Contents
Editorial
Bill Cooke
Arguments to Design
The first theist argument
Neil Broom
The first atheist argument
Bill Cooke
The second theist argument
Robert Mann
The second atheist argument
Robert Nola
Stranger Than Fiction
Elizabeth McKenzie
Southern Lights
Russell Dear
How to speak and write postmodern
Stephen Katz
The Road to Kosovo
Victor Boldt
Adam's Rib
Anne Ferguson
Current Comments
Book Reviews
Letters to Editor
Nostradamnonsense
Oddities
The first step towards philosophy is incredulity.
Denis Diderot (1713-1784)
|
Editorial
Humanist Manifesto 2000
In order to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century, the humanist movement
has released Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for a New Planetary Humanism.
This document is the latest in a line of Humanist declarations of principle that
have done so much to keep the Humanist vision before the wider public. What Humanist
Manifesto 2000 does is to shift the emphasis to the virtues of planetary
humanism, identify the opponents of this vision, and make bold proposals for solving
humanity’s problems. In particular, it insists that the solutions need to be worked
out on a planetary scale. Humanist Manifesto 2000 will set the agenda for
the international Humanist movement for decades to come. It constitutes our contribution
to entering the third millennium with a noble plan for the future.
Humanist Manifesto 2000 acknowledges that the changes the world has undergone
since 1973, when Humanist Manifesto II was released, amount to a revolution.
The collapse of communism as a viable alternative to capitalism, the globalisation
of the economy and of aspects of culture, the technological and information revolutions,
continued population growth and environmental degradation, all amount to a distinctively
new challenge than that the world faced in 1973. As well as the familiar threat posed
by fundamentalisms, Humanist Manifesto 2000 turns to face the new dangers
of new age quackery, pseudoscience, and postmodernism. "Planetary Humanism rejects
nihilistic philosophies of doom and despair and those that counsel an escape from
reason and freedom, that fester in fear and foreboding, and that are obsessed with
apocalyptic scenarios of Armageddon." The Manifesto insists that, contrary
to these contrasting brands of nihilism, "we believe that it is possible to
create a better world. The realities of the global society are such that only a new
Planetary Humanism can provide meaningful directions for the future."
Humanist Manifesto 2000 argues that what distinguishes Humanism is its commitment
to scientific naturalism. Rather than languishing in spiritual, mystical or pseudoscientific
flummery, scientific naturalism takes nature on its own terms. By rigorous application
of the scientific method and rationalism, scientific naturalism alone is capable
of understanding the universe and of ensuring the most harmonious and equitable placing
of homo sapiens within that universe. After an extended discussion of Humanist
ethics, Humanist Manifesto 2000 turns to its most radical section: its proposals
for the future.
The first proposal is to call for A Planetary Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
The provisions for this bill include the familiar declaration of rights enshrined
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It then expands on this by outlining
our responsibilities both to each other and to the planet at large. The Manifesto
then urges the need for a new set of planetary institutions that can become the vehicles
for the vision it outlines.
Finally, the Humanist Manifesto 2000 recalls us to a sense of optimism about
the human prospect. "Although many problems may seem intractable, we have good
reasons to believe that we can marshall our best talents to solve them, and that
by goodwill and dedication a better life is attainable by more and more members of
the human community."
Humanist Manifesto 2000 has attracted 125 signatories from 28 different countries,
in all parts of the earth. Ten of them are Honorary Associates of the NZARH. Among
them are some of highly respected men and women, from many walks of life. Its first
appearance has been as part of Free Inquiry magazine, but I have no doubt
that it will extend to become a stand-alone booklet in its own right as Humanist
Manifestos I and II were. I also have no doubt that it will have attracted
more signatories by then.
I consider myself honoured to be the first New Zealand-based signatory of this noble,
visionary manifesto for the twentieth century. I was approached by Paul Kurtz at
the Rationalist Press Association Centenary conference in June with a view to my
signing, and, more importantly, soliciting prominent New Zealanders for their signature.
Several have been approached and it is hoped that they will lend their weight to
the Humanist Manifesto 2000. The NZ Rationalist & Humanist will
feature sections of the manifesto over the coming year, and we urge members to order
their own copy of Humanist Manifesto 2000 once it becomes available. We all
then face the task of bringing its vision to reality.
Bill Cooke
Return to Contents
Arguments to Design
The Debate
On August 5 a public debate was held on the topic "That complexity in nature
is evidence for an intelligent designer". Two theists cam up against two atheists.
The theists were Professor Neil Broom, from the Mechanical Engineering Department
of Auckland University and Dr Robert Mann, formerly of the Biochemistry and Environmental
Studies Department. The Two atheists were Dr Robert Nola of the Philosophy Department
at Auckland University and Dr Bill Cooke from the School of Visual Arts, Manukau
Institute of Technology.
The addresses are repeated in the order in which they were given and have all been
verified by the disputants. While they are of different length on paper, all disputants
spoke for the same length of time.
The first theist argument
Neil Broom
Lurking just beneath the title of this debate is the all important question: Is it
"theism or atheism"? Can we explain the complexity of the living
world without invoking a transcendent, non-material cause or agent - in brief does
the living world need a Creator?
When I use the word complexity I am of course referring to the highly disciplined
and integrated array of complex biological processes that serve the functional requirements
of the living organism.
Now I accept in principle:-
- The vast age of the universe.
- The progressive elaboration of life forms - a picture of evolving complexity.
- The interconnectedness of species - perhaps somewhat overstated in the so-called evolutionary tree.
- A process of selection based on the weeding out of less favourable variants in an organism's offspring.
- The Paul Davies-type sloganreproduction, variation, elimination,
which would appear to be a valid scientific description of a biological process as far as it goes.
Naturalism, scientific materialism, or scientific atheism asserts
that the organic complexity and sophisticationof the living world is explicable in
wholly physico-material terms. My quarrel is with this widely held materialistic assumption.
Let me outline briefly my objections to materialism using a well-known example that
tends to surface repeatedly in this kind of debate - the evolution of the eye.We
could of course refer equally to any other complex organ or biological system - an
articulating joint, a heart valve, some aspect of the cellular machinery, or even
the humble toenail. - the choice will make little difference to my argument. I shall
stick with the eye.
Richard Dawkins is probably the most successful contemporary populariser of scientific
materialism.Using the watchmaker metaphor Dawkins in his book The Blind
Watchmaker contends that:-
"The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in
a special way."
and again:-
"Natural selection - the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin
discovered is the explanation for the existence and apparent purposeful form of all
life, has no purpose in mind." (Blind Watchmaker, p. 5)
Dawkins argues that under the sieving action of natural selection there is a continuum
of seamless development from a simple light sensing layer of pigmented skin cells
to a sophisticated focussing eye such as our own.
