Insurgent groups in Iraq are recruiting children as suicide bombers, according to a United Nations official. The findings of the UN special representative for children and armed conflict echo concerns expressed by the US military about insurgent tactics.
Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN envoy, made her comments at the end of a week-long fact-finding visit to Iraq. Last month, the US released footage of what it said was al-Qaeda propaganda showing children being trained. The US says children are being taught how to use guns and carry out kidnappings in addition to other terrorist activities.
Ms Coomaraswamy told a news conference in the Jordanian capital of Amman that the use of children in the ongoing violence is "intolerable". "Since 2004, an increasing number of children have been recruited into various militias and insurgent groups, including as suicide bombers," Ms Coomaraswamy said, adding that children were the silent victims in Iraq.
"Many of them no longer go to school, many are recruited for violent activities or detained in custody, they lack access to the most basic services and manifest a wide range of psychological symptoms from the violence in their everyday lives."
She said approximately 1,500 children are also "known to be held in detention facilities".
Ms Coomaraswamy found that only 50% of primary school children are attending school, down from 80% in 2005 and only 40% have access to clean drinking water and there is a continuing possibility of outbreaks of cholera.
She called on religious, political, military and community leaders to send one clear message to Iraqi children: "Stay out of violence and go back to school."
Ms Coomaraswamy strongly urged all parties to the conflict in Iraq "to strictly adhere to international humanitarian standards for the protection of children and to immediately release any children under the age of 18 years who are associated with their forces in any way"
[from www.news.bbc.co.uk]
Another example here of how religion is being misused as a tool to motivate impressionable young people into carrying out suicide bombings. Now this is being extended to children who should be in school. No doubt they have been indoctrinated by promises of eternal paradise in the afterlife. I have often wondered why suicide bombers never seem to be over 40 years old and are usually a lot younger that that! I have reached the conclusion that individuals who reach 40 tend be much more aware of their own mortality and to value life much more than the young. When we are young it seems that death too far away to concern us. The middle aged have grown wise enough to know that promises of the afterlife are by no means a certainty and that nobody really knows what will happen when they die. Knowing this they value what life is left to them. Even among the most fanatical Islamic extremists and their supporters we seldom if ever see an old suicide bomber!
You might think that as these older jihadists have less life left to them they would be more willing to sacrifice themselves rather than to encourage young people to do it, but this is not the case.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Religion, science and the third way
Last night American philosopher Dan Dennett came together with Robert Winston to debate the motion that 'religion is the greatest threat to scientific progress and rationality today'. Richard Denton reports on the final debate in the Guardian's Rethink series.
[from EducationGuardian.co.uk]
In any debate about science and religion, the American philosopher Dan Dennett has the advantage of looking uncannily like Charles Darwin. The good Lord Robert Winston, on the other hand, has the advantage of being a national treasure. They came together in the last debate in the Rethink series mounted by the Guardian and the think tank Agora to debate the motion that "religion is the greatest threat to scientific progress and rationality today".
In the light of the controversy about hybrid embryos, it seemed like a winning idea. It's pretty clear, in this case, that religion wants to be a restraining force on scientific research. Winston, although a religious man, is on the side of science in that debate: he is, after all, a doctor, and an expert in human fertility issues. However, that he is with the scientists on stem cell research doesn't prove the premise of the debate wrong. If anything, it proves the reverse: there wouldn't be so much controversy about this research without the religious lobby. The fact that Winston opposes the religious lobby on these occasions just proves that it needs opposing; and the fact that a religious man opposes the religious position in this debate demonstrates the blurred lines of the issue.
However, the experience was rather strange. Winston's debating skills have been honed at Westminster and, perhaps wisely, he managed more or less to avoid the whole issue of religion. Dennett, however, is a deep-thinking philosopher who clearly needed more than the eight minutes allotted to advance his initial thesis.
It began well. Dennett was introduced as an atheist, though as a "good cop" in comparison to Richard Dawkins' "bad cop". The audience seemed to be satisfyingly split: 25% for the motion, 25% against and a healthy bunch who were undecided in the middle. Dennett began by claiming that science is a rational and systematic search for truth, whereas religion sets up a barrier beyond which nothing can be questioned without risking blasphemy. He wondered if religion is the "greatest" threat to rationality, suggesting that while other things - such as alcohol, TV and computer games - may disable our rationality, only religion "honours the disability". He was just warming to this theme when his eight minutes were up.
Winston replied by accepting that religious excess is damaging, but claimed it was no more so than - and no different from - any other excess. His point seemed to be that "certainty" is the enemy of rationality - and science portrays itself as certain. He added that scientists "peddle it as truth with no moral dimensions". He then went on the characterise religion as the "expression of uncertainty".
Dennett may have found it hard to recognise that description of religion. After all, he comes from the US, a country where half the population rejects the theory of evolution and - for largely religious reasons - says it is "certain" that humans only appeared on this planet in the past few thousand years, and by direct intervention of the divine.
Dennett also rejected the idea that science is certain about anything - except the method it uses to pursue the truth. For Dennett, it is science that expresses uncertainty and religion that plays "the faith card when rationality is no longer on its side".
It is religion that lets people hide behind "the certainty and sincerity of their passions to do something inexcusable", he said. But before long it became clear that on some issues there is not much to choose between their positions.
It was Winston, not Dennett, who has in the row about hybrid embryos attacked Cardinal O'Brien as "a liar". In this debate Winston described the Catholic church as a "just a minority view with a very powerful a voice". By contrast, it was Dennett, not Winston, who said that "people become religious because they want to be good and they recognise that they need help". Both, however, were appalled by people who seek to impose their certainties on others.
Winston to me sounded as though he was representing the "God-Lite" approach to religion: an unthreatening and more-or-less rational - and private - approach. It's hard to object to that: practised in this way, religion is unthreatening and benign.
If all religious people took the "God-Lite" approach, there would be no problem; a conclusion that seemed convincing enough for the audience. The motion was roundly defeated.
I entered the chamber as an atheist and therefore was not likely to be convinced that religion really is a benign and progressive force. And so I voted for the motion - but less as a result of what Dennett said and rather more as a result of what Robert Winston has done.
Let's face it, if religion is not the greatest threat, what other threat could have caused someone as agreeable, polite and diplomatic Winston to denounce a Roman Catholic Cardinal as "a liar"?
[from EducationGuardian.co.uk]
In any debate about science and religion, the American philosopher Dan Dennett has the advantage of looking uncannily like Charles Darwin. The good Lord Robert Winston, on the other hand, has the advantage of being a national treasure. They came together in the last debate in the Rethink series mounted by the Guardian and the think tank Agora to debate the motion that "religion is the greatest threat to scientific progress and rationality today".
In the light of the controversy about hybrid embryos, it seemed like a winning idea. It's pretty clear, in this case, that religion wants to be a restraining force on scientific research. Winston, although a religious man, is on the side of science in that debate: he is, after all, a doctor, and an expert in human fertility issues. However, that he is with the scientists on stem cell research doesn't prove the premise of the debate wrong. If anything, it proves the reverse: there wouldn't be so much controversy about this research without the religious lobby. The fact that Winston opposes the religious lobby on these occasions just proves that it needs opposing; and the fact that a religious man opposes the religious position in this debate demonstrates the blurred lines of the issue.
