Wow! Just watched the 3rd in this series of 8 programmes on UK BBC4 on Prof Sandel's harvard lectures on Justice. This one was on "A Lesson in Lying", with particular reference to Kant's absolute view that lying is always wrong. Do watch it if you can - and I intend to watch all the others. So far we've had Murder, Cannibalism and Measuring Pleasure. Four more to come. Can't wait!...
This and other programmes in the series can be seen at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/seasons/justiceseason/
I do hope those outside the UK can also see them. Great food for the mind!
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Epicurus - Much misunderstood, but maybe an admirable example?
What does the term 'Epicurean' imply to you? To many it implies unbridled hedonism, excess and lack of moral compass.
But is this really to see him through a lens distorted by political and religious opponents, who saw him as a threat to the fabric of their society? I am grateful to Alain De Botton for his book 'The Consolations of Philosophy' from which much of the following enlightening material is taken:
Epicurus was born in 341BC on the island of Samos near the coast of Western Asia Minor. Athens was then the hub to which he gravitated. He took to philosophy from his early teens and read widely. He was unsatisfied by the conclusions of previous philosophers, so decided that he would come up with his own philosophy of life. He is said to have written a huge number of books, though sadly almost all have since been lost.
The 'sound bite' that people tend to latch onto was his view on the fundamental importance of sensual pleasure. ("Pleasure is the beginning and the goal of a happy life"). This was profoundly shocking to the society in which he lived, for which the great virtues were deemed to be the acquisition of wealth, and courage in battle. His decision to spend his wealth on setting up a kind of commune to study philosophy, and in particular the pursuit of pleasure, was considered a threat to the fabric of 'civilised' society. And superficially one can see their point.
But actually Epicurus was teaching a much simpler and arguably purer way of life. His guiding principles were:
Epicurus also found that conspicuous wealth, or wealth over a relatively modest size, did not increase happiness. Indeed he was adamant that without the 'natural and necessary' prerequisites, wealth could not bring happiness. We can do without most of the material things that we erroneously think that we do need, and still be happy, if we only have the necessary requirements for happiness.
This is a very brief and hence superficial summary of his philosophy, but I hope it offers a flavour of the true Epicurus. I find him rather endearing!
But is this really to see him through a lens distorted by political and religious opponents, who saw him as a threat to the fabric of their society? I am grateful to Alain De Botton for his book 'The Consolations of Philosophy' from which much of the following enlightening material is taken:
Epicurus was born in 341BC on the island of Samos near the coast of Western Asia Minor. Athens was then the hub to which he gravitated. He took to philosophy from his early teens and read widely. He was unsatisfied by the conclusions of previous philosophers, so decided that he would come up with his own philosophy of life. He is said to have written a huge number of books, though sadly almost all have since been lost.
The 'sound bite' that people tend to latch onto was his view on the fundamental importance of sensual pleasure. ("Pleasure is the beginning and the goal of a happy life"). This was profoundly shocking to the society in which he lived, for which the great virtues were deemed to be the acquisition of wealth, and courage in battle. His decision to spend his wealth on setting up a kind of commune to study philosophy, and in particular the pursuit of pleasure, was considered a threat to the fabric of 'civilised' society. And superficially one can see their point.
But actually Epicurus was teaching a much simpler and arguably purer way of life. His guiding principles were:
- Friendship We don't exist unless someone can see us existing; what we say has no meaning until someone can understand; while to be surrounded by friends is to constantly have our identity confirmed. True friends do not evaluate us by worldly criteria. It is the core self in which they are interested; like ideal parents, their love for us remains unaffected by our appearance or position in the social hierarchy, and so we have no qualms in dressing in old clothes and revealing that we have made little money this year.
- Freedom In order not to have to work for people they did not like, Epicurus and his companions removed themselves from commercial Athenian society and accepted the simpler life of an isolated commune, in exchange for independence. This did not affect their sense of status because they had ceased to judge themselves on a material basis. Among a group of friends living outside the political and economic confines of the City, there was nothing - in the financial sense - to prove.
- Thought "There are few better remedies for anxiety than thought. In writing down a problem, or airing it in conversation, we let its essential aspects emerge. And by knowing its character, we remove, if not the problem itself, then its secondary, aggravating characteristics: confusion, displacement, surprise. About death Epicurus would say that it is senseless to alarm oneself in advance about a state which one could never experience (he was convinced there was no afterlife) He said: "There is nothing dreadful in life for a man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living."
