Author: Ophelia Benson

  • I share values, do you share values?

    Okay what about dear Saudi Arabia with whom we share all these ‘values’? What about all these ‘values’ that we share? Which ones are those then? People are asking.

    As Gordon Brown faced mounting criticism yesterday over the state visit of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the Foreign Office minister Kim Howells called for Britain and the Saudi monarchy to work more closely together on a basis of “shared values”…The statement by Mr Howells drew an angry reaction from the Labour backbenches. “I am astounded that a government minister can identify shared values with a regime that is world-renowned for its abuse of human rights and civil liberties,” said John McDonnell, the left-wing MP co-ordinating protests at the Saudi embassy tomorrow.

    Well there’s always money. And monarchy. Will those do?

    Perhaps not.

    A dossier on executions, prolonged detention of peaceful critics without trial, and discrimination against women was issued yesterday by Amnesty International who said that it was “extremely concerned” at the extent and severity of human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. This year, at least 124 people have been executed, the majority by beheading, said the group.

    Well how about ‘faith’ then? That’s a shared value, surely.

    Maybe not.

    Material urging hatred of other religions can be found in mosques across Britain, most of it linked to Saudi Arabia, according to a new investigation…Researchers uncovered propaganda calling for homosexuals to be murdered, women to be subjugated and denouncing Jews and Christians as the enemies of Islam…Many publications urged British Muslims to segregate themselves from non-Muslims and for “unbelievers” to be regarded as second class. Most of the material is produced by agencies closely linked to the Saudi regime, according to the investigation. It included virulently anti-Semitic propaganda produced by the Saudi ministry of education. Some of the literature discovered espoused the creation of a separate state for Muslims, governed by sharia law.

    McDonald’s? Starbucks? Oil? Sunshine? There must be something…

  • At the Baltimore Aquarium

    From Tea, in comments on ‘Contemplative wonder is doomed, doomed, I tell you’.

    I went to the Baltimore aquarium last week, and I saw a most amazing species of fish (whose name I unfortunately don’t remember at all). It took me a while to actually see it: the tank looked like it contained nothing but water and some algae-covered rocks. An employee approached me and asked me if I can see the fish. “No”, I replied. “It’s right here”, he said, pointing his finger at a rock. “Where?” “Right here.” I just couldn’t see it – until I noticed that the rock blinked at me slightly with its big black eye. It was truly amazing – I still couldn’t tell where the rock ended and the fish began, its “skin” looked exactly like the algae leaves that surrounded it. I had to be dragged away from the tank after 15 minutes or so, but I still can’t stop thinking about it. Of course I’ve seen examples of mimicry many times before, but I was usually able to figure out which were the real plants, and which the animals pretending to be plants. But I’ve never seen anything quite like this before. AWEsome.

    Now, if someone were to tell you that this fish was created by a guy with considerable talent in making sculptures that look exactly like rocks, that would be hardly awe-worthy, and there would certainly be little left to wonder about. You might be a little more amazed upon being told that this guy can also breathe life into such “sculptures”, but your amazement would vanish as soon as you’d learn that this guy also happens to be omnipotent. There’s nothing very wonder-inspiring about intelligent beings creating things they have always been able to create with ease.

    However, learning that this incredible thing happened through the process of natural selection – now, that is truly amazing. That is the reason why I had to be dragged away – it just blows my mind that such stuff comes into being without an omnipotent guy creating them on a whim. Instead, it just slowly evolves from next-to-nothing, and that without any intelligence and omnipotence behind it – and yet, there you go: a fish that looks exactly like a rock. If you ask me, very few things are more awe-inspiring than that. I still can’t fully wrap my mind around it; I keep “wondering” about it. On the other hand, there’s no place left for wonderment when a guy who can create anything happens to create something.

  • The Exposé of a Gujarati Massacre

    Sunny Hundal notes lack of media coverage in both India and the UK.

  • Andrew Brown Ponders a Stupidfilter

    An application of spam-fighting algorithms to the problem of stupidity.

  • An Exciting History of German Romanticism

    Surpassing of religion through release of the powers of imagination, which re-invented the world.