However, the experience was rather strange. Winston's debating skills have been honed at Westminster and, perhaps wisely, he managed more or less to avoid the whole issue of religion. Dennett, however, is a deep-thinking philosopher who clearly needed more than the eight minutes allotted to advance his initial thesis.
It began well. Dennett was introduced as an atheist, though as a "good cop" in comparison to Richard Dawkins' "bad cop". The audience seemed to be satisfyingly split: 25% for the motion, 25% against and a healthy bunch who were undecided in the middle. Dennett began by claiming that science is a rational and systematic search for truth, whereas religion sets up a barrier beyond which nothing can be questioned without risking blasphemy. He wondered if religion is the "greatest" threat to rationality, suggesting that while other things - such as alcohol, TV and computer games - may disable our rationality, only religion "honours the disability". He was just warming to this theme when his eight minutes were up.
Winston replied by accepting that religious excess is damaging, but claimed it was no more so than - and no different from - any other excess. His point seemed to be that "certainty" is the enemy of rationality - and science portrays itself as certain. He added that scientists "peddle it as truth with no moral dimensions". He then went on the characterise religion as the "expression of uncertainty".
Dennett may have found it hard to recognise that description of religion. After all, he comes from the US, a country where half the population rejects the theory of evolution and - for largely religious reasons - says it is "certain" that humans only appeared on this planet in the past few thousand years, and by direct intervention of the divine.
Dennett also rejected the idea that science is certain about anything - except the method it uses to pursue the truth. For Dennett, it is science that expresses uncertainty and religion that plays "the faith card when rationality is no longer on its side".
It is religion that lets people hide behind "the certainty and sincerity of their passions to do something inexcusable", he said. But before long it became clear that on some issues there is not much to choose between their positions.
It was Winston, not Dennett, who has in the row about hybrid embryos attacked Cardinal O'Brien as "a liar". In this debate Winston described the Catholic church as a "just a minority view with a very powerful a voice". By contrast, it was Dennett, not Winston, who said that "people become religious because they want to be good and they recognise that they need help". Both, however, were appalled by people who seek to impose their certainties on others.
Winston to me sounded as though he was representing the "God-Lite" approach to religion: an unthreatening and more-or-less rational - and private - approach. It's hard to object to that: practised in this way, religion is unthreatening and benign.
If all religious people took the "God-Lite" approach, there would be no problem; a conclusion that seemed convincing enough for the audience. The motion was roundly defeated.
I entered the chamber as an atheist and therefore was not likely to be convinced that religion really is a benign and progressive force. And so I voted for the motion - but less as a result of what Dennett said and rather more as a result of what Robert Winston has done.
Let's face it, if religion is not the greatest threat, what other threat could have caused someone as agreeable, polite and diplomatic Winston to denounce a Roman Catholic Cardinal as "a liar"?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Terrorism and Other Harms of Believing in an Afterlife
Encourages Suicide
Religions cause a lot of harm telling people a life after death awaits them. In all probability, many terrorist attacks and other tragedies would not occur in the absence of that belief.
The 9/11 terrorists were convinced that Allah approved of their suicidal acts and they would be eternally rewarded as martyrs. In a letter discovered after the attacks, their ringleader told them they would soon be in paradise "with beautiful angels" who have "put on their most beautiful dresses." He also urged them on by saying, "The virgins are calling you."
The Koran supports this belief by describing the rewards awaiting Muslims after death. "But for the God-fearing is a blissful abode, enclosed gardens and vineyards; and damsels with swelling breasts for companions; and a full cup." This is where "reclining on beds they will ask for abundant fruit and exquisite drinks, all the while next to them will be blushing virgins as companions."
Terrorist leaders use these promised rewards to recruit the young and impressionable and motivate them to commit murder-suicides. However this method of inciting terrorism would be much less effective if the targets of the recruiting didn't believe in an afterlife. It is true however that there the tactic of suicide bombing has also been and continues to be used by those motivated by political fanaticism such as the Tamil Tigers though it seems likely that they also believe in an afterlife.
Richard Dawkins says belief in an afterlife has immunized not only Middle Eastern terrorists against fear of death but also countless other warriors in history. The promised heavenly rewards made death in battle appear quite attractive. Bertrand Russell makes a similar observation: "At a certain stage of development, as the Mohammedans first proved, belief in Paradise has considerable military value as reinforcing natural pugnacity." In the Middle Ages, rewards of eternal bliss in heaven were also promised to Christians who joined the Crusades against Islam.
Religion has often been used throughout history as an extremely effective political tool to control the population. In fact the general pattern seems to be that a cult is formed by a small group of fanatics with a charismatic but probably mentally unbalanced leader. After a while the cult attracts enough followers to become useful at which time it is adopted for political use. For example Christianity was adopted by the Roman emperor Constantine in the fourth century CE as a means of attracting support and consolidating his rule. Most cults of course die out and only a few survive and grow into religions.
In the 1980s assurances of heavenly rewards motivated many Iranian boys between 9 and 16 years old to give their lives in the Iran Iraq war. They agreed to run through mine fields to clear the way for advancing Iranian soldiers. The promised rewards caused parents all over Iran to encourage their sons to participate in these "human wave attacks." Robin Wright, who witnessed the boys' actions, wrote in Sacred Rage that "wearing white headbands to signify the embracing of death, and shouting 'Shahid! Shahid! (Martyr! Martyr!),' they literally blew their way into heaven." Or perhaps they were really blown into non-existence. I'm sure we will all be happy when we die if we discover the afterlife is real but it is extremely foolish to throw one's life away just because some else told us the afterlife is real.
If people realized there is no evidence for an afterlife and that no scripture is really the word of God, the thought of dying a warrior's death would be less appealing to them. Instead of welcoming death or viewing it casually, they would realize that life is precious.
Promotes Murder
Believing in an afterlife can also lead to murder. The Humanist philosopher Corliss Lamont reports that some ancient societies killed their aging members before they reached a state of decrepitude. It was thought that this enabled the victims to spend the afterlife in a relatively healthy body.
A more modern example is the case of John List, a New Jersey accountant and Sunday school teacher who killed his wife and three children in 1971. When finally captured many years later, List explained that his wife was drifting away from Christianity and his children might do the same when faced with worldly temptations. So he decided to kill them while they were still Christians, thereby ensuring they would go to heaven instead of hell.
A lesser-known case occurred in Baytown, Texas, in the mid-1980s. A 31-year-old mother killed three of her children with a knife, while a fourth child survived the attack. The mother had written she wanted to send her children to Jesus.
The same motivation existed in the infamous case of Andrea Yates, the devoutly religious Texas housewife who drowned her five children in a bathtub in 2001. According to Newsweek, Yates told a jail psychologist that her bad mothering had made the children "not righteous," which would cause them to "perish in the fires of hell." She explained that because she had killed them while they were young, God would be merciful to their souls and "take them up" to heaven.
Susan Smith, the South Carolina woman who drowned her two young sons in 1994, likewise believed in an afterlife. While parked on a boat ramp and deciding whether to send her car into a lake while the toddlers were strapped in their car seats, Smith thought the boys would go to a happy existence with Jesus immediately after death. As she sits in prison, she still believes that's where they are.