- Natural and necessary: Friends, freedom, thought, food, shelter and clothes
- Natural but unnecessary: Grand house, Banquets, Private baths, Servants, Fish, Meat
- Neither natural nor necessary: Fame, Power
Epicurus also found that conspicuous wealth, or wealth over a relatively modest size, did not increase happiness. Indeed he was adamant that without the 'natural and necessary' prerequisites, wealth could not bring happiness. We can do without most of the material things that we erroneously think that we do need, and still be happy, if we only have the necessary requirements for happiness.
This is a very brief and hence superficial summary of his philosophy, but I hope it offers a flavour of the true Epicurus. I find him rather endearing!
Sunday, 9 January 2011
Theocracy is bad news!
An article caught my attention on the BBC website today:
Men and women have been banned from shaking hands in a district of Somalia controlled by the Islamist group al-Shabab. Under the ban imposed in the southern town of Jowhar, men and women who are not related are also barred from walking together or chatting in public. It is the first time such social restrictions have been introduced.
The al-Shabab administration said those who disobeyed the new rules would be punished according to Sharia law. The BBC's Mohamed Moalimuu in Mogadishu says the penalty would probably be a public flogging. The militant group has already banned music in areas that it controls, which include most of central and southern Somalia. Somalia has not had a stable government since 1991. The UN-backed government only controls parts of Mogadishu and a few other areas.
This is appalling. Christians may say that this is a consequence of Islamic teaching and would not apply to a Christian theocracy. But in a Christian theocracy it's likely that such things as homosexulaity would be outlawed despite being something that is innate in some people, and people's right to choose in many aspects of their lives would be significantly curtailed.
Theocracy is bad news, however and wherever it may occur.
Men and women have been banned from shaking hands in a district of Somalia controlled by the Islamist group al-Shabab. Under the ban imposed in the southern town of Jowhar, men and women who are not related are also barred from walking together or chatting in public. It is the first time such social restrictions have been introduced.
The al-Shabab administration said those who disobeyed the new rules would be punished according to Sharia law. The BBC's Mohamed Moalimuu in Mogadishu says the penalty would probably be a public flogging. The militant group has already banned music in areas that it controls, which include most of central and southern Somalia. Somalia has not had a stable government since 1991. The UN-backed government only controls parts of Mogadishu and a few other areas.
This is appalling. Christians may say that this is a consequence of Islamic teaching and would not apply to a Christian theocracy. But in a Christian theocracy it's likely that such things as homosexulaity would be outlawed despite being something that is innate in some people, and people's right to choose in many aspects of their lives would be significantly curtailed.
Theocracy is bad news, however and wherever it may occur.
Sunday, 2 January 2011
There is no God?
Recently I've been thinking again about ways that Humanists and Believers can accommodate each others' views, and live side by side, disagreeing but respecting their differing view on the fundamental reasons for our existence.
For a long time I've tried to accommodate the views of believers, based on that aphorism that I can no more disprove the existence of God than a believer can prove God's existence. I thought I understood religion and chose to reject it on the probability of evidence, and because I found rational explanations so convincing. But recently I've been trying to really understand religious motivation in a lot more depth, half hoping that I might find something there that would provide a better reason for intelligent believers to believe.
I have to say that I have failed to find anything. On the contrary, religion seems all the more ridiculous the more I study it. I presume religion is still ingrained into the human psyche as a by-product of the evolutionary need to find meaning in everything. I suppose that if one makes that leap of faith and accepts religion as being valid and wants it to be a core part of ones life, then it is relatively easy to find 'truths' that reinforce and augment that desire. One has only to read many of the blogs that deeply devout people write to witness how they convince themselves at every stage that they are doing the right thing, often relying on hugely partial 'evidence' and ignoring or explaining away that which does not fit their chosen narrative.
Is that aphorism really valid at all though? Is belief in a supernatural entity just an idea on a spectrum somewhere between belief in the celestial tea pot and belief in the laws of physics? And isn't it really quite a long way towards the celestial tea pot? If so, then am I acting morally in doing nothing to try to stop people leading their whole lives believing, and sometimes ruining them as a result?
To a believer this may sound extremely arrogant. I would prefer to think that it was an honest statement of how I feel about this. As ever, my thoughts are very much work in progress. I record them for future reference. I wonder how I will feel about this in 6 months time.
For a long time I've tried to accommodate the views of believers, based on that aphorism that I can no more disprove the existence of God than a believer can prove God's existence. I thought I understood religion and chose to reject it on the probability of evidence, and because I found rational explanations so convincing. But recently I've been trying to really understand religious motivation in a lot more depth, half hoping that I might find something there that would provide a better reason for intelligent believers to believe.