  • Protests at Saudi King’s State Visit to UK

    Saudi human rights record less than stellar.

  • Normblog Ponders Science and Wonder

    The desire to understand is every bit as much a human given as is our wonder at the world.

  • Contemplative wonder is doomed, doomed, I tell you

    I’m told by more than one witness that Mark Vernon is a nice guy (and I don’t doubt it) – but he does talk the most godawful crap.

    Do you need to be religious to truly experience wonder at the world? This question lurks behind much of the ongoing debate about atheism. If everything can be explained by science, what is worthy of awe?

    That’s a ridiculous question, and also a sinister one. It’s ridiculous because of its gormless assumption that explanation is for some reason inimical to awe. But why should it be? Think of the first atomic bomb, dropped in the desert at Alomogordo. The physicists and engineers watching knew how it worked, obviously; they could explain it; but they were certainly awed by it. The question is sinister because of its primitive fear of explanation. I don’t think the world is in need of people urging us to remain ignorant. Ignorance is easy, and there will always be plenty of it; I can command whole oceans of it myself; explanation is harder, and needs all the encouragement it can get.

    For some atheists modern science can ask all questions worth asking and find answers: there are still mysteries in the world, but they are more like puzzles that can and one day will be explained by natural processes. The wonder that someone with such a belief might feel at these things could be said to be instrumental…This wonder is different in quality from contemplative wonder, which does not undo but lets be. It involves a conception of science that extends knowledge but admits its limits. Some things are beyond its comprehension and remain intrinsically mysterious. Consciousness, morality and existence itself are obvious candidates – the things that the artistic, religious and moral imagination are so well equipped to ponder.

    Contemplative wonder does not ‘undo’ but lets be. Well, fine, Mark; if you want to contemplate, go ahead; but your desire to contemplate doesn’t necessarily translate t a general rule. And then, what do you mean ‘the artistic, religious and moral imagination are so well equipped to ponder’ morality and existence? That they’re all able to just sit down with slack jaw and stare? Maybe they are, but so what? Or do you mean (in contradiction to your ‘does not undo but lets be’) that they are well equipped to ponder such things to some purpose? If so, leaving aside your self-contradiction, I would love to know how they are well equipped to do that, and to what purpose. What can the ‘religious imagination’ tell us about morality or existence by way of its ponderings? I realize it can make up fictions and then dogmatically assert them and demand allegiance to them – but that doesn’t seem to be what you have in mind.

    [Bacon] also knew that this magisterium of experiment did not overlap with the magisterium of religion, which “extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value”, in Stephen Jay Gould’s famous formulation.

    Famous and profoundly mistaken. Religion has no genuine ‘magisterium’ because it doesn’t go about the work in the right way. Religious morality is command morality, derived from revelation and authority; it is fundamentally worthless.

    It is when you deny the separate domains of these magisteria that you erode the capacity for contemplative wonder. When scientific knowledge is thought to be effectively without limit there is nothing much to stop contemplative wonder dissolving into instrumental wonder too. This must be what people sense when they fear that science is unweaving the rainbow. The worry is that it leaves nothing sacred.

    And if it’s not what people sense when they fear that science is unweaving the rainbow, you’ll do your best to talk them into fearing it. Not a good or wise thing to do.

    Jean has an eloquent comment on the subject.

  • Cruising With Sylvia Browne

    ‘There is no doubt that she makes a fortune saying very serious, cruel, show-stopping things to people in distress.’

  • Mark Vernon Urges Preservation of Ignorance

    Scientific knowledge must be limited or else it will ‘erode the capacity for contemplative wonder.’

  • Vatican ‘Beatifies’ Spanish Civil War Dead

    Franco side only, of course; cites ‘reconciliation.’

  • Nick Cohen on the Dangers of Alt Med

    The Society of Homeopaths promises to provide ‘fascinating insights’ for World Aids Day.

  • Srebrenica Revisited

    The Srebrenica massacre cast a shadow on the viability of international law and organizations.