Northeastern University criminologist James Fox states that belief in a better world beyond the grave is not unusual among parents who kill their children and themselves. "Frequently, the parent thinks this life is miserable and rationalizes that the family will be happily reunited in the hereafter," he reports.
These motives for murder couldn't exist without belief in an afterlife.
Not only terrorist suicide attacks and murder-suicides within families, but also other types of suicide can result from the notion of a heavenly abode. Corliss Lamont gives an example from the 1930s.
It involved a U.S. congressman who killed himself shortly after his wife died. The man explained in a suicide note that his wife had been calling him to join her and their young son in heaven.
His act was not an isolated incident. Lamont says there are "numerous cases on record of people killing themselves to preclude being parted from the beloved dead."
Belief in an afterlife caused the mass suicide of the religious group known as the People's Temple. Their leader, Rev. Jim Jones, relocated the group from the U.S. to Jonestown, Guyana, in the mid-1970s. Jones believed that he and his followers would eventually die together and go to a place of eternal bliss, and they practiced for mass suicide.
In 1978, after his security guards had killed a visiting congressman and several others, Jones feared retaliation and decided the time had come for the group to do the real thing. So he led them in a mass suicide, resulting in his own death and the death of 913 of his followers, including nearly 300 children.
Beliefs about an afterlife produced the 1998 mass suicide in the Heaven's Gate religious group in southern California. The group thought the Hale-Bopp Comet was accompanied by a spaceship that would take them to a higher realm of existence. So 39 members killed themselves, believing that by shedding their earthly bodies they would be transported to the spaceship.
Rejecting the idea of an afterlife would eliminate these motives for suicide.
In the Catholic Church, considerable emphasis has been placed on prayers and masses for the deceased. These practices have been a source of immense income for the church. So have the indulgences the church sold supposedly for improving the well-being of people's souls in an afterlife.
Mormons spend an enormous amount of time and money studying genealogical records in order to baptize deceased relatives, ancestors, and others into the Mormon Church. The founder of this church, Joseph Smith, taught that departed souls can accept what is done for them on earth.
Remove such beliefs in an afterlife and the efforts being expended on behalf of the dead could be redirected to improve the conditions of the living.
Distracts Attention from the World's Problems
Some orthodox Christians, says Edmund D. Cohen, are so preoccupied with thoughts of an afterlife that they devalue and ignore many important matters in this life.
Cohen states that for these persons, "all but a few aspects of earthly life are reduced to unimportance, and the next life is 'where the action is.'" It's hard to imagine an attitude less conducive to solving the world's problems.
In fact, the "powers-that-be" in this world are usually more than happy to see people focused on an afterlife. So they often encourage it. They know that people engrossed with thoughts of other worlds are less likely to notice or care about exploitation and abuse on earth.
As Kevin Phillips writes in his 2006 book American Theocracy: "Economic conservatives often warm to sects in which a preoccupation with personal salvation turns lower-income persons away from distracting visions of economic and social reform." He says that as a result of such preoccupation in the U.S., "the corporate and financial agenda not only prevails but often runs riot." Moreover, when people believe that injustices will be punished in another world, they aren't so concerned about stopping evil or seeing that wrongdoers face justice in this world. Their attitudes make it much easier for the wicked to prosper and escape punishment.
In summarizing these problems, Corliss Lamont states: "As long . . . as a future life is conceived to exist, people will devote to the thought of it much time and attention that could be used for earthly enterprises."
Conclusion
The belief in an afterlife leads to much unnecessary harm and it's irrational: there's no more evidence for believing that humans are immortal than for believing that trees and insects are. If people realized this, much evil could be avoided and more attention placed on improving the world. Of course, believing in an afterlife is a source of consolation for many. The pain caused by the loss of loved ones can be alleviated by thinking that everyone will be reunited in the hereafter. But the serious harms caused by this idea seem to far outweigh the benefits.
Today, the terrorism that the belief produces - particularly if the terrorists obtain nuclear weapons - is a threat to the lives of millions around the world and to the continued existence of the United States and Western civilization.
For those who cannot bear the thought of the final extinction of themselves and their loved ones, the hope for an afterlife - as opposed to the belief in one - can be a harmless source of consolation. As Robert Ingersoll stated, "Hope is the consolation of the world."
In the nineteenth century, the agnostic Thomas H. Huxley seemed to leave room for this hope by saying: "I neither deny nor affirm the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing in it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it."
Simply hoping for an afterlife, rather than presuming to know it exists, brings solace and need not result in a devaluation of this life. People who employ a scientific outlook and have that hope know it's very possible, or even highly probable, this is their one and only life. They will not, therefore, throw it away or think little of throwing away the lives of others.
The hope for an afterlife was even held by great humanistic thinkers such as Robert Ingersoll and Thomas Paine.
It's important, though, to prevent this hope from developing into a belief. In addition to the many harms the belief has caused throughout history, the results of the belief today could be catastrophic on an unthinkable scale.
Those who cannot give up the idea of an afterlife would be wise to follow Cicero's advice. He said a future state is "to be hoped for rather than believed."
[Original material from www.humanismbyjoe.com website by Joseph C. Sommer some minor edits and additional comments added by me]
Is religion a threat to rationality and science?
Prof Daniel Dennett and Lord Winston present their arguments ahead of tonight's public debate Daniel Dennett and Robert Winston, Tuesday April 22, 2008 The Guardian
Yes, says Prof Daniel Dennett
If religion isn't the greatest threat to rationality and scientific progress, what is? Perhaps alcohol, or television, or addictive video games. But although each of these scourges - mixed blessings, in fact - has the power to overwhelm our best judgment and cloud our critical faculties, religion has a feature of that none of them can boast: it doesn't just disable, it honours the disability. People are revered for their capacity to live in a dream world, to shield their minds from factual knowledge and make the major decisions of their lives by consulting voices in their heads that they call forth by rituals designed to intoxicate them.
It used to be the case that we tended to excuse drunk drivers when they crashed because they weren't entirely in control of their faculties at the time, but now we have wisely inverted that judgment, holding drunk drivers doubly culpable for putting themselves in that irresponsible position in the first place. It is high time we inverted the public attitude about religion as well, finding all socially destructive acts of religious passion shameful, not honourable, and holding those who abet them - the preachers and other apologists for religious zeal - as culpable as the bartenders and negligent hosts who usher dangerous drivers on to the highways. Our motto should be: Friends don't let friends steer their lives by religion.
Right now, Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, a young student, resides on death row in Afghanistan, sentenced to execution for committing blasphemy. Imagine! We're living in the 21st century, and in "liberated" Afghanistan (not Taliban Afghanistan) blasphemy is still a capital crime. Most of the rest of the world is tongue-tied, unwilling to tell those bent on carrying out this barbaric sentence that they are simply wrong, and should not thus humiliate themselves and their traditions. Where are the peaceful demonstrations of protest? Are people unwilling to hurt the feelings of Muslims? We are quick to condemn other outrages, but religious passion, genuine or feigned, shields people from the moral judgments of their fellow human beings, judgments to which we should all alike be subject.