I have to say that I have failed to find anything. On the contrary, religion seems all the more ridiculous the more I study it. I presume religion is still ingrained into the human psyche as a by-product of the evolutionary need to find meaning in everything. I suppose that if one makes that leap of faith and accepts religion as being valid and wants it to be a core part of ones life, then it is relatively easy to find 'truths' that reinforce and augment that desire. One has only to read many of the blogs that deeply devout people write to witness how they convince themselves at every stage that they are doing the right thing, often relying on hugely partial 'evidence' and ignoring or explaining away that which does not fit their chosen narrative.
Is that aphorism really valid at all though? Is belief in a supernatural entity just an idea on a spectrum somewhere between belief in the celestial tea pot and belief in the laws of physics? And isn't it really quite a long way towards the celestial tea pot? If so, then am I acting morally in doing nothing to try to stop people leading their whole lives believing, and sometimes ruining them as a result?
To a believer this may sound extremely arrogant. I would prefer to think that it was an honest statement of how I feel about this. As ever, my thoughts are very much work in progress. I record them for future reference. I wonder how I will feel about this in 6 months time.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
Is Morality from God or Man
It's the first day of 2011, and like many other people I'm making New Year's Resolutions. This year amongst other things I'm going to raise £1,000 for my local Air Ambulance. This is the figure I chose because they calculated it costs £1,000 for each life saved by the Air Ambulance.
It's obvious from the fact that I'm an Atheist what I think about what informs our morality, but why would I want to do something altruistic like this that has no direct material benefit to me?
As a Humanist I feel a sense of empathy with my fellow humans, and I want to live in a society where we care for and look out for those who need help. And one day I may need help myself. If we lead by example while we have the power to do so, then there is perhaps a greater chance that when we need help someone will do the same for us. I've noticed that as we get older we tend to get more altruistic and we tend to do more to help other people. Is it because having dependent Children 'conditions' us to care for others, and having experienced our share of knocks in life we can understand how we all need to help each other to get through life? I'm constantly amazed when I'm out collecting for the Air Ambulance how pensioners are so often the most generous, and how young men are invariably the least generous. Perhaps it is only as we get older that we begin to realise our corporate responsibility for our fellow humans.
Altruism is a sign of civilisation and is an evolutionary social attribute to increase our future chances of survival. Hooray for us humans! :-)
It's obvious from the fact that I'm an Atheist what I think about what informs our morality, but why would I want to do something altruistic like this that has no direct material benefit to me?
As a Humanist I feel a sense of empathy with my fellow humans, and I want to live in a society where we care for and look out for those who need help. And one day I may need help myself. If we lead by example while we have the power to do so, then there is perhaps a greater chance that when we need help someone will do the same for us. I've noticed that as we get older we tend to get more altruistic and we tend to do more to help other people. Is it because having dependent Children 'conditions' us to care for others, and having experienced our share of knocks in life we can understand how we all need to help each other to get through life? I'm constantly amazed when I'm out collecting for the Air Ambulance how pensioners are so often the most generous, and how young men are invariably the least generous. Perhaps it is only as we get older that we begin to realise our corporate responsibility for our fellow humans.
Altruism is a sign of civilisation and is an evolutionary social attribute to increase our future chances of survival. Hooray for us humans! :-)
Thursday, 30 December 2010
Nietsche was right. There is no God.
OK, so it's an attention grabbing headline. But having just re-read some of Nietsche's writings I am even more impressed by his ideas, which were truly innovative when he wrote them.
For many this is a bleak conclusion, and they find it very hard to believe that there really is fundamentally nothing more to life than to reproduce and die.
But this need not be such a bleak conclusion if one accepts life for what it is, and models one's way of life on that premise. It is possible to lead a full and satisfying life under this truth.
Religion is so deeply ingrained into our culture that it is not something which it is either necessary nor desirable to try to oust immediately. There will always be some who need the security of religious belief, and who will never be convinced of the alternative, which is arguably intellectually more challenging.
However, religious extremism remains one of the major problems facing humankind. And supplanting one religion with another religion does not solve the problem. There will always be those who seek violence, and whilst there are religions there will always be those who use it as the irrational justification for their acts. Humanism does not breed suicide bombers...
I seem to be going though a phase when I feel particularly negatively towards religion. I think it has outlived its usefulness, and I'm frustrated that people are so deeply indoctrinated that any amount of contrary evidence is dismissed, at the same time that any amount of supportive heresay and unreliable witness reports are unquestioningly accepted. Far too frequently believers put up their own 'straw men' to discredit a non-religious view - often 'staw men' that fundamentaly misunderstand or misinterpret what Atheists actually believe. I admit that many non-believers make no real effort to understand religion in any great depth, but it's my experience that the more conscientious atheists frequently tend to understand the religion of those with whom they argue to a greater depth than those who defend their religion.