  • Hinduism Still State Religion in ‘Secular’ Nepal

    The state spends over Rs.50 million annually on Hindu rituals, including slaughter of birds and animals.

  • The Echoes of the Bell

    Every morning, the bell rings. It’s not my cell-phone alarm nor the siren broadcast by big mansions for the periodical shifting of laborers. The bell rings everyday and I am hearing it for the last twenty-eight years (apart from a few odd days). It’s evident that millions of Hindus throughout the world hear these bell-echoes every day in the early morning. The frequency of this bell must have been raised exponentially these days as the Hindu’s greatest festival Dashain has finished recently.

    Being a Hindu by birth and a secular humanist by thought, I am always at a cross-roads in shaping myself into the proper track with regard to atheism and theism. The trail is muddy and complicated, but I have been struggling hard to establish myself as a secular humanist who believes in the rationality of reasons and facts and enjoys the perennial beauty of scientific accomplishment.

    One of the impoverished regions of south-Asia but always independent, Nepal, the Himalayan country, has been fighting for her legitimacy for many years. From being a Hindu kingdom for hundreds of years to being a secular state, the country has witnessed several political revolutions that have always been intermingled with the questions of religion. The country has a diverse terrain and peoples, although more than 70% of the people are Hindus. Finally, the country is successful in establishing herself as a new secular state of this century. We must cheer for this new secular country although millions of non-secular bells continue to ring every morning in the secular country.

    Every morning as I walk through my village and pass the Hindu deity, I never show any religious norms other than watching the believers queuing up and the blood-shedding of poor animals that are slaughtered every day. My friends laugh at me internally for not showing any religious norms but they are not going to challenge my belief of secularism as they don’t have the rationality of reasons and truth. Unfortunately the blood-sprinkled bell continues to ring.

    It’s been more than five years that I have declared myself as a secular humanist, and the foundation pillars of secularism are becoming strong and mature as I read many works by Paul Kurtz and other prominent humanists. Also I was lucky to experience the social life among secular Chinese people for almost a year. These are some critical as well as practical foundations that were underlying my tributaries and shielding me from the pitch of those bells that continue to ring everyday.

    I am not going to fight with my mother for the bell she is ringing every-day because there are millions of mothers and millions of sons and daughters hearing this pitch every morning. They are not going to stop it no matter how hard I try, but I am of the firm belief that people are going to ask about the rationality of bells sooner or later.

    I remember my grandma telling fairy tales of god and goddess and how those shadows were sticking inside my grey matter for many years even after her death. As far as I remember, she performed all her religious ritual and pilgrimage duties but she passed away merely at the age of 58 suffering from cancer. I am pretty sure that she must have rung that monotonous bell for 18,250 times assuming that she rang the bell at least once a day for fifty years, although it is customary that most Hindus ring it twice a day. However, the story of her bell has been passed from generations to generations and I am afraid that my mother is going to tell the same superstitious story to my offspring.

    Eloquently, the fact is that the old-bell is loosing its frequency and penetration compared to the modern bell of communication. My mother must be hearing phone-rings at least three times a day, more than frequency of her old bell. I am pretty sure that the pitch and echoes of the modern bell will prevail in the days to come, and that that bell has the power to give answers and reasons that the old bell has deprived people of. The only tool to decrease the frequency of the old bell is the education and knowledge that peoples of this region desperately need, to wipe out the ignorance that has been cultivated for hundred of years from generation to generation.

    Ravi Dhungel lives in Kathmandu, Nepal. Visit his blog at Nepali Lad.

  • Wichita Disenchanted With Political Evangelicals

    Secular sociologists say evangelicals’ changing view of society reflects their changing place in it.

  • Ben Goldacre on Infant Survival Statistics

    Science is about clarity and transparency, especially for public policy – such as abortion law.

  • She Brought the Killing on Herself, Husband Says

    A man who murdered his wife and three children in an ‘honour’ killing feels ‘totally justified in what he did.’

  • Disgrace: Is the Shunning of Watson Justified?

    Dawkins, Blakemore, Wilson say no; politicians worry about aiding racist fringe.