There is an unbalance in the framing of this resolution, and Robert Winston has the worst of it. He must try to allay a host of concerns, an unending task, while - as everyone knows all too well - in a single cataclysmic day my side could be proven by one fanatical act, not that anyone would be left to cheer my victory. Not just rationality and scientific progress, but just about everything else we hold dear could be laid waste by a single massively deluded "sacramental" act. True, you don't have to be religious to be crazy, but it helps. Indeed, if you are religious, you don't have to be crazy in the medically certifiable sense in order to do massively crazy things. And - this is the worst of it - religious faith can give people a sort of hyperbolic confidence, an utter unconcern about whether they might be making a mistake, that enables acts of inhumanity that would otherwise be unthinkable.
This imperviousness to reason is, I think, the property that we should most fear in religion. Other institutions or traditions may encourage a certain amount of irrationality - think of the wild abandon that is often appreciated in sports or art - but only religion demands it as a sacred duty. This might not matter if the activities that composed religion were somewhat insulated from the rest of the world the way they are in sports and art. Then we could treat religious allegiances the way we treat differences in taste: if you have a taste for kick boxing or heavy metal bands, that's your business. Knock yourself out, as we say, it's only a game. Not so with religion. Its arena includes not just the participants but all of life on the planet. Given that, it's troubling to note how avidly some people engage in deliberate make-believe in order to execute the prescribed duties.
The better is enemy of the best: religion may make many people better, but it is preventing them from being as good as they could be. If only we could transfer all that respect, loyalty and intense devotion from an imaginary being - God - to something real: the wonderful world of goodness we and our ancestors have made, and of which we are now the stewards.
· Professor Daniel Dennett is director of the Centre for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
No, says Lord Winston
Daniel Dennett would be unlikely to place a stake alongside Blaise Pascal, whose famous wager runs: "You cannot lose by professing belief in God - if He does not exist you lose nothing, and if He does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife." Dennett argues that it is better to live as if there is no God, attempting to make the world a rational and better place. He points out that it is costly building cathedrals and that churchgoing is a massive waste of time. An atheist will lose nothing if God does not exist - his or her memorial will be good deeds. And if there is a benevolent God, Dennett will find himself judged by the Almighty on his merits, not because of the disbelief he professes.
The problem with his interesting views of the possible evolutionary basis of religious belief is that he seems unable to treat the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously. Might not God disapprove of this much more? Like many evangelical preachers, he repeatedly seems to claim to be open to the sincerely held views of others. Yet, in Dennett's world, humans are divided into "brights" or believers - and if you are not a "bright", you disagree with his point of view because you are intellectually inferior, closed-minded or too scared.
To some extent, he falls into a similar trap to Dawkins. He feels he knows about religions but seems to have done too little research; a number of his points - for example, about Jewish attitudes or Muslim practices - seem to show a lack of serious scholarship.
Dennett, like Dawkins, is affronted by the "fact" that moderate religious people have done little to curb the excesses of the extremists of their own traditions. Who does he define as an extremist? If, as a Jew, I decide to adhere to totally irrational dietary laws or bizarrely not travel on a bus on Saturday, does that make me an extremist? If I go further and wear a kippa on my head and build an eruv around the part of London in which I live, is that an unacceptable excess? Or is he arguing against dangerous violence, which is condemned by every responsible religious Jew?
Religion is built into human consciousness and there is plentiful evidence of it being a cohesive force. Apart from the survival of our prehistoric ancestors, in recent times there are powerful examples of how a notion of the transcendental has spurred humans on in desperate situations. Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.
Dennett seems to believe science is "the truth". Like many of my brilliant scientific colleagues, he conveys the notion that science is about a kind of certainty. For example, in his book Breaking the Spell, he quotes Eva Jablonka in support of his views on memes. He forgets that she challenges the very essence of Dawkins's view of evolution - a view Dennett obviously passionately supports.
Perhaps he might care to re-read the book of Job. Throughout most of this deeply mysterious and spiritual book, Job patiently suffers but essentially is steadfast in his faith in God's justice. But finally beyond provocation, he rails against the irrationality of God's punishment. At the very end of the story, God appears out of the whirlwind saying: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" God asks Job where he was when He laid the foundations of the Earth? Do we understand where we come from, where we are going, or what lies beyond our planet?
The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous. The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science.
· Lord Winston is emeritus professor of fertility studies, Imperial College London
· The debate on religion versus science will take place tonight at the British Council. This is the finale in the Rethink education public debate series, hosted by the thinktank Agora and Education Guardian. For details go to www.agora-education.org
While Daniel Dennett's ideas are no doubt controversial and unproven, they do seem on the whole to make a lot of sense. Lord Winston clearly takes exception to these ideas however and begins his rebuttal by criticizing Dennett for not have enough detailed knowledge about specific religions. This same transparent and ineffective tactic was used by Professor Alistair McGrath in his own rebuttal of Richard Dawkins' bestseller the The God Delusion. Since Winston apparently has no rational argument to counter Dennett, he immediately resorts to a personal attack and accusation of Dennett's work lacking serious scholarship. This makes no sense at all since a detailed knowledge of the specifics of religion is not necessary in order to be able to understand the basics of religion. In own my experience the majority (though not all) religious devotees know less about their religion than those who have rejected those religions.
Winston goes on to claim that religion has had a very positive influence in history, an argument used in debates by Dinesh D'Souza among others. This proposition is by no means certain and the opposite has also been quite convincingly argued by many atheist intellectuals, such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. The argument that religion is a good influence in any case is a fall back position taken by apologists when unable to produce convincing arguements that their religious beliefs are actually true.
Next Winston questions whether science is in fact any more true than religion and suggests that science is in fact another belief system. This is absolute nonsense and he knows it! Science is based on defined a methodology of hypothesis, experimentation and theory with the aim of discovering knowledge, not a system of invented mythology and sophistry. Neither is science unlike religion used as a tool for political control. It is ludicrous and dishonest to imply that science is an "expression of man's uncertainty". Of course science raises as many questions as it answers, which is a good thing and leads to progress. After all if we knew everything there wouldn't be any need for science. Mankind is learning and growing as a species and may eventually outgrow the need for religion.
Winston finishes with a reference to the book of Job, which seems irrelevant to the debate. The point he seems to be making is that Job (who probably never actually existed) should not have questioned God (whose existence is not proven) because he (Job) wasn't there when God (supposedly) created the universe. Job doesn't know enough about the origins of life, the universe and so on to have the right to question God who by definition knows everything.
Winston asks if we understand where we came from, where we are going and what lies beyond our planet. Well the answer is, Yes we do understand a lot about these things. Much more than humans did in the past and through science we are learning more and more. Religion on the other has invented answers to these questions based on wishful thinking rather than solid facts. Answers which are now being gradually discarded.
It seems that Lord Winston is another religious intellectual who uses the only arguments available to him however poor to support his beliefs. Perhaps he is relying on his eminent position and respectability to gain him credibility and support where his shaky arguments fail. After all you don't have to be right to win a debate.
Yes, says Prof Daniel Dennett
If religion isn't the greatest threat to rationality and scientific progress, what is? Perhaps alcohol, or television, or addictive video games. But although each of these scourges - mixed blessings, in fact - has the power to overwhelm our best judgment and cloud our critical faculties, religion has a feature of that none of them can boast: it doesn't just disable, it honours the disability. People are revered for their capacity to live in a dream world, to shield their minds from factual knowledge and make the major decisions of their lives by consulting voices in their heads that they call forth by rituals designed to intoxicate them.