What to do about all this though? Hmm...
For many this is a bleak conclusion, and they find it very hard to believe that there really is fundamentally nothing more to life than to reproduce and die.
But this need not be such a bleak conclusion if one accepts life for what it is, and models one's way of life on that premise. It is possible to lead a full and satisfying life under this truth.
Religion is so deeply ingrained into our culture that it is not something which it is either necessary nor desirable to try to oust immediately. There will always be some who need the security of religious belief, and who will never be convinced of the alternative, which is arguably intellectually more challenging.
However, religious extremism remains one of the major problems facing humankind. And supplanting one religion with another religion does not solve the problem. There will always be those who seek violence, and whilst there are religions there will always be those who use it as the irrational justification for their acts. Humanism does not breed suicide bombers...
I seem to be going though a phase when I feel particularly negatively towards religion. I think it has outlived its usefulness, and I'm frustrated that people are so deeply indoctrinated that any amount of contrary evidence is dismissed, at the same time that any amount of supportive heresay and unreliable witness reports are unquestioningly accepted. Far too frequently believers put up their own 'straw men' to discredit a non-religious view - often 'staw men' that fundamentaly misunderstand or misinterpret what Atheists actually believe. I admit that many non-believers make no real effort to understand religion in any great depth, but it's my experience that the more conscientious atheists frequently tend to understand the religion of those with whom they argue to a greater depth than those who defend their religion.
What to do about all this though? Hmm...
Saturday, 25 December 2010
Are you a StarTrek fan? Then maybe you're also a Humanist at heart...
If you're a fan of the various Star Trek series, then there's a good chance that you're a humanist at heart. The creator, Gene Roddenberry, made no secret of his personal humanist philosophy, and liberally sprinkled his out of this world Star Trek stories with the fundamentals of humanism.
Many of its episodes may be viewed as morality plays set against the backdrop of space. Star Trek, like humanism, promotes rational social justice and reason, and rejects religious dogma and the supernatural. Roddenberry strived in his Star Trek adventures to affirm the dignity of all beings. He was so resolute about not including religion that he refused suggestions to add a chaplain to the crew of the Starship Enterprise. Instead, Star Trek was imbued with a philosophy of ‘infinite natural diversity, in infinite combination’.
‘The Return of the Archons’, from the original series, is an example of how Roddenberry employed elements of humanism - A planet's population follows in an unquestioning way a mysterious cult-like leader, who allows no divergent viewpoints. The society absorbs individuals into its collective body and the world is free of hate, conflict and crime; but all creativity, freedom and individualism is completely stifled. ‘Archons’, like other Star Trek storylines, warns how easily people can be controlled by religion - and the viewer subsequently discovers that the cult leader is in reality just a n advanced computer.
Rodenberry saw himself as Capt. Picard, the cool-headed commander in the “Next Generation” series, and the Kirk character was modelled on Horatio Hornblower, C.S. Forester’s protagonist. After his death, some of the Star Trek vehicles, particularly the television spin-off series “Deep Space Nine,” were permeated with religious themes, something the franchise creator would certainly not have appreciated.
The series was also sprinkled with Rodenberry’s view on some of the things that he felt were wrong with US Government policies. The Star Trek series' principled “prime directive,” that humans should not influence or interfere with other races and peoples, was actually a snipe at American involvement in Vietnam, something that would not have been allowed if the television network censors had realised it.
Both humanism and Star Trek espouse a rational philosophy that champions compassion and creativity, and they both advocate open societies and participatory democracy. If this analysis is new to you, then next time you watch a Startrek episode consider the Humanist themes. You’ll see it in a whole new light...
Many of its episodes may be viewed as morality plays set against the backdrop of space. Star Trek, like humanism, promotes rational social justice and reason, and rejects religious dogma and the supernatural. Roddenberry strived in his Star Trek adventures to affirm the dignity of all beings. He was so resolute about not including religion that he refused suggestions to add a chaplain to the crew of the Starship Enterprise. Instead, Star Trek was imbued with a philosophy of ‘infinite natural diversity, in infinite combination’.
‘The Return of the Archons’, from the original series, is an example of how Roddenberry employed elements of humanism - A planet's population follows in an unquestioning way a mysterious cult-like leader, who allows no divergent viewpoints. The society absorbs individuals into its collective body and the world is free of hate, conflict and crime; but all creativity, freedom and individualism is completely stifled. ‘Archons’, like other Star Trek storylines, warns how easily people can be controlled by religion - and the viewer subsequently discovers that the cult leader is in reality just a n advanced computer.