In this same spirit Charles Darwin freely confessed that if his own theory of natural
selection was to account for the evolution of the eye it would require such a continuum
of gradual, imperceptible steps in improvement:-
"If numerous gradation from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and
perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain
the case; if, further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is
likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal
under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect
and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable to our imagination,
should not be considered subversive of the theory." (Origin of Species, p. 167)
Many of Richard Dawkins" opponents argue that highly complex, integrated organs
such as the human eye could not have evolved by a gradual step-by-step process.Rather,
it must have required the coordinated integration of all its parts so as to yield
the fully functioning organ.
To the critics of his gradualism Dawkins responds:
"Vision that is 5% as good as yours or mind is very much worth having in
comparison with no vision at all."
"A simple, rudimentary, half-cocked eye . . . is better than none at all.Without
an eye you are totally blind.With half an eye you may at least be able to detect
the general direction of a predator's movement . . .".
Dawkins sounds eminently reasonable here. No one in their right mind would disagree
that a poor eye isn't better than no eye at all. But he goes much further than this.
He says:-
"Part of an eye is better than no eye at all"
and:
"an animal with 5% of an eye . . . used it for 5% vision"
I contend that this is just crude pseudo-scientific sloganeering. Superficially compelling,
but actually, seriously flawed.
He is, I suggest, blurring the all important distinction between a crude eye that
actually sees crudely, and something that represents just part of an eye that cannot
see, even crudely. A crude eye is a going concern but a part eye is not a going concern
and therefore cannot be placed within a seamless continuum of increasing seeing function,
and thus be open to selection.
But in another sense however, Dawkins is correct - but only, I contend, at the price
of betraying his materialistic belief system. Part of an eye is better than no eye
only if one is deliberately aiming to produce an eye.
The achievement of flight provides a helpful analogy
The Wright brothers "took off" in December 1903 because they met the very minimum
requirements for powered flight. They devised and constructed an integrated machine
that was aerodynamically, minimally competent.
There are, obviously, degrees of flying performance just as there are degrees of
seeing in Dawkins' scheme.In terms of aerodynamic performance we cannot compare the
Wright brothers" Flyer I with a modern Boeing 747.But both have flown.
When we talk about an improved flying performance of say 1% we are improving actual
flight. We cannot have improved flight without flight in first place.
1% or 5% of a plane will not fly.A rivet won't actually take off!
But a rivet will contribute to the achievement of flight if flight is being aimed
for.
Orville Wright first flew for those 12 tenuous seconds in Flyer I because he and
Wilbur zealously sought powered flight.When they shaped their propeller at the carpentry
bench they knew it would contribute to the achievement of flight even though the
propeller of itself could not fly. But this is to admit to a purposeful, nonmaterial
goal that is being sought by an act of will, by a person or persons.
Now in case I am accused of misrepresenting Dawkins' real intentions I refer you
to his treatment of eye evolution in his more recent book Climbing Mt Improbable.He
refers to a computer model devised by two Swedish biologists Dan Nilsson and Susanne
Pelger, which "evolves" a virtual eye object from a flat layer of virtual cells sandwiched
between virtual pigmented and transparent layers.
The model works (and always in a virtual sense) by producing at random small percentage
changes in the degree of curvature of the sandwich, in the size of a light restricting
aperture, and in the local value of its light-bending ability or refractive index.The
computer is programmed to perform a simple calculation of the sandwich's focussing
or resolving power every time a random change (read mutation) occurs in the three
variables.
In a relatively small number of generations the computer model is shown to transform
the flat sandwich layer through continuous minor improvements into a configuration
representing a virtual, focussed eye lens-shaped object.
For Dawkins this transformation is exactly analogous to climbing the mountain of
biological complexity:
I quote:
"Going upwards means mutating, one small step at a time, and only accepting
mutations that improve optical performance.So, where do we get to? Pleasingly, through
a smooth upward pathway, starting from no proper eye at all, we reach a familiar
fish eye, complete with lens."
(Climbing Mount Improbable, p. 151)
However, any careful reader of Dawkins' scheme should immediately see that it involves
a most blatant transgression of the rules of his own materialistic science. He is
required to impose a non-material constraint on the behaviour of the eye model: he
inserts the most crucial proviso of
"only accepting mutations that improve optical performance".
Or, in terms of his mountain-climbing analogy, one must "aim for the summit".He
has committed the cardinal sin of introducing a profoundly personal dimension
into his claimed materialism.
Naturalism or scientific materialism purports to explain living complexity in wholly
material terms.But at almost every turn it lapses into a kind of personified, anthropomorphised
depiction of nature, giving minds to molecules, which they do not appear to have.
I argue that this is not merely a stylistic convenience that can be discarded when
scientific rigour is required, but is rather an implicit admission by the materialist
that life transcends the laws of physics and chemistry and thus requires a higher
level of explanation.
Hillary and Norgay Tenzeng reached the summit of Mt Everest in Dec 1953 because they
really wanted to get to the top of the world.Scaling the mountain of biological complexity
would likewise seem to require a profoundly purposeful dimension that transcends
the purely material.
I am convinced that God is still very much in the equation.
The first atheist argument
The Triumphant Vindication of the Argument to Design
Bill Cooke
Philosophers have for many years being telling us that there are few arguments now
as completely redundant as the argument to design. J L Mackie, for example, concludes
his section devoted to this argument in The Miracle of Theism by writing the
obituary for this hoary old chestnut. The argument to design, he concludes, "cannot
be revived". (p 149) Kai Nielsen went even further when he said in Philosophy
and Atheism that the philosophy of religion has "become boring because the
case for atheism is so strong." (p 224)Equally emphatic condemnations come from
the scientific perspectives of Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, among others.
Even current defenders of theism such as Richard Swinburne, JJ Haldane or Terry Miethe
are coy in their use of this argument, when they use it at all.
But tonight, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to argue in favour of the argument
to design. I would like to tell you about something so complex that the only sensible
explanation for it is that it must have been designed by an intelligent creator.
God, we are told, is three in one, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost,
each different but each part of the same God, and all three combining to proclaim
the eternal glory of monotheism. God, children are told, is concerned with their
every move and watches over them at all times, except when they get cancer or are
hit by a drunk driver, in which case the same God is the prudent guardian of free
will. It is clear that these attributes could not have arisen by chance. God is indeed
clear evidence of complex design.