It used to be the case that we tended to excuse drunk drivers when they crashed because they weren't entirely in control of their faculties at the time, but now we have wisely inverted that judgment, holding drunk drivers doubly culpable for putting themselves in that irresponsible position in the first place. It is high time we inverted the public attitude about religion as well, finding all socially destructive acts of religious passion shameful, not honourable, and holding those who abet them - the preachers and other apologists for religious zeal - as culpable as the bartenders and negligent hosts who usher dangerous drivers on to the highways. Our motto should be: Friends don't let friends steer their lives by religion.
Right now, Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, a young student, resides on death row in Afghanistan, sentenced to execution for committing blasphemy. Imagine! We're living in the 21st century, and in "liberated" Afghanistan (not Taliban Afghanistan) blasphemy is still a capital crime. Most of the rest of the world is tongue-tied, unwilling to tell those bent on carrying out this barbaric sentence that they are simply wrong, and should not thus humiliate themselves and their traditions. Where are the peaceful demonstrations of protest? Are people unwilling to hurt the feelings of Muslims? We are quick to condemn other outrages, but religious passion, genuine or feigned, shields people from the moral judgments of their fellow human beings, judgments to which we should all alike be subject.
There is an unbalance in the framing of this resolution, and Robert Winston has the worst of it. He must try to allay a host of concerns, an unending task, while - as everyone knows all too well - in a single cataclysmic day my side could be proven by one fanatical act, not that anyone would be left to cheer my victory. Not just rationality and scientific progress, but just about everything else we hold dear could be laid waste by a single massively deluded "sacramental" act. True, you don't have to be religious to be crazy, but it helps. Indeed, if you are religious, you don't have to be crazy in the medically certifiable sense in order to do massively crazy things. And - this is the worst of it - religious faith can give people a sort of hyperbolic confidence, an utter unconcern about whether they might be making a mistake, that enables acts of inhumanity that would otherwise be unthinkable.
This imperviousness to reason is, I think, the property that we should most fear in religion. Other institutions or traditions may encourage a certain amount of irrationality - think of the wild abandon that is often appreciated in sports or art - but only religion demands it as a sacred duty. This might not matter if the activities that composed religion were somewhat insulated from the rest of the world the way they are in sports and art. Then we could treat religious allegiances the way we treat differences in taste: if you have a taste for kick boxing or heavy metal bands, that's your business. Knock yourself out, as we say, it's only a game. Not so with religion. Its arena includes not just the participants but all of life on the planet. Given that, it's troubling to note how avidly some people engage in deliberate make-believe in order to execute the prescribed duties.
The better is enemy of the best: religion may make many people better, but it is preventing them from being as good as they could be. If only we could transfer all that respect, loyalty and intense devotion from an imaginary being - God - to something real: the wonderful world of goodness we and our ancestors have made, and of which we are now the stewards.
· Professor Daniel Dennett is director of the Centre for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
No, says Lord Winston
Daniel Dennett would be unlikely to place a stake alongside Blaise Pascal, whose famous wager runs: "You cannot lose by professing belief in God - if He does not exist you lose nothing, and if He does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife." Dennett argues that it is better to live as if there is no God, attempting to make the world a rational and better place. He points out that it is costly building cathedrals and that churchgoing is a massive waste of time. An atheist will lose nothing if God does not exist - his or her memorial will be good deeds. And if there is a benevolent God, Dennett will find himself judged by the Almighty on his merits, not because of the disbelief he professes.
The problem with his interesting views of the possible evolutionary basis of religious belief is that he seems unable to treat the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously. Might not God disapprove of this much more? Like many evangelical preachers, he repeatedly seems to claim to be open to the sincerely held views of others. Yet, in Dennett's world, humans are divided into "brights" or believers - and if you are not a "bright", you disagree with his point of view because you are intellectually inferior, closed-minded or too scared.
To some extent, he falls into a similar trap to Dawkins. He feels he knows about religions but seems to have done too little research; a number of his points - for example, about Jewish attitudes or Muslim practices - seem to show a lack of serious scholarship.
Dennett, like Dawkins, is affronted by the "fact" that moderate religious people have done little to curb the excesses of the extremists of their own traditions. Who does he define as an extremist? If, as a Jew, I decide to adhere to totally irrational dietary laws or bizarrely not travel on a bus on Saturday, does that make me an extremist? If I go further and wear a kippa on my head and build an eruv around the part of London in which I live, is that an unacceptable excess? Or is he arguing against dangerous violence, which is condemned by every responsible religious Jew?
Religion is built into human consciousness and there is plentiful evidence of it being a cohesive force. Apart from the survival of our prehistoric ancestors, in recent times there are powerful examples of how a notion of the transcendental has spurred humans on in desperate situations. Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.
Dennett seems to believe science is "the truth". Like many of my brilliant scientific colleagues, he conveys the notion that science is about a kind of certainty. For example, in his book Breaking the Spell, he quotes Eva Jablonka in support of his views on memes. He forgets that she challenges the very essence of Dawkins's view of evolution - a view Dennett obviously passionately supports.
Perhaps he might care to re-read the book of Job. Throughout most of this deeply mysterious and spiritual book, Job patiently suffers but essentially is steadfast in his faith in God's justice. But finally beyond provocation, he rails against the irrationality of God's punishment. At the very end of the story, God appears out of the whirlwind saying: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" God asks Job where he was when He laid the foundations of the Earth? Do we understand where we come from, where we are going, or what lies beyond our planet?
The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous. The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science.
· Lord Winston is emeritus professor of fertility studies, Imperial College London
· The debate on religion versus science will take place tonight at the British Council. This is the finale in the Rethink education public debate series, hosted by the thinktank Agora and Education Guardian. For details go to www.agora-education.org
While Daniel Dennett's ideas are no doubt controversial and unproven, they do seem on the whole to make a lot of sense. Lord Winston clearly takes exception to these ideas however and begins his rebuttal by criticizing Dennett for not have enough detailed knowledge about specific religions. This same transparent and ineffective tactic was used by Professor Alistair McGrath in his own rebuttal of Richard Dawkins' bestseller the The God Delusion. Since Winston apparently has no rational argument to counter Dennett, he immediately resorts to a personal attack and accusation of Dennett's work lacking serious scholarship. This makes no sense at all since a detailed knowledge of the specifics of religion is not necessary in order to be able to understand the basics of religion. In own my experience the majority (though not all) religious devotees know less about their religion than those who have rejected those religions.
Winston goes on to claim that religion has had a very positive influence in history, an argument used in debates by Dinesh D'Souza among others. This proposition is by no means certain and the opposite has also been quite convincingly argued by many atheist intellectuals, such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. The argument that religion is a good influence in any case is a fall back position taken by apologists when unable to produce convincing arguements that their religious beliefs are actually true.
Next Winston questions whether science is in fact any more true than religion and suggests that science is in fact another belief system. This is absolute nonsense and he knows it! Science is based on defined a methodology of hypothesis, experimentation and theory with the aim of discovering knowledge, not a system of invented mythology and sophistry. Neither is science unlike religion used as a tool for political control. It is ludicrous and dishonest to imply that science is an "expression of man's uncertainty". Of course science raises as many questions as it answers, which is a good thing and leads to progress. After all if we knew everything there wouldn't be any need for science. Mankind is learning and growing as a species and may eventually outgrow the need for religion.