Rodenberry saw himself as Capt. Picard, the cool-headed commander in the “Next Generation” series, and the Kirk character was modelled on Horatio Hornblower, C.S. Forester’s protagonist. After his death, some of the Star Trek vehicles, particularly the television spin-off series “Deep Space Nine,” were permeated with religious themes, something the franchise creator would certainly not have appreciated.
The series was also sprinkled with Rodenberry’s view on some of the things that he felt were wrong with US Government policies. The Star Trek series' principled “prime directive,” that humans should not influence or interfere with other races and peoples, was actually a snipe at American involvement in Vietnam, something that would not have been allowed if the television network censors had realised it.
Both humanism and Star Trek espouse a rational philosophy that champions compassion and creativity, and they both advocate open societies and participatory democracy. If this analysis is new to you, then next time you watch a Startrek episode consider the Humanist themes. You’ll see it in a whole new light...
Sunday, 28 November 2010
Some interesting quotes from a recent NSS newsletter...
"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals and groups of all faiths and none."
(Queen Elizabeth II, opening the Church of England synod)Hear, hear!
"Religious leaders should concentrate on the big things: social and personal morality, spirituality, charity, kindness, condemning what is dishonest or cruel. Their remit should not include interfering between good, loving couples in their bedrooms."
(Libby Purves, The Times)And so say most of us...
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Catholics and Natural Law
What is "Natural Law"? Look it up in Wikipedia and you would be forgiven for believing that it can mean almost whatever the user wants it to mean.
Catholics appear to define natural law as the rule of conduct which is prescribed to mankind by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed mankind. Recently I've come across the expression several times in discussion with Catholics, who declare it as a kind of self-evident trump card. As in "homosexuality is wrong - It's against natural law". When looking natural law up at a website calling itself "Catholic Encyclopedia" I was surprised to be given as an example of natural law that in certain circumstances Polygamy can be lawful but that polyandry can never be lawful, presumably because of something written by a misogynist in the Old Testament.
I find myself wondering how laws which to a modern reader often appear bizarre, and are prescribed by a supernatural being, can possibly warrant the title of "natural". Moreover, not even Catholic scholars through the ages can agree on the detail. Is it perhaps time to drop this rather unhelpful expression?
Catholics appear to define natural law as the rule of conduct which is prescribed to mankind by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed mankind. Recently I've come across the expression several times in discussion with Catholics, who declare it as a kind of self-evident trump card. As in "homosexuality is wrong - It's against natural law". When looking natural law up at a website calling itself "Catholic Encyclopedia" I was surprised to be given as an example of natural law that in certain circumstances Polygamy can be lawful but that polyandry can never be lawful, presumably because of something written by a misogynist in the Old Testament.
I find myself wondering how laws which to a modern reader often appear bizarre, and are prescribed by a supernatural being, can possibly warrant the title of "natural". Moreover, not even Catholic scholars through the ages can agree on the detail. Is it perhaps time to drop this rather unhelpful expression?
Friday, 22 October 2010
What happens when a nation becomes secular?
I could not resist reproducing the following snippet from the today's NSS newsletter:
According to polls, Norwegians define themselves (depending on how you interpret their definition) as up to 71% non-believers.
What has secularism done to Norway? The Global Peace Index rates Norway the most peaceful country in the world. The Human Development Index, a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standard of living, has ranked Norway No. 1 every year for the last five years. Norway has the second highest GDP per capita in the world, an unemployment rate below 2 percent, and average hourly wages among the world's highest.
Interesting....
According to polls, Norwegians define themselves (depending on how you interpret their definition) as up to 71% non-believers.
What has secularism done to Norway? The Global Peace Index rates Norway the most peaceful country in the world. The Human Development Index, a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standard of living, has ranked Norway No. 1 every year for the last five years. Norway has the second highest GDP per capita in the world, an unemployment rate below 2 percent, and average hourly wages among the world's highest.
Interesting....
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Are religious people more altruistic, or altruistic people more religious?
It appears to be perceived wisdom that religious people tend to give more to charity, they get more involved in helping those less able, and they have more of a sense of serving the community.
Let's assume that this is all true - (and I have no reason to doubt it). Is it their religion that makes them more altruistic, or is the fact that they are inherently predisposed towards altruism that means that they find a natural home in religion? Are we confusing which is cause and which is effect?