God is so complex that many different people claim him as their own. Caring, kindly
people tell us that "God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God,
and God remains in him." (1 John 4:16) Some of the pious like to quote God’s
son who apparently proclaimed "I am the Resurrection and the Life; he who believes
in me will live even when he dies." (John 11:25) But then others among the pious,
such as the Archbishop of Canterbury a few days ago, prefer to echo the words of
Rationalists by calling into question this very Resurrection. To give effect to this
Resurrection, God put his omnipotent abilities to one side and was content that his
son die a painful death nailed to a cross. The same God, but going under another
name, and in another book apparently written by Him, offers "boys as fair as
virgin pearls" as part of the deal in paradise, but only for those who have
died fighting in His name. Not to be left out, harsh, judgmental people call God
their own as well. For these people, there is always Ezekiel to fall back on. "Thus
says the Lord: See, I am against you; I will draw My sword from its sheath and will
cut off from you the righteous and the wicked. And because I cut off from you the
good and the bad alike, My sword shall be unsheathed against all that lives from
south to north; and everything living shall know that I the Lord have drawn my sword
out of its sheath to return it no more." (Ezekiel, 21: 3-4) Harsh and judgmental
people, it has to be said, are particularly well served by this God.
Further evidence of design can be found by investigating God’s philosophical make-up.
God is eternal, all-perfect, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, but He also
manages to be ineffable - a remarkable achievement for an entity otherwise endowed
with so many thoroughly effable omnis. This also makes the achievements of theologians
who write learned discourses on this ineffable God all the more impressive. This
series of traits, both the effable and ineffable was thrashed out at acrimonious,
often violent gatherings of theologians that in their day were known as Ecumenical
Councils. Roman Catholics recognise 21 councils as doctrinally valid, usually the
ones where their side won, such as at Nicaea, Chalcedon and Constance. The Orthodox
Church, by contrast, recognises none as being doctrinally sound after the Seventh
Ecumenical Council of 787, which finally overthrew iconoclasm. Protestants, of course,
generally accept the conclusions of the Councils that the Catholics won, but insist
that the Catholics are nonetheless at odds with God because of their failure to recognise
the overpowering role of faith. Muslims see the whole lot as a bunch of idolaters.
Having been impressed by the awe-inspiring complexity of this creation, it has to
be asked, could so complex a God ever have arisen by chance? It is absurd to suggest
that a fortuitous concourse of events could have created such an august being. My
encyclopedia of gods lists 2500 of them, which makes the odds of coming up with this
god, the real God, one in 2500. And of course Hindus officially recognise 330 million
gods, which increases the odds to one in 330 million, or one in 330 million plus
one, depending on how ecumenical the Hindu pantheon really is. No one in his right
mind would argue for such odds.
Another beautiful thing about the design argument when discussing God is that we
can begin to see the hand of the designer. The invisible hand can be made visible.
Despite, or perhaps even because, of the complexity of the design, as David Hume
suggested, it is reasonable to infer a series of designers. And so it is. God, so
the experts of religious history over the past couple of centuries have revealed,
was originally a volcano god of the tribe of Midian. At some point this Midianite
tribal deity was blended with the patriarchal gods of the clans of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob. We can read a mythological portrayal of this union in the third chapter
of Exodus, which was probably written in the 8th BCE. This god was useful
at the time because of his job description: "The Lord is a man of war: the Lord
is his name." (Exodus 15:3). In a miscellaneous series of tracts, later to be brought
together, and later still to be given the insulting title of "Old Testament’,
we can see this god become ever more complex. From tribal warrior god, He graduates
to being sovereign god of the royal line of David, which will never die out. And
the prophet Micah can declare that "For all people will walk every one in the
name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever."
(Micah 4:5)
But all too soon the Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold, his corselets all
gleaming in purple and gold, and the royal line of Israel was unaccountably wiped
out and Israel scattered. The design becomes, of necessity, more complex at this
point, with God now deciding He is actually concerned about the City of God in heaven
rather than the City of Man on earth, the sort of city that can get doushed by Assyrians.
Safe now from such intruders, God can return to making big claims. For does not the
second Isaiah, writing in the 6th BCE call us to "understand that
I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even
I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:10-11) A while later
God’s attributes and particularly His preferences became so complex that His followers
split into two, and later still three, camps and the rest, as they say, is history.
This demonstrates another of Hume’s points. Hume warned us against us assuming that
the creator of a beautiful object has itself to be beautiful. "If we survey
a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter, who
framed so complicated, useful, and beautiful a machine? And what surprise must we
feel, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art,
which, through a long succession of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections,
deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving?" (Dialogues,
p 140) And do we not find further evidence when the history of the design of God,
and it has to be said, many of the designers, conform so closely to Hume’s analysis?
So, we have seen that the design argument stands up when applied to God, because
we have clear evidence of the designers and it refutes most of the important arguments
laid against it. It also confutes the objection of Bertrand Russell, who asked "Do
you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years
in which to perfect your world, you would produce nothing better than the Ku Klux
Klan and the Fascists?" (Why I Am Not a Christian, pp 6-7) Well, the
answer in this instance, is that over as little as 3000 years God has produced people
as fine as the Rev Graham Capill, Pat Robertson, and Cliff Richard. Need one say
more?
Now I know that a few of you will be wondering at this point about a problem that
has arisen in my argument. This is the problem of relative ages. God is held by many
to be the designer of nature, but we have seen that God is only 3000 years old or
so, and is striking testimony to the argument to design, albeit rather haphazardly.
So how can this God have taken any part in the design of nature, which is immeasurably
older? Perhaps we can do no better at this point than to quote the prophet Mormon
who, in the sacred text of that revealed religion, said "And now, O all ye that
have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you,
have all the things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold
I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles." (Mormon
9:15) And perhaps that is just as well.
The second theist argument
Causation in Biology
Robert Mann
Three decades ago, the then professor of philosophy in the University of Auckland,
Ray Bradley, issued a challenge to all comers to debate his atheism.(I was overseas
at the time-the summary is due to philosopher Dr David Fairfax Williams.)Several
memorable evenings resulted in the Maclaurin Chapel hall, in which the late Professor
Blaiklock more or less ignored Bradley, instead setting forth his own theism, but
Professor Morton dealt with the arguments.
Tonight's event arose similarly, by a challenge from atheists to discuss their ideas.This
willingness to discuss is most welcome and we are grateful for this opportunity in
a period when our society is dominated by PC ideologies which rigorously avoid discussion.
Let me stress that our topic tonight-which was embraced without amendment exactly
as worded in the atheists' challenge-is of narrow scope. Militant atheists such as
Professor Bradley tend to argue about aspects of God as suggested in the Bible, or
about misbehaviour by Christians (e.g.the Crusades), and so forth.But our
topic tonight is much more restricted.We have agreed cheerfully to leave aside special
revelation-including the Bible-and to confine ourselves to interpreting the complex
orderliness observed in nature.It is disappointing that the leader of the other side
squandered most of his time this night slinging mud at religion-off the agreed topic.