Winston finishes with a reference to the book of Job, which seems irrelevant to the debate. The point he seems to be making is that Job (who probably never actually existed) should not have questioned God (whose existence is not proven) because he (Job) wasn't there when God (supposedly) created the universe. Job doesn't know enough about the origins of life, the universe and so on to have the right to question God who by definition knows everything.
Winston asks if we understand where we came from, where we are going and what lies beyond our planet. Well the answer is, Yes we do understand a lot about these things. Much more than humans did in the past and through science we are learning more and more. Religion on the other has invented answers to these questions based on wishful thinking rather than solid facts. Answers which are now being gradually discarded.
It seems that Lord Winston is another religious intellectual who uses the only arguments available to him however poor to support his beliefs. Perhaps he is relying on his eminent position and respectability to gain him credibility and support where his shaky arguments fail. After all you don't have to be right to win a debate.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Italy prepares for saint display
For 50 years he was said to have borne the bleeding wounds of Jesus.His followers said he could see into the future and be in two places at once.
Forty years since his death, Padre Pio, now officially Saint Pio of Pietrelcina, continues to move and inspire millions of followers worldwide.
On Thursday, to mark the anniversary of his death, his body will go on display in a glass coffin at his friary at San Giovanni Rotondo, in Puglia, southern Italy. Already some 700,000 people have registered to visit the sanctuary. Millions more are expected through the year. The church says entrance to the crypt is free and no decision has yet been taken on how long the coffin will remain on show.
Padre Pio's body was exhumed in March. The Capuchin friars said it was in "surprisingly good condition". No special measures were taken to preserve the body when he was buried in 1968. It was injected with formalin, but only to preserve it better during the following days in which the devotees filed past the coffin. Archbishop Domenico D'Ambrosio, who led the service to exhume the body, said: "We could clearly make out the beard. The top part of the skull is partly skeletal but the chin is perfect and the rest of the body is well preserved. The knees, hands and nails all clearly visible." Since then it has been treated by a mortician to make the face more recognisable.
Stigmata
But there is still one thing missing. The stigmata. Neither his feet nor his hands show any signs of the wounds from which, the church says, he bled spontaneously for much of his life. Padre Pio was born Francesco Forgione, the son of poor farmers from southern Italy. He joined the Capuchin order at the age of 15 but it was not until he was 23 that the wounds started to appear.
In 1911, he wrote to his spiritual adviser, Padre Benedetto, describing something unusual that had happened to him.
| |
"I can neither explain nor understand it," he said. "In the middle of the palms of my hands a red mark appeared, about the size of a penny, accompanied by acute pain in the middle of the red marks. "The pain was more pronounced in the middle of the left hand, so much so that I can still feel it. Also under my feet I can feel some pain." As word of his miracles spread, the cult following grew. It alarmed the Catholic Church. At one point, he was banned from celebrating Mass in public, although one of those who was said to have made a pilgrimage to Foggia for confession with him was a young Pole who would later become Pope John Paul II - and make Padre Pio a saint.
'Self-harmer'
More recently the sceptics have cast doubt on the miracles he performed. The founder of Rome's Catholic University hospital concluded Padre Pio was "an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people's credulity". Last year, historian Sergio Luzzatto suggested Padre Pio was a self-harmer who had used carbolic acid to create the wounds. The research was based on a document found in the Vatican's archive: the testimony of a pharmacist from San Giovanni Rotondo and from whom he had ordered four grams of acid.
 | |
According to the pharmacist, Padre Pio had asked her to keep the request secret, saying it was to sterilise needles. The document was examined but dismissed by the Catholic Church during Padre Pio's beatification process. Today the essence of his condition remains a mystery. He is said to have lost a cup of blood a day through his wounds and yet never showed any signs of anaemia. The wounds were never infected. He ate very little: one account states that he went 20 days on only the Eucharist without any other nourishment. And so, despite the scepticism that has grown in some quarters, Padre Pio still fascinates and enchants millions around the world. In Italy, Padre Pio is big business. His portrait hangs from rear-view mirrors, in dry cleaners, in restaurants and police stations. His following has transformed the small town of San Giovanni Rotondo. It is now a centre for pilgrims from around the world. A modern hospital has been built for those seeking cures and, in 2004, a vast new church, designed by internationally renowned architect Renzo Piano, was officially consecrated. It cost the church $36 million to build and can hold 30,000 pilgrims.
[by Christian Frazer, BBC News, Rome]
Here is another fine example of the fakery and nonsense employed by the Catholic church in order to impress and bedazzle the ignorant, the misguided and the gullible. This is another obvious scam! another shabby con trick to fool people into following their brand of religion. Just as con artists throughout history such as Joseph Smith have concocted fake miracles to beguile the stupid and the desperate.
The church knows this and has documents and testimonies which appear to leave little doubt, yet they prefer to make this charlatan into a saint than to expose him as the fraudster that he was. It is so much easier for the church to encourage this nonsense and to include it as another item in its portfolio of fake miracles. Its a great way attract followers and get more money.
Monday, April 21, 2008
French capital honours Dalai Lama
The Dalai Lama has been made an honorary citizen of Paris, as anti-French protests continue in China. Paris city council voted to bestow the symbolic title on the Tibetan spiritual leader, whom Mayor Bertrand Delanoe called "a champion of peace".The move was opposed by the party of President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been trying to ease tense ties with Beijing. Chinese protesters have been picketing French supermarket Carrefour, accusing it of supporting the Dalai Lama. Beijing accuses the Dalai Lama of inciting unrest in Tibet - claims he has denied. Chinese officials are launching a two-month "patriotic education" in Tibet, in which Communist Party officials and local people will gather to denounce the spiritual leader. Paris wants to show its support for the people of Tibet
The Dalai Lama, who lives in exile in India, insists he has no political role and played no part in the protests by Tibetan Buddhist monks that erupted into rioting in the main city Lhasa last month. But he condemned the Chinese crackdown that followed, and accused Beijing of committing "cultural genocide" in Tibet.
Tibetan sympathisers and human rights activists have since used the worldwide tour of the Olympic torch to protest against Beijing's hosting of the Olympic Games this August.
Mayor Delanoe said in honouring the Dalai Lama, Paris wanted "to show its support for the people of Tibet who are defending their most basic right to dignity, freedom and simply life".
[from http://www.bbc.co.uk/]The Dalai Lama, who lives in exile in India, insists he has no political role and played no part in the protests by Tibetan Buddhist monks that erupted into rioting in the main city Lhasa last month. But he condemned the Chinese crackdown that followed, and accused Beijing of committing "cultural genocide" in Tibet.
Tibetan sympathisers and human rights activists have since used the worldwide tour of the Olympic torch to protest against Beijing's hosting of the Olympic Games this August.
Mayor Delanoe said in honouring the Dalai Lama, Paris wanted "to show its support for the people of Tibet who are defending their most basic right to dignity, freedom and simply life".
The Chinese government demonstrates a disgusting example of totalitarianism and dishonesty. They continue to spread their maliciuos lies and propaganda by accusing the Dalai Lama of inciting the recent protests and violence in Tibet. They know full well that the Dalai Lama opposes violence and would never encourage or support such actions in spite of all the suffering that the Tibetan people have suffered at the hands of the Chinese. He has in fact attempted discourage all violence.