If it is true that altruistic people are naturally drawn to a group where they can express this, then there is a future for humanity without religion. As religion continues to wane, perhaps we need to find a way to replace religious groups with equivalent secular groups.
If, however, it is belief in a supernatural God is what drives people to be altruistic, then perhaps we need to continue to accept that religion is a necessary civilising influence, even if most of us are no longer believers..
Let's assume that this is all true - (and I have no reason to doubt it). Is it their religion that makes them more altruistic, or is the fact that they are inherently predisposed towards altruism that means that they find a natural home in religion? Are we confusing which is cause and which is effect?
If it is true that altruistic people are naturally drawn to a group where they can express this, then there is a future for humanity without religion. As religion continues to wane, perhaps we need to find a way to replace religious groups with equivalent secular groups.
If, however, it is belief in a supernatural God is what drives people to be altruistic, then perhaps we need to continue to accept that religion is a necessary civilising influence, even if most of us are no longer believers..
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Religion and Stoning - An unfortunate corollary?
I found this tragic story recently. It's interesting that the Koran does not condone stoning as a punishment, and yet Sharia law is used to condemn individuals to this barbaric death, without even the benefit of a fair trial.
It really worries me that whilst the practice of one of the World's largest religions may in its purest form be relatively harmless, it does not take much for self-important sadistic humans to subvert its teachings to their own twisted morality.
The 2009 film The Stoning of Soraya M. is about the harrowing true story of a woman sentenced to death by stoning because her husband accused her of infidelity. The film is based on a book by journalist Friedoune Sahebjam. He wrote this after hearing the story of 35-year-old Soraya Manutchehri (mother of seven) and her brutal stoning from her aunt while he was stranded in a rural village in Iran. According to the Washington Examiner, Soraya was innocent but the deadly mix of misogyny and extremist Islamic law, allowed that she was stoned to death because her husband wanted to marry another woman:
It is even more troubling to see how the religion of Islam is being subverted to justify utterly barbarous murders. I am informed that nowhere in the Koran is stoning mentioned as a punishment.
It is also quite appalling that the majority of cases of stoning sentences have been against women. 9 out of 10 of the people recently awaiting stoning in Iran were women. It is unacceptable for anyone to die by being stoned to death, but it is even more unacceptable that this punishment is being disproportionately meted out to women.
Furthermore, the underlying misogyny at play in extremist Islam must also be called into question. There is a maddening double standard at play here. Men are free in their sexual relationships yet women can be stoned to death for simply doing the same things as their husbands.
For instance, in the Iranian Penal Code, a married woman has no right to divorce, a privilege which is reserved for the husband. Women have no custody rights of their children after age seven. As a result, women who can obtain a divorce by proving their husbands are either abusive or an addict, choose not to do so for fear of losing their children. A man can marry up to four wives simultaneously, and may establish a sexual relationship with any other single woman through a temporary marriage, without the requirements of marriage registration, ceremony, or obligation to any possible child that may result. Furthermore, a woman is legally obliged to submit to her husband’s sexual demands and to do her best to satisfy him sexually. Hence if a man is sexually unsatisfied or in an unhappy relationship, he has many avenues open to him to dissolve the marriage and/or satisfy his sexual needs in a temporary “marriage”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these legal options are denied to Iranian women, and any woman seeking alternative intimate relationships is, in the eyes of the law, “committing adultery”
The practice of stoning is more widespread. For example, on October 27, 2008, Aisha Ibrahim Duholow, a young Sudanese girl, was stoned to death in a stadium in front of 1,000 spectators. According to the government she had begged for the "Islamic punishment" after confessing to infidelity; but according to Amnesty International, she was just a 13-year old girl who had gone to the authorities to report a gang-rape. The gang rapists were never charged.
Laws condoning stoning are still on the books in Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.
It really worries me that whilst the practice of one of the World's largest religions may in its purest form be relatively harmless, it does not take much for self-important sadistic humans to subvert its teachings to their own twisted morality.
The 2009 film The Stoning of Soraya M. is about the harrowing true story of a woman sentenced to death by stoning because her husband accused her of infidelity. The film is based on a book by journalist Friedoune Sahebjam. He wrote this after hearing the story of 35-year-old Soraya Manutchehri (mother of seven) and her brutal stoning from her aunt while he was stranded in a rural village in Iran. According to the Washington Examiner, Soraya was innocent but the deadly mix of misogyny and extremist Islamic law, allowed that she was stoned to death because her husband wanted to marry another woman:
The victim was Soraya Manutchehri, a 35-year-old mother of seven who, in her own prophetic words, had become "an inconvenient wife." Bartered away in an arranged marriage at 13 to a petty criminal named Ghorban-Ali, who was 20 years old at the time, Soraya bore nine children over the next two decades, enduring two stillborn births and regular beatings from her husband, along with his insults, his consorting with prostitutes, and his campaign to turn her two oldest sons against her.