We clarify here that this complexity is not chaotic or incomprehensible jumble-it
is ORDERED.So far as we can see, laws operate not only in astronomy and physics more
generally but also in the living realm.I was an alleged full-time student for a decade,
learning something of what was known about the complexities of biology, and I never
saw any hint that it was unintelligible.Although we cannot see to the end of it,
biology yields scientific laws as we organise our observations of it.
This is a different point from the belief that the great ocean of the unknown is
vaster than the few "smoother pebbles" that we have found by standing on
the shoulders of the giants who have gone before.
Consideration of causes in biology is famously illuminated by William Paley’s early
19th-century scenario of finding, during a stroll on a heath, a watch.The
evident order of this mechanism-especially if it was working when found-would rightly
force the finder who studied it to infer the existence of a design and, therefore,
a designer.
Watches can never be said to have arisen from an entirely impersonal, mindless cause.Such
mechanical contrivances are always the expression of creativity, of some person who
decided to construct a mechanism for the purpose of telling time. Paley
argued that the living mechanisms of nature-the complex machinery so evident in biology-must,
similarly, be inferred to be designed.
However materialistic one’s views might be and however many millions or billions
of years of evolution may be granted to us, the machinery of life surely requires
an explanation of a personal rather than impersonal kind. We believe this argument
has been wrongly neglected-certainly not refuted.Megatime is no substitute for purpose.
To discuss causes of life, one needs traditional understanding of the term "causes".
The four categories of cause, identified by Aristotle and little challenged for 2.3 millennia,
have rarely been taught to science students let alone the general public, but they
are crucial for explanation in biology.(Two of the four are simply ignored today
by most scientist-philosophers, such as Dawkins and Paul Davies.)
The Auckland biologist John E. Morton, using science as Aristotle of course could
not, illustrated the 4 categories of cause in his "claret cameo"[in his book Man,
Science & God Collins 1972], which we paraphrase so:-
Morton's "claret cameo"
What are the causes of my bottle of claret?
The material cause includes the grape juice and the yeast, materials transformed
by the efficient cause into this peculiar substance claret.
The efficient cause is the action of the yeast on the grape sugars and some
minor components, resulting in aqueous ethanol and some minor new chemicals characteristic
of claret.
But my bottle of claret has also a final cause: a man (named Babich) exerted
his will to organise suitable vessels for the substances which are the material cause,
and planned a sequence of operations for the purpose of making claret by maximising
the likelihood that the efficient cause for claret would operate, i.e.the
particular chemical action of the yeast on the grape juice leading to claret.
What Aristotle called the formal cause, on which we here say no more, is the
"claret idea" in Babich's mind.
|
If a bottle of claret is required by human reason to have a final cause, how could
it be denied that a living collection of molecules-e.g.a frog or a crab-also
is designed?
The attempt to explain life is, we believe, severely incomplete until one faces up
to final cause in biology.
The "enlightenment" assumption that science can, and soon will, give an
essentially complete description and explanation of the physical (including biological)
world is closely bound up with scientism-faith in science as the "only"
way of knowledge. The only type of final cause-person willing & acting to bring
about the observed change-is, in this modern approach, human will. "Who designed this
watch?" is thus an allowed question, but "who designed this crab?" is not.
It is no accident that genetic engineering is proceeding so recklessly on the "lego"
assumption that the behaviour of living cells can be reliably predicted having been
transmogrified by genes from another kingdom-say, African clawed toad genes (or rather,
"improved" synthesised versions thereof) in potatoes.This vulgar &
dangerous "lego model of biology" could not, I suspect, thrive among people who appreciate
all 4 causes of life.
The attempt to illuminate spiritual questions by studying only nature without recourse
to special revelation is called natural theology. Dr Broom has recently tried
to bring natural theology up to date in a small book concentrating on design in biology
(How Blind is the Watchmaker ? Ashgate 1998)-complete with his cartoons of
a quasi-Far Sidequality.
Just take a look at any one of the marvellous mechanisms found in the living world. Such
living "machines" embody and express a degree of complexity, sophistication,
and purposefulness, that far surpasses anything created by human hands. Are we then
to conclude that there is no evidence of mindful orchestration in the living world? No
Mastermind?
The really important questions about what we are and why we exist are not scientific,
and science is a trespasser when it pronounces on such matters.This fundamental limitation
of science was admirably summarised by Professor Morton a quarter of a century ago.
The feeling of breathless enchantment can be evoked by natural theology, and can
lead the children of atheism & agnosticism to investigate more important parts
of theology.
Some of you may be tempted to defer the logic we expound because you vaguely feel
it could lead you into this or that religious organisation.We would discourage that
confusion. As emphasised earlier, we have very limited scope tonight.Many logical
options will remain untouched, waiting to be explored, if you admit theism as we
urge.
The second atheist argument
That complexity in nature is evidence for an intelligent designer
Robert Nola
There are two serious shortcomings of the debate so
far. The first is that no definition has been given of
the phrase in the title 'complexity in nature'. Surely
in any science there ought to be a clear definition of
terms. Second, there has been no discussion of what
is meant by 'evidence'. This means that given some
definition of complexity, there has to be a proof which
shows that such complexity could have come about
without a Super Intelligent Designer (which I will call
'SID'), or that such complexity could not have arisen
with no help from SID. Since science is characterised
by evidence and proof, the debate so far is hardly
scientific. In this respect I can agree with the
opposition that Richard Dawkins' popular accounts
do not always meet these standards. I would
recommend instead Stuart Kauffman's The Origins
of Order or At Home in the Universe where an attempt
is made to address the issues of definition and proof
in a rigorous scientific manner.
Concerning proof, there is in the philosophical
literature since David Hume's Dialogues Concerning
Natural Religion (1779) and examination of arguments
for the existence of SID. My part of the debate will
take its cue from Hume in that I will demonstrate why
a common argument for SID is not strong and should
not be accepted. But first, a few intuitive comments
on complexity and designers.
Consider the following question; "Can a complex
thing make a less complex thing?" Even though we
lack a definition of complexity we might at least be
able to order things in terms of their degree of
complexity. The answer is 'Yes'. We more complex
humans have made more simple items such as
hammers, wooden objects, and so on. Let us ask the
converse: "Can a (collection of complex) human(s)
make some thing more complex than itself (or
themselves)?" There is no obvious contradiction in
supposing that this could happen. As an example, we
are capable of building computers of a much high
complexity of performance than ourselves collectively.
The internet might also be cited as a growing human-
made complexity. And so on.
Here is an answer to the debate's title. Given an
already existing degree of complexity in nature,
greater complexity can come about — and without
the need to invoke a God-like SID to explain it. 'But
at least there are intelligent designers, namely us', you
might say. But then our human (collective) complexity
might have come about in the same way from
something less complex; and again there is no
invocation of any God-like SID. While such
considerations might shake up a complacent
acceptance of SID as an explanation, they are at best
a first step and are not decisive.
Even though we lack a clear conception of what
complexity means, let us assume that the world does
contain a great deal of complexity in the natural world
(e.g., crystalline structure), the life world (animals with
eyes and brains) and the human world (which adds
complexity due to intellect, reasoning and language).
How did such complexity come about? The
naturalistic programme of science hopes to explain
this by the natural processes which are at work in the
world without the help of SID. To suppose SID is
unnecessary and superfluous. But there are
alternatives to SID to consider.
(i) There is a super intelligent designer SID, often
called 'God'. However to infer from SID to God is
an extra inferential step that is not validated. Further,
there is much evil present in the world and this creates
a problem for God's existence. One might just as well
suppose that even if there is a SID, it/he/she was an
evil genius and not a benevolent God. So the designer
argument takes us nowhere near one of the traditional
conceptions of God, viz., that it/he/she is benevolent,
omniscient and omnipotent. Intelligent designer devils
can do just as well.
(ii) There is a committee of intelligent designers. Such
is alleged in many polytheistic religions, such as the
Maori story of creation. This raises an interesting
issue. Monotheists would have to prove that there is
a unique SID that created complexity, and not many
SIDs. But proofs of uniqueness are almost never
given. Rather they stop at the conclusion that there is
an intelligent designer and not one and only one unique
intelligent designer, the word 'an' containing no
connotations of uniqueness. It is in fact very difficult
to see how such uniqueness can be proved from the
mere fact of complexity.
There are yet further problems. Supposing SID exists,
there is further complexity beside that of the world
itself, namely the complexity of SID it/him/herself
(which is usually supposed to be greater than the
degree of complexity of ourselves). But now a regress
threatens because this further complexity needs to be
explained. To stop the regress one might reply that
SID caused it/him/herself, or is self made. But this is
to beg the very question against the atheistic naturalist
who would want to claim that the world and the
complexity found in it is not made by any external
agency like SID but is self-evolving and thus
self-made.
Let us now directly focus on the traditional design
argument that the opposition has employed. The now
classic form of it was given by William Paley writing
early in the nineteenth century but some thirty years
after Hume. He supposed that someone walking on a
lonely heath came across a watch which was intricate,
complex, showed an exquisite arrangements of parts,
told the time accurately, and so on; from this he
inferred the existence of God. One way to present his
argument is that given by my opposition. It is intended
as a deductive argument of the following sort:
ARGUMENT (1)
(1) The watch is complex and intricate;
(2) ∴ the watch has a designer(s);
(3) ∴ God exists.
Now we have seen that (3) does not follow from (2)
on two grounds: supernatural devils could have
equally as well made the watch, and there is no proof
of uniqueness as required in the monotheistic
conception of God. Moreover for anyone with a little
training in the science of logic the inference from (2)
to (3) is a non sequitur.
But what of the claims (1) and (2)? Both are true
(watches are at least designed by (on the whole) more
intelligent things, viz., ourselves). But there is no valid
argument from premise (1) to the conclusion (2)
despite the fact that both claims are true. This is just
a grossly invalid argument that first year logic students
are taught to detect. It is no better than arguing from
the truth that 2 + 2 = 4, to the truth that the Moon is
not made of green cheese. Just what has the conclusion
to do with the premise?
Paley's original argument was not of this sort. Rather,
as Hume pointed out before him, it has the form of an
inductive analogy. The way in which Paley presented
his argument is to take the first two truths that comprise
ARGUMENT (1) and use them in the first premise of
a different inductive argument:
ARGUMENT (2)
(1) Watches are complex, and they are created by
intelligent beings (humans);
(2) Much of the Universe and ourselves are complex;
(3) ∴ the Universe and ourselves are created by super
intelligent being(s), viz., SID(s).
Note that this argument to a designer still does not
prove the existence of a unique God of traditional
Christianity for reasons already given.
Here we need to say something about the nature of
argument since Argument (2) is not deductively valid;
in fact it is invalid. It is an argument in which the
premises are alleged to give only a high degree of
support to the conclusion; or the conclusion is made
only probable by the premises. Such non-deductive
arguments are called 'inductive' by logicians.
Inductive arguments have some degree of probability
(less than 1) with which the premises support the
conclusion.
The argument also turns on an analogy; it is an
inductive analogy based on the similarity to be found
between watches and the universe, or ourselves.
Watches, us humans and the universe, though
dissimilar in many respects, are at least similar in
respect of having complexity. And since watches have
designers it is inferred on the basis of this analogy
that the universe, or the human species, has a maker(s),
viz., SID(s). In fact the greater the degree of similarity
between the two items being compared the greater
will be the support the inductive analogy gives to the
conclusion on the basis of the premises.
Inductive analogies are a common form of everyday
argument such as:
STRONG INDUCTIVE ANALOGY
(1) Person X is sweating, has a high temperature and
aching joints; and X has the 'flu;
(2) Y is sweating, has a high temperature and aching
joints;
(3) ∴ Y has the 'flu.
This argument is not deductively valid; but its premises
give strong support to the conclusion. And the strength
of the argument turns on an analogy in which X and
Y are compared for their degree of similarity. As far
as their bodily structure and the current symptoms they
exhibit, X and Y are highly similar even though they
may differ in, say, colour of eyes, weight, clothing,
etc. (Question: would the argument be as strong if
"has the 'flu" was replaced by "has blue eyes"?)
In general the form of an inductive analogy is:
(1) X has A & B & C ... K; and X has P
(2) Y has A & B & C ... K;
(3) ∴ Y has P
Not all inductive analogies are equally as good. Here
is an argument in which the premises give only weak
support to the conclusion:
WEAK INDUCTIVE ANALOGY
(1) Aeroplanes fly, are noisy and are often coloured;
and they run on petrol.
(2) Birds fly, are noisy and are often coloured.
(3) ∴ Birds run on petrol.
We can all recognise that this is a lousy argument; we
should not accept the conclusion even if the two
premises are true. But why is it lousy? Part of the
reason is that the degree of similarity between birds
and aeroplanes is very low; so the degree of support
the premises give the conclusion is very low. Fallacies
arise for inductive analogies when there is not a very
high degree of similarity between the two items being
compared, such as watches and the universe, or
watches and ourselves. In general inductive analogies
are not reliable and are to be avoided and replaced by
other forms of argument wherever possible.
Let us now return to Paley's ARGUMENT 2. We
can now see that it is an inductive analogy of the same
form as those above. But is it strong or weak? To
answer this consider the degree to which watches and
the Universe, or watches and ourselves, are similar
and dissimilar. Even though watches and ourselves
are similar in the respect of being complex, or filling
space, or made of material, both are dissimilar in many
more respects, such as the materials out of which they
are made, their arrangement, breathing oxygen,
keeping good time, and so on. Since the degree of
similarity is at best middling or low, the argument is
not a strong one in that the premises do not strongly
support the conclusion.
We ought to reject Paley's argument because of its
weakness. This means that we may be left without an
account of how complexity has come about. But it is
intellectually more honest to say that the argument is
weak and to reject it and to live without an explanation
of why there is complexity, than to try to fill in the
gaps of our understanding with bad argument. After
all there is many a matter for which we do not have
any account, even in science. But this does not mean
that we should accept any argument that comes along,
no matter how weak; this is intellectually dishonest.
In his discussion of the design argument as based on
inductive analogy, Hume adopts a number of strategies
to shake up our complacent acceptance of it. I will
mention just two under the headings of 'misplaced
human chauvinism' and 'unscientific postulation'.
The design argument above is based on the analogy
of us humans as makers of artefacts. But arguments
of the very same form can be given for non-human
makers of the world; hence 'misplaced human
chauvinism'. Spiders make very intricate webs; so
why is this fact not a premise for a Great Super
Intelligent Spider? The argument set out as an
inductive analogy is as follows:
INDUCTIVE ANALOGY FOR THE SUPER INTELLIGENT SPIDER
(1) Spider webs are complex and intricate; they are
made by spiders;
(2) The Universe is complex and intricate;
(3) ∴ the Universe was made by a Super Intelligent
Spider.
The premises are true: but does the conclusion follow?
If you reject this argument because of its weakness
then you should also reject the Paley design argument
since it has exactly the same features.
Again the world might have been made by a Great
Intelligent Vegetable (such as a Cabbage). After all
plants are complex and intricate too, and we know
that they are propagated by seeds from parent
vegetables. An inductive analogy along the lines of
Paley's argument can be constructed:
INDUCTIVE ANALOGY FOR THE SUPER INTELLIGENT VEGETABLE
(1) Vegetables are complex and intricate, and they are
made by propagation from other vegetables;
(2) The Universe is complex and intricate;
(3) ∴ there is a Great Super Intelligent Vegetable that
propagated the Universe.
Again the premises are true. But is the argument a
strong one? It has all the same features as the Paley
argument and so if you accept the Paley argument you
should also accept this argument.
What Hume has done in advancing these two
arguments (and other like them in his Dialogues
Concerning Natural Religion) is to show that, as well
as SID, there are other hypotheses to consider as
makers of the world, such as super intelligent spiders
or super vegetables. This raises a new problem; if
rival hypotheses seem to get similar support from
similar kinds of evidence, then how do we decide in
favour of one and rule out the others? Perhaps there
is a stalemate and there is no way to decide. This
leads on to a further important issue in science about
unscientific postulation, viz., when is it proper to
postulate the existence of unobservable entities?
The Paley argument is based on premises which we
can test by observation. We observe that watches and
the Universe are complex; and we observe that
watches are things that are made by designers. But
we infer the existence of something which we do not,
or cannot, observe, viz., SID, or God. At best we
observe only SID's effects. Such arguments to non-
observables are common in science. We infer the
existence of electrons from observable behaviour in
the lab; we infer the existence of genes from the
observable ratios in which characteristics of off-spring
occur down the generations, and so on for tectonic
plates, pulsars, gravitational attraction, inertia, and the
like.
Hume quite clearly focuses on this aspect of the design
argument which Paley employed; it is an argument to
a conclusion that some unobservable entity exists. And
his point is that inductive analogies are just too weak
as arguments to establish with any high degree of
probability important conclusions about the existence
of entities which we cannot observe. Hume focused
on a quite general form of the inference to the
existence of unobservable entities. Suppose we
observe a number of effects. First, we suppose that
these effects have a cause (call this the existence
condition). Second, we attribute particular
characteristics to the cause which explain how the
effects come about (call this the explanatory
condition). We need secure grounds for the existence
and explanatory conditions; otherwise speculation can
run riot when we postulate the existence and
explanatory efficacy of all sorts of things from witches
and goblins to electromagnetic ethers — and to SID
and to God. Hume warned against this when he spoke
of 'arbitrary supposition' in some of our arguments
to the existence of things. For Hume the argument to
SID, or God, is based on arbitrary supposition.
Consider the following. We are quite often secure
when we argue from observable effects to observable
causes via an inductive argument:
(1) We observe that cause C (drinking water)
commonly gives rise to effect E (quenching thirst);
(2) We observe to occur a further case of an effect of
the same kind as E:
(3) ∴ the same kind of cause C occurred.
We may feel that this inductive inference is strong in
the case where we are dealing with observable causes
C, such as drinking water. And we are always in a
position to check out the conclusion in cases where
we have inferred to C but have not yet observed C.
But we cannot employ the same kind of argument with
the same kind of confidence when the cause C is not
observable (as in the case of electrons, or SID). Why?
Because we cannot test premise (1) on the basis of
direct observation since it is about an unobservable
kind of thing C; and when we infer to the presence of
C, as in the conclusion, we cannot directly test the
conclusion either. So the extent to which the above is
a sound reliable inductive argument taking us from
true premises to a true conclusion is considerably
lowered in the case of inference to unobservables. As
can be seen, this is an important consideration in
science that also applies to the Design Argument.
Hume was aware of these issues and suggested that
there are important methodological principles to be
observed in science, and also in arguments about God's
existence, when we infer to the existence of
unobservable causes. These methodological principles
cannot be spelled out here. But it is important to note
that inductive analogies used to argue for the existence
of an unobservable SID are not adequate. Hume found
the Design Argument defective because it failed to
conform to the proper canons of reasoning when it
comes to postulating unobservables which are
intended to be explanatory. It illegitimately helps itself
to an allegedly existent unobservable, viz., SIDs or
God. Thus Hume's complaint of 'arbitrary
supposition'.
Return to Contents
Stranger Than Fiction
Is Environmentalism Good?
Elizabeth McKenzie
A lot of people take it for granted that environmentalism is a good thing. Just to
show that a rationalist takes nothing for granted, I’d like to critically examine
the philosophy that underpins environmentalism.
The first part goes something like this: nature is good, everything that humans do
is unnatural (and therefore not part of nature or bad).
Is nature good? I think we can all agree that nature is neither good nor bad - moral
values are something we make up, according to which bits of nature we like or dislike.
Butterflies are thought to be good; nits are generally regarded as bad.
Are humans part of nature? All rationalists and humanists would have to concede that
we are part of nature. So how could we do something unnatural if we are part of nature?
"Unnatural" calls upon external influences for our behaviour the same way
"supernatural" does. Basically, environmentalists cannot accept that building
motorways and digging holes is perfectly natural for humans. A lot of organisms change
the landscape - fungi, algae and bacteria dissolve rocks with concentrated acids,
termites build skyscrapers (from a termite’s perspective), elephants destroy trees and
mole-rats dig tunnels. And a lot of organisms change the atmosphere (those damned
cyanobacteria back in the Archaen polluted the whole atmosphere with huge amounts of
oxygen, causing widespread extinction of all anoxic life-forms). Why is it OK for them
and not us?
As far as I know, the belief that ‘civilized’ people were separated from "nature"
seemed to start in the Victorian era, when people began believing that other groups of
people they had only just discovered ("savages", "natives" or
"aborigines") were somehow better off because they were less technologically
advanced. (I never saw the logic in this.)
Sometimes, extreme environmentalism involves a rejection of the new for the old, the
unorthodox for the traditional, the modern for the old-fashioned, the scientific for
the "natural." Tuberculosis and cholera are perfectly natural - the current
anti-immunization movement show that true environmentalists really care about these
diseases and will sacrifice their offspring just so these microorganisms can survive.
This is the only act of pure unselfishness that I have seen by environmentalists.
You will notice that many environmentalist organizations, such as Greenpeace, show cute
baby animals, large green trees and other things dear to our mammalian hearts. Have you
ever signed a petition to save a beautiful brown weevil or rare strain of bacteria? No,
because, these unfortunate organisms do not appeal to our oversized mammalian senses,
which value everything that is big, or has cute eyes, has pretty colours, or is furry.
So, the claims for maintaining biodiversity are largely based on our subjective selection
of rare things that appeal only to us.
The other justification used to support biodiversity is a purely selfish one - we need
it to survive, or, it may come in handy for our offspring’s survival in the future.
Why is survival selfish? Simply because, when you get 6 billion or more humans crammed
together on a tiny planet, things are going to get very uncomfortable for the other
humans and they will fight over resources. So we need to find somewhere else to live,
or stop reproducing at our usual rate (simply because our reproductive strategies had
no way of knowing we were going to develop a survival strategy called science that
vastly improved our offspring’s chances of survival).
So, what about some claims that environmentalists make? Is the planet getting warmer,
and does it matter? Considering that we are overdue for the next ice age (should be
anytime now), keeping the place warm seems like a good idea to someone well aquainted
with the history of the earth’s climate. If, however, you choose to only look at the
last 60 years, there does seem to be an increase in global CO2 levels. So everyone is
planting more trees. Trees are large and appeal to primates such as ourselves - even
though we could achieve the same effect on the atmosphere by a goodly sized algal
bloom, it doesn’t appeal to our aesthetics as much.
Return to Contents
Southern Lights
A Wedding, Rationalist House and Things
Russell Dear
There we were, going slowly round and round, all those
metres above ground - toy cars, toy people, toy buildings,
all rotating beneath our feet like some enchanted
Legoland. I was in a daze, and not just as a result of all
the spinning. Everyone else seemed jovial enough but
I'd forgotten my trousers...
Where were we? In the dining room of the Auckland Sky
Tower, I expect you guessed. In the middle of the day we
were enjoying what is traditionally called a wedding
breakfast. A little earlier we'd been in Rationalist House,
dressed in our best togs, getting married. The bride,
Lynley Millar inaugural writer of this magazine's
'Adam's Rib' column, wore an ankle length suit of cream
with satin lapels, satin trim at other appropriate intervals
and some floaty bits at the back. I, the groom, wore a
cream linen suit, with substitute trousers, a blue shirt and
cream tie. Very dapper, I thought, in a tropical sort of
way befitting an imminent sortie to the South American
continent.
We had originally decided to get married in Buenos Aires
where one of our sons works at the New Zealand embassy.
We'd booked the fares but interminable red tape and
ponderous bureaucracy had changed our minds and
suggested a last minute alteration of plans. Why not get
married in Rationalist House, we thought? After all, we're
both Rationalists and it's on the way to Argentina. Well,
it is if you live, like we do, in Invercargill. We decided to
fly to Auckland on the Wednesday, get married on
Thursday and head off to Buenos Aires on the Friday.
All we needed was some logistic support.
Numerous phone-calls and e-mails later it was all
arranged. Bill Cooke and Peter Hansen were kindness
itself, lubricating the not inconsiderable machinery of
wedding day organisation. They went so far as to ensure
a couple of parking spaces for the wedding party, that
the builders held off from their banging for a while and
that a glass of wine was available after the ceremony.
Rationalist House looked a treat. It felt warm and friendly
with an open fire glowing in the grate and a discreet sound
system softly playing our chosen background music.
Along with Uncle Harry who lives in Auckland, Bill even
agreed to act as one of our witnesses. They both looked
resplendent in suits that would not have been out of place
at Sophie Rhys-Jones and her bloke Edward's recent
wedding. Neil, an old friend (well none of us is in the
bloom of youth) provided transport and took photos while
Barbara Shaw, gallantly battling a sore throat, acted as
celebrant. So we were six.
But what about the forgotten trousers, I hear you asking?
Well, the best laid plans ..... The jacket of my suit
journeyed up in a crowded suit bag with Lynley's wedding
outfit. The trousers were to be packed separately in one
of the cases. Given the secrecy and attendant security
surrounding bridal outfits and the flurry of last minute
packing, the trousers remained behind, hanging in the
wardrobe with more prosaic items of dress while the rest
of our gear travelled with us. We suddenly remembered
our loss as we sat in the plane at Invercargill airport
awaiting take-off. We could have cried but decided to
laugh instead. We laughed all the way to Auckland. I had
two other lightly toned pairs of trousers in my case
suitable for travelling in sub-tropical climes. Surely one
of them would do? As it turned out, one did.
In Auckland, getting a hotel room had its lighter moments.
Booking in, we were given the key to room 610.
Subsequently entering the room, we found an
embarrassed guest, in his underclothes, wondering if we
had a warrant for our rude intrusion. Back to reception
and abject apologies, we were offered room 609. We'd
originally booked an 'executive suite' but room 609 was
so small it would barely have been suitable for executing
mice! We tramped back to reception for another apology
and finally settled on room 702. We won't embarrass the
hotel by naming it.
Our marriage ceremony included some lines from an
Apache Indian prayer; 'Now you will feel no rain, for
each of you will be the shelter for the other'. It was
appropriate that the only rain we encountered in
Auckland, and it was quite a shower, occurred during
the ceremony itself. By the time we ventured outside the
sun was shining again.
Rationalist House looked superb and certainly much
changed since my last visit over fifteen years ago. From
the glass-engraved Rodin to the ambience of lighting and
tastefully sophisticated colour scheme and fittings, it is a
credit to all those involved in its refurbishment. It's also
wonderful to feel that it acts as a focus for Rationalists
throughout the whole country, even ones like us who live
as far away as Invercargill.
Return to Contents
How to speak and write postmodern
The rules
Stephen Katz
Step one: First, you need to remember that plainly expressed language is out
of the question. It is too realist, modernist and obvious. Postmodern language requires
that one uses play, parody and indeterminacy as critical techniques to point this
out. Often this is quite a difficult requirement, so obscurity is a well-acknowledged
substitute.
For example, let's imagine you want to say something like, "We should listen
to the views of people outside of Western society in order to learn about the cultural
biases that affect us." This is honest but dull. Take the word "views".
Postmodernspeak would change that to "voices," or better, "vocalities’,
or even better, "multivocalities". Add an adjective like "intertextual’,
and you're covered. "People outside" is also too plain. How about "postcolonial
others’?
To speak postmodern properly one must master a bevy of biases besides the familiar
racism, sexism, ageism, etc. For example, phallogocentricism (male-centredness combined
with rationalistic forms of binary logic). Finally "affect us" sounds like
plaid pyjamas. Use more obscure verbs and phrases, like "mediate our identities".
So, the final statement should say, "We should listen to the intertextual, multivocalities
of postcolonial others outside of Western culture in order to learn about the phallogocentric
biases that mediate our identities." Now you're talking
postmodern!
Step two: Sometimes you might be in a hurry and won't have the time to muster
even the minimum number of postmodern synonyms and neologisms needed to avoid public
disgrace. Remember, saying the wrong thing is acceptable if you say it the right
way.
This brings me to a second important strategy in speaking postmodern - which is to
use as many suffixes, prefixes, hyphens, slashes, underlinings and anything else
your computer (an absolute must to write postmodern) can dish out.
You can make a quick reference chart to avoid time delays. Make three columns. In
column A put your prefixes: post-, hyper-, pre-, de-, dis-, re-, ex-, and counter-.
In column B go your suffixes and related endings: -ism, -itis, -iality, -ation, -itivity,
and -tricity. In column C add a series of well-respected names that make for impressive
adjectives or schools of thought, for example, Barthes (Barthesian), Foucault
(Foucauldian, Foucauldianism), Derrida (Derridean, Derrideanism).
Now for the test. You want to say or write something like, "Contemporary buildings
are alienating." This is a good thought, but, of course, a non-starter. You
wouldn't even get offered a second round of crackers and cheese at a conference reception
with such a line. In fact, after saying this, you might get asked to stay and clean
up the crackers and cheese after the reception.
Go to your three columns.
First, the prefix. Pre- is useful, as is post-, or several prefixes at once is terrific.
Rather than "contemporary buildings," be creative. "The Pre/post/spacialities
of counter-architectural hyper-contemporaneity" is promising. You would have
to drop the weak and dated term "alienating" with some well suffixed words
from column B. How about "antisociality’, or be more postmodern and introduce
ambiguity with the linked phrase, "antisociality/seductivity".
Now, go to column C and grab a few names whose work everyone will agree is important
and hardly anyone has had the time or the inclination to read. Continental European
theorists are best, when in doubt. I recommend the sociologist Jean
Baudrillard since he has written a great deal of difficult material about postmodern
space. Don't forget to make some mention of gender. Finally, add a few smoothing
out words to tie the whole garbled mess together and don't forget to pack in the
hyphens, slashes and parentheses.
What do you get? "Pre/post/spacialities of counter-architectural hyper-contemporaneity
(re)commits us to an ambivalentrecurrentiality of antisociality/seductivity, one
enunciated in a de/gendered-Baudrillardian discourse of granulated subjectivity."
You should be able to hear a postindustrial pin drop on the retrocultural floor.
Step three: At some point someone may actually ask you what you're talking
about. This risk faces all those who would speak postmodern and must be carefully
avoided. You must always give the questioner the impression that they have missed
the point, and so send another verbose salvo of postmodernspeak in their direction
as a "simplification" or "clarification" of your original statement.
If that doesn't work, you might be left with the terribly modernist thought of, "I
don't know." Don't worry, just say, "The instability of your question leaves
me with several
contradictorily layered responses whose interconnectivity cannot express the logocentric
coherency you seek. I can only say that reality is more uneven and its (mis)representations
more untrustworthy than we have time here to explore."
Any more questions? No, then pass the cheese and crackers.
Stephen Katz is Associate Professor of Sociology, Trent University, Peterborough,
Ontario, Canada
Return to Contents
The Road to Kosovo
Making the Connections Between Religion and War
Victor Boldt
Pristina, Yuoslavia (CP) Captain Dave Travers never thought to se anything like this
in his lifetime. He’s discovered headless bodies in ditches, burned corpses in homes,
and mass graves with bodies protruding from the earth. "There’s hate here that’s
just so deep and it’s so long-running that it’s absolutely incredible," said
Travers, a native of Kitchener, Ontario. North Bay Nugget, June 22 1999, p A10
Several veteran journalists have indicated that they are at a loss to explain the
centuries-old hatred-motivated violence in the Balkans. The answers can be found
in history. The year 1054 is a good beginning.
In the year 1054 CE, delegates of the one and only Christian Church met in Constantinople
to discuss differences between the Latin-speaking West and the Greek-speaking East.
The Patriarch of Constantinople and the Papal delegation from the Vatican, headed
by Humbert, mutually anathematised each other and broke the communion of the Church.
Following is the wording of the curse that Pope Gregory VII and the Patriarch Michael
Cerularus wished upon each other.
May he be seized by jaundice and smitten with blindness, and may he bring his present
life to a miserable ending by a most wretched death and undergo everlasting damnation
with the devil, where bound with red-hot chains, may the worm that never dies feed
on his flesh, and the fire that cannot be quenched be his food and sustenance eternally.
(John L Lamonte, The World of the Middle Ages, p 399)
Having expressed their mutual hatred, the two Church leaders severed their association.
They became two churches in fact. The Greek Church took the title Greek Orthodox
Church. The Latin church styled itself the Roman Catholic Church (catholic meaning
universal). Lamonte comments that "the supremacy of Rome over the Church [which
successive popes sought] was established; but it was only a part of the church universal;
the seamless garment of Christ was badly rent, and the unity of Christendom was destroyed
for centuries if not for all time." (Lamonte, p 254)
In 1999, the line of demarcation between the two church jurisdictions runs between
Roman Catholic Slovenia and Croatia on the west, and Greek Orthodox Serbia on the
East. Like two ecclesiastical shepherds, the sheep have adopted their leaders"
animosities. The members of the two churches co-exist in the Balkans like two scorpions
in a jar, although some have intermarried with their enemies.
How did this ecclesiastical divorce come about? It was partly due to a struggle for
power on the part of the successive Roman popes, who, since 476 CE had governed the