Shame on the Chinese government and those who support them! These unwelcome Chinese invaders have oppressed the peaceful and spiritual people of Tibet for sixty years. They have caused untold damage to Tibetan culture in a mindless rampage of destruction and they continue with their deliberate and systematic policy to replace this ancient and unique culture with their own soulless apparatus of political control.
It has to be acknowledged that the Chinese occupation has brought modernization and badly needed infrastructure to Tibet but sadly genocide and cultural vandalism as well.
Mao's "cultural revolution" was a crime against humanity as well as a clear demonstration of his megalomania and unfitness to rule.
Chinese "patriotic education" sounds really Orwellian, like something out of 1984. Force fed indoctrination and propaganda!
Why does China need Tibet anyway? I suppose they just aren't capable or willing to admit their past mistakes and misdeeds. And No the Beijing Olympics will not provide a distraction to make the problems go away!
Anyway well done Mayor Bertand Delanoe!
By the way I want to make it clear that my comments are directed against the Chinese government only, not the people. I have been to China, I respect the Chinese people and I have many Chinese friends.
By the way I want to make it clear that my comments are directed against the Chinese government only, not the people. I have been to China, I respect the Chinese people and I have many Chinese friends.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Jesus Glasses
Extract from the Fox News site:
A student and his family have filed a federal lawsuit demanding that a popular European history teacher at California's Capistrano Valley High School be fired for what they say were anti-Christian remarks he made in the classroom.
Chad Farnan, a 16-year-old sophomore, says the teacher, James Corbett, told his students that “Jesus glasses” obscure the truth and suggested that Christians are more likely than other people to commit rape and murder.
Farnan recorded his teacher telling students in class: “What country has the highest murder rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rate of church attendance? The South!” Farnan said he took the tape recorder to class to supplement his class notes.
“It was very hard for me because it’s like basically telling me all this stuff that I’ve believed my whole entire life — it’s just basically trying to throw it out the window,” Farnan told FOX News.
Farnan’s family has filed a federal lawsuit against the Capistrano Unified School District, claiming Corbett's remarks violated the First Amendment, which prohibits laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." They are demanding that Corbett be fired.
Throughout history the followers of religion have refused to listen to criticism of their beliefs however ridiculous and nonsensical those beliefs may be. Rather than enter into debate and intelligent discourse they prefer to attack anyone who challenges their religion. I'm sure that Chad Farnan and his supporters would have organized a lynching if this had happened a few centuries ago when the religious could get away with that kind of thing.
If Farnan is such a staunch believer why would he even feel threatened by James Corbett's comments? Surely he would have enough confidence in his beliefs to be able to remain unperturbed by such remarks. Perhaps he feels threatened because he has secret doubts and wishes to avoid being provoked into giving serious thought to whether his beliefs really make sense or not. He like many others probably prefers to go through life with his head firmly buried in the sand and struggles desperately against anyone who might try to pull it out.
Most religious people do not like to be challenged simply because their beliefs are not able to stand up to rational inquiry.
It seems to me that everything Corbett said was actually true. He never said that Christians are more likely to commit rape or murder than other people but simply stated some facts that suggest that Christianity does not prevent people from doing these things. Surely Chad Farnan should be able to accept this without becoming outraged? Clearly he isn't capable of producing any counter argument so he and his parents start a witch hunt instead. How many intellectuals have been murdered throughout history by mobs just for daring to challenge whatever mythologies happen to be popular at the time? Well in this modern age science and reason can and will challenge superstition and religion.
The real point here is whether the classroom is an appropriate forum for this kind of discussion and whether teachers should refrain from imparting their own opinions to their students. It may be that Corbett caused offense by doing this but that probably wasn't his intention. It seems very clear that any ideology or belief that rejects rational examination is a dangerous one!
A student and his family have filed a federal lawsuit demanding that a popular European history teacher at California's Capistrano Valley High School be fired for what they say were anti-Christian remarks he made in the classroom.
Chad Farnan, a 16-year-old sophomore, says the teacher, James Corbett, told his students that “Jesus glasses” obscure the truth and suggested that Christians are more likely than other people to commit rape and murder.
Farnan recorded his teacher telling students in class: “What country has the highest murder rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rate of church attendance? The South!” Farnan said he took the tape recorder to class to supplement his class notes.
“It was very hard for me because it’s like basically telling me all this stuff that I’ve believed my whole entire life — it’s just basically trying to throw it out the window,” Farnan told FOX News.
Farnan’s family has filed a federal lawsuit against the Capistrano Unified School District, claiming Corbett's remarks violated the First Amendment, which prohibits laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." They are demanding that Corbett be fired.
Throughout history the followers of religion have refused to listen to criticism of their beliefs however ridiculous and nonsensical those beliefs may be. Rather than enter into debate and intelligent discourse they prefer to attack anyone who challenges their religion. I'm sure that Chad Farnan and his supporters would have organized a lynching if this had happened a few centuries ago when the religious could get away with that kind of thing.
If Farnan is such a staunch believer why would he even feel threatened by James Corbett's comments? Surely he would have enough confidence in his beliefs to be able to remain unperturbed by such remarks. Perhaps he feels threatened because he has secret doubts and wishes to avoid being provoked into giving serious thought to whether his beliefs really make sense or not. He like many others probably prefers to go through life with his head firmly buried in the sand and struggles desperately against anyone who might try to pull it out.
Most religious people do not like to be challenged simply because their beliefs are not able to stand up to rational inquiry.
It seems to me that everything Corbett said was actually true. He never said that Christians are more likely to commit rape or murder than other people but simply stated some facts that suggest that Christianity does not prevent people from doing these things. Surely Chad Farnan should be able to accept this without becoming outraged? Clearly he isn't capable of producing any counter argument so he and his parents start a witch hunt instead. How many intellectuals have been murdered throughout history by mobs just for daring to challenge whatever mythologies happen to be popular at the time? Well in this modern age science and reason can and will challenge superstition and religion.
The real point here is whether the classroom is an appropriate forum for this kind of discussion and whether teachers should refrain from imparting their own opinions to their students. It may be that Corbett caused offense by doing this but that probably wasn't his intention. It seems very clear that any ideology or belief that rejects rational examination is a dangerous one!
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Order of Creation
Pope Benedict XVI not only spoke of the UN’s need to promote and protect human rights, but also spoke of the responsibility of the international community to use scientific research and technological advances in a way that does not violate the “order of creation, to the point where not only is the sacred character of life contradicted, but the human person and family are robbed of their natural identity.”
Scientists, doctors, scholars and bioethicists met in Rome Sept. 14-16 for an international conference sponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Life and the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations. The congress addressed the scientific possibilities and ethical implications in the use of stem cells.
The pope challenged the "frequent and unjust accusations of callousness" aimed against the church for its unwavering stance against the use of embryonic stem cells. The church has always been dedicated to curing diseases and helping humanity, he said. The resistance the church shows toward embryonic stem-cell research is because the destruction of human embryos to harvest stem cells is "not only devoid of the light of God but is also devoid of humanity" and "does not truly serve humanity," the pope said. No matter how promising the goals of such research may be, he added, the ends can never justify means that are "intrinsically illicit." "There can be no compromise and no beating around the bush" when it comes to the direct destruction of human life -- even when it is just a freshly conceived embryo, he said.
