, no doubt a lot of silly people will panic at being told they will be killed by people who have a reliable history of living up to their own threats, but hey, it will not last for a long time, because…because the Taliban will change its mind? No. Because the girls and their parents will no longer mind the prospect of the girls being killed? No. Because the Taliban will be disbanded and defeated? Not any time soon. Why then? Who knows.

    Mir said the TTS threat will be used by the Western media to further tarnish the image of Islam. “And unfortunately, people like Maulvi Fazlullah often provide them the opportunities for that,” he said.

    Yeah. God damn Western media. Without people like Fazlullah no one would have a word to say against Islam, because it’s so fair and even-handed and justice-loving. Did I mention the Western media?

  • Come on in, the water’s fine

    Good ne-ews – any religion, every religion can get you into heaven, and even better than that, the absence of religion can get you there too. Stone the crows! So there are no entry requirements at all! We’re all saved, no matter how spotty or bad-tempered or unfunny.

    According to the American public anyway. This isn’t actually a factual discovery, it’s just the outcome of an opinion survey. The news is actually just that ‘Americans think’ you can get into heaven if you’re a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or an atheist, among other possibilities. In other words ‘Americans think’ whatever they feel like thinking. Not really news at all then. Ah well.

    That’s not my favourite part though; my favourite part is this:

    Also, many Christians apparently view their didactic text as flexible. According to Pew’s August survey, only 39 percent of Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and 18 percent think that it’s just a book written by men and not the word of God at all.

    I love that ‘only’ – only 39 % of Christians believe that God actually wrote the bible in the same sense in which I am writing this. The 18% who think the bible is written by humans is equally risible – only 18% of a large segment of the population actually accept the blindingly obvious: that the bible, like other books, was written by human beings. The roughly 40% in between those two presumably believe the usual intermediate offering: that god ‘inspired’ human beings to write the bible – so that actually 80% of a large segment of the population believe that that ragbag of stories and poetry and bloodcurdling threats was to some extent made by a supernatural being who doesn’t make house calls. ‘Only’ about 80% of Christians believe raving nonsense.

    And I can go to heaven with them. Terrific. I’d really rather not.

  • Spreading vulgarity in society

    The Taliban in Swat work on building a better world.

    In an announcement made in mosques and broadcast on radio, the militant group set a deadline of January 15 for its order to be obeyed or it would blow up school buildings and attack [meaning kill] schoolgirls. It also told women not to set foot outside their homes without being fully covered. “Female education is against Islamic teachings and spreads vulgarity in society,” Shah Dauran, leader of a group that has established control over a large part of Swat district in the North West Frontier Province, declared this week…The militants have also prohibited immunisation for children against polio – claiming that the UN-sponsored vaccination drive is aimed at causing sexual impotence – causing a sharp rise in cases of the disease…In many areas hardliners have established Sharia, or Islamic law, setting up their own courts and introducing public executions for those who break it. This month militants killed a pro-government cleric and hung his body up in Mingora, the main town of Swat, in full view of the Pakistani military and the local administration.

    Allah the merciful.