On August 15, 1986, with the complicity of a local mullah who had been imprisoned for child molesting under the Shah, Ghorban-Ali showed himself to be more than a garden variety sociopath and town bully; he was a sadistic monster, and Islamic fundamentalism was his enabler, his aider, his abettor.
In the anarchic days of the Iranian Revolution, Ghorban-Ali had found work as a prison guard in a neighboring town. There, he met a 14-year-old girl whom he wanted to marry. Polygamy was encouraged in Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran, but Ghorban-Ali didn't want to support two families, and did not desire to return his wife's dowry. How to rid himself of his "old" wife? That was the easy part. Accuse her of infidelity. No matter that her husband had not actually seen anything untoward, or that Soraya was completely innocent, or that her husband's cynical accusations were only backed up by his cousin, who as it turned out had been coerced into concurring with the vaguest of accusations: a smile here, a brushed hand there.
What court of law would find someone guilty on such flimsy evidence? A "sharia" court is the answer. And so Soraya was convicted. The sentence was death-death by stoning.
It is even more troubling to see how the religion of Islam is being subverted to justify utterly barbarous murders. I am informed that nowhere in the Koran is stoning mentioned as a punishment.
It is also quite appalling that the majority of cases of stoning sentences have been against women. 9 out of 10 of the people recently awaiting stoning in Iran were women. It is unacceptable for anyone to die by being stoned to death, but it is even more unacceptable that this punishment is being disproportionately meted out to women.
Furthermore, the underlying misogyny at play in extremist Islam must also be called into question. There is a maddening double standard at play here. Men are free in their sexual relationships yet women can be stoned to death for simply doing the same things as their husbands.
For instance, in the Iranian Penal Code, a married woman has no right to divorce, a privilege which is reserved for the husband. Women have no custody rights of their children after age seven. As a result, women who can obtain a divorce by proving their husbands are either abusive or an addict, choose not to do so for fear of losing their children. A man can marry up to four wives simultaneously, and may establish a sexual relationship with any other single woman through a temporary marriage, without the requirements of marriage registration, ceremony, or obligation to any possible child that may result. Furthermore, a woman is legally obliged to submit to her husband’s sexual demands and to do her best to satisfy him sexually. Hence if a man is sexually unsatisfied or in an unhappy relationship, he has many avenues open to him to dissolve the marriage and/or satisfy his sexual needs in a temporary “marriage”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these legal options are denied to Iranian women, and any woman seeking alternative intimate relationships is, in the eyes of the law, “committing adultery”
The practice of stoning is more widespread. For example, on October 27, 2008, Aisha Ibrahim Duholow, a young Sudanese girl, was stoned to death in a stadium in front of 1,000 spectators. According to the government she had begged for the "Islamic punishment" after confessing to infidelity; but according to Amnesty International, she was just a 13-year old girl who had gone to the authorities to report a gang-rape. The gang rapists were never charged.
Laws condoning stoning are still on the books in Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.
Thursday, 11 February 2010
The origins of religion: evolved adaptation or by-product?
There is an interesting piece at Trends in Cognitive Sciences which debates whether morality is a product of religion or religion is a product of morality. Click on the title to read.
Thought provoking. But is it really so surprising that they find people without religion to be as moral as those with religion?
Thought provoking. But is it really so surprising that they find people without religion to be as moral as those with religion?
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Apologists and epistemology
Why is it that Christian apologists are so entranced by arcane vocabulary? In almost any American Christian treatise one can guarantee there will be a free use of such words as "epistemology" (the theory of knowledge, especially the critical study of its validity, methods and scope), even where their use is really not required by the discussion.
Is this just an attempt to add authority to their arguments - by demonstrating that they have an educated background? For instance, just look at any of the blogs by the apologist Mariano for examples. This person is so wrapped up in his own intellect and importance, that whenever his view is challenged he tries to defeat his opponent by ridiculously verbose and pedantic responses.
The main problem for me is that too often these people use this form of writing to "explain" in complex terms a quote from the Bible for which there is invariably a much simpler, but less convincing explanation, which is more appropriate to the time it was written. Much wasted energy is expended trying to relate outdated writings to the present day.
It seems to me that part of the problem is the common belief amongst religious apologists that morality is absolute. But deeds and words in the Bible which may have appeared moral or self-evident at the time they were written, now often appear just plain weird, unless they are wrapped up in "interpretation" by these people, to make them palatable and reasonable to the modern ear. To take one of many examples - the possession of slaves was thought of as quite normal and acceptable in biblical times, and this is reflected in the Bible.
The Bible is also full of truisms and common sense advice on how to live in an enlightened society. At the time these ideas may have been revolutionary, and fired people's imagination. But are they still? I think not. Most of us now live in a far more sophisticated, educated and enlightened society. Maybe that is one of the reasons that the Bible has ceased to be such a compelling read, and why apologists have to resort to ever more inventive ways to recreate interest and belief.
Is this just an attempt to add authority to their arguments - by demonstrating that they have an educated background? For instance, just look at any of the blogs by the apologist Mariano for examples. This person is so wrapped up in his own intellect and importance, that whenever his view is challenged he tries to defeat his opponent by ridiculously verbose and pedantic responses.
The main problem for me is that too often these people use this form of writing to "explain" in complex terms a quote from the Bible for which there is invariably a much simpler, but less convincing explanation, which is more appropriate to the time it was written. Much wasted energy is expended trying to relate outdated writings to the present day.
It seems to me that part of the problem is the common belief amongst religious apologists that morality is absolute. But deeds and words in the Bible which may have appeared moral or self-evident at the time they were written, now often appear just plain weird, unless they are wrapped up in "interpretation" by these people, to make them palatable and reasonable to the modern ear. To take one of many examples - the possession of slaves was thought of as quite normal and acceptable in biblical times, and this is reflected in the Bible.
The Bible is also full of truisms and common sense advice on how to live in an enlightened society. At the time these ideas may have been revolutionary, and fired people's imagination. But are they still? I think not. Most of us now live in a far more sophisticated, educated and enlightened society. Maybe that is one of the reasons that the Bible has ceased to be such a compelling read, and why apologists have to resort to ever more inventive ways to recreate interest and belief.
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Is human morality a result of evolution or God given?
I discovered a fascinating study at the "Trends in Cognitive Science" website. The following is an extract. The full report is at the link, including sources. Click on the title above to go to the link.
See also my earlier post: "A monopoly on moral behaviour?"
"...
See also my earlier post: "A monopoly on moral behaviour?"
"...
For some, there is no morality without religion. For others, religion is merely one way of expressing and legitimating one's moral intuitions. Religion can be linked to morality in different ways: moral principles are either decided by gods or by ancestors, or saints and holy individuals provide a model to be followed. Alternatively, gods and ancestors are regarded as interested parties that pay attention to what people do and people thus feel that their moral choices are never merely a private matter.There are endless often pointless web arguments about whether religion is necessary for humans to be moral. But surely that's the wrong question. I think most of us would agree that humans have an innate sense of morality. The really important question is surely whether this is God given. I hold the belief that it is not, but I cannot prove that, any more than someone else can prove that it is.
It is important to distinguish explicitly held religious beliefs and affiliations from religious intuitions. Bering, for example, presents experimental evidence that even non-religious subjects intuitively consider some mental states and processes, such as emotions, more likely to continue after death than others, such as hunger. Bloom argues that all humans are intuitive dualists in the sense that we feel our self to be the owner of the body, but we are not the same as our bodies. Thus, in folk psychology, the death of the body does not mean the cessation of personhood. Furthermore, because human reasoning is characterized by a promiscuous teleology, a capacity that causes us to see meaning and intentionality in everything that happens, we automatically postulate an agent as an explanation of various events; often this is some god -like concept.
Arguably, these tendencies make religious beliefs contagious in the sense that they are easy to spread and propagate because they functionally resonate with many of the basic operations of the mind. Consequently, they are also easy to use in moral reasoning. This does not mean, however, that there is a necessary link between morality and religion. There is evidence that at least some religious concepts and beliefs need certain cultural input in order to become adopted and to persist. The Vezo of Madagascar, for instance, seem to have two conceptions of death. Guided by their everyday experience, they construe death in biological terms as the breakdown of all vital functions, but see it as the beginning of a different form of existence in a ritual context. These two conceptions of death are activated in different contexts, and thus the Vezo do not feel that there is a tension between them.
Thus, although it seems undebatable that religiously colored intuitions can affect moral reasoning, and that religious primes can affect prosocial behavior, these observations do not license the conclusion that the mechanisms are specific to religion, nor that religion provides the central explanatory factor. Even when the intuitive content is interpreted as religious, the mechanisms that support reasoning are more general in scope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