Not satisfied with the amount of misery they have caused in the world through their stances on birth control and abortion, we now see the Catholic church imposing it's narrow minded attitudes and lack of imagination on the rest of us again, this time attempting to prevent embryonic stem cell research that might lead to effective treatments for Altzheimer's or Parkinson's diseases and many other conditions. This apparently would not "truly serve humanity".
Well I disagree! If I or someone I care about (or even someone I don't know for that matter) ever becomes ill with one of those terrible diseases I would wish that a cure had been discovered. I would not mind that some human embryos that would have been destroyed or died anyway were used in the research.
The church is really afraid that science will eventually discover how to cure and prevent illnesses, extend the human life span and even create life artificially. Finally one day science may discover what really happens when we die! or maybe even learn to prevent aging. Then their mysticism would become redundant and it would no longer be possible to invoke God to explain the mysteries of life and death. That would eventually destroy their power and influence as well as their livelihood.
Of course bioethics are very important. As in the case of abortion, destruction of living human embryos should not be taken lightly and should be heavily regulated. However we should consider the benefits instead of dismissing the idea out of hand on the grounds of unscientific assumptions and claims. The Catholic church tells us that the soul is created at conception. This is a ridiculous assertion that defies common sense. After all what doesn't have a brain can't very well have a soul. There is no justification for this claim at all other that the scriptural, which cannot be accepted as a rational argument when the scriptures in question are archaic, deliberately ambiguous and self-contradicting.
This is the twenty first century, you need to produce an argument based on science and sound reasoning. It is not acceptable for the Catholic church to make these pronouncements and for intelligent and open-minded people to let themselves be told what to do by them!
Scientists, doctors, scholars and bioethicists met in Rome Sept. 14-16 for an international conference sponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Life and the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations. The congress addressed the scientific possibilities and ethical implications in the use of stem cells.
The pope challenged the "frequent and unjust accusations of callousness" aimed against the church for its unwavering stance against the use of embryonic stem cells. The church has always been dedicated to curing diseases and helping humanity, he said. The resistance the church shows toward embryonic stem-cell research is because the destruction of human embryos to harvest stem cells is "not only devoid of the light of God but is also devoid of humanity" and "does not truly serve humanity," the pope said. No matter how promising the goals of such research may be, he added, the ends can never justify means that are "intrinsically illicit." "There can be no compromise and no beating around the bush" when it comes to the direct destruction of human life -- even when it is just a freshly conceived embryo, he said.
Not satisfied with the amount of misery they have caused in the world through their stances on birth control and abortion, we now see the Catholic church imposing it's narrow minded attitudes and lack of imagination on the rest of us again, this time attempting to prevent embryonic stem cell research that might lead to effective treatments for Altzheimer's or Parkinson's diseases and many other conditions. This apparently would not "truly serve humanity".
Well I disagree! If I or someone I care about (or even someone I don't know for that matter) ever becomes ill with one of those terrible diseases I would wish that a cure had been discovered. I would not mind that some human embryos that would have been destroyed or died anyway were used in the research.
The church is really afraid that science will eventually discover how to cure and prevent illnesses, extend the human life span and even create life artificially. Finally one day science may discover what really happens when we die! or maybe even learn to prevent aging. Then their mysticism would become redundant and it would no longer be possible to invoke God to explain the mysteries of life and death. That would eventually destroy their power and influence as well as their livelihood.
Of course bioethics are very important. As in the case of abortion, destruction of living human embryos should not be taken lightly and should be heavily regulated. However we should consider the benefits instead of dismissing the idea out of hand on the grounds of unscientific assumptions and claims. The Catholic church tells us that the soul is created at conception. This is a ridiculous assertion that defies common sense. After all what doesn't have a brain can't very well have a soul. There is no justification for this claim at all other that the scriptural, which cannot be accepted as a rational argument when the scriptures in question are archaic, deliberately ambiguous and self-contradicting.
This is the twenty first century, you need to produce an argument based on science and sound reasoning. It is not acceptable for the Catholic church to make these pronouncements and for intelligent and open-minded people to let themselves be told what to do by them!
Pope addresses human rights in speech before UN
Pope Benedict addressed the United Nations' General Assembly Friday as part of his first visit to the United States as head of the Roman Catholic Church.The Pope has also taken the opportunity during his visit to try and repair the damage done by the sexual abuse scandal that has engulfed the Church in the U.S. The pontiff has paid considerable attention to the scandal, including acknowledging the suffering of victims during a mass for 45,000 people at Washington's Nationals Park baseball stadium.
If the pope really wanted to do some good in this world, he would change the face of the Catholic church entirely. Apologies are good, but how about taking some action where it really matters - how about making itself relevant in our modern world. How about less gay bashing; how about the inclusiveness of women at all levels of the organization; how about letting go of their stand against condoms and birth control in AIDS-ridden Africa; how about REALLY doing Christ's work in the world!
Friday, April 18, 2008
Pope Benedict visits the USA
The US government and media really went over the top in support of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the US. I'm sickened and disgusted by the vulgar spectacles of marching bands and ridiculous singers on TV and the sycophantic toadying from President Bush and many others.It is understandable that the Pope's visit means a lot to Catholics especially among the Latin community but why should this be treated as such an important event by the media and by politicians?
The US and United Nations should not recognize the Vatican as a country and the Pope as a head of state. The Catholic Church is an anachronism. It is a patriarchal, authoritarian and self perpetuating apparatus of ignorance, oppression and manipulation through fear and misplaced guilt. It has been and continues to be responsible through its hypocrisy, dishonesty and opposition to scientific and social progress a negative and destructive force in the world. Catholics are brainwashed from birth into believing ludicrous myths, accepting destructive dogmas and trying to live by inflexible ethical laws based rigid acceptance of scriptural interpretation by Catholic theology.
The Catholic Churches insistence that it's followers not use condoms has contributed greatly to the spread of aids, overpopulation and consequently poverty and starvation in the third world. Its opposition to abortion has also led to millions of unwanted babies being born into dysfunctional, abusive or poverty stricken homes.
In it's attempts to cover up numerous child abuse incidents involving Catholic priests the church has spent millions of Dollars hiring lawyers to discredit and humiliate the victims.
The church does have deep pockets though! It obtains it's vast wealth from collection plate donations given by well meaning congregations some of whom can ill afford it. Though some of this wealth is no doubt used for many worthy causes there is also a great deal spent on unnecessary luxuries and extravagance such as the ridiculous Pope-mobile or the Pope's personal shoe maker to name just a couple of examples.
It seems only too obvious just how unhealthy and unnatural a life of enforced celibacy really is and what abusive behavior sexual repression and frustration can lead to. Why does the Catholic church still cling to this unnecessary and damaging requirement for it's priests? Why are women still treated as inferior by the church and continue to be discriminated against and not permitted to become priests when so many examples of the abysmal standards of behavior from it's male members have come into the public knowledge? Of course their attitude to women pales into insignificance compared to their medieval and unrealistic condemnation of gays to a life of repression and guilt. I suspect many Catholic priests actually are gay anyway, which makes it all the worse.
So to sum up, it seems pretty pathetic how much fuss and bother was made over this visit. It was a shameful spectacle of hypocrisy and pandering to an institution that receives far more respect than it deserves!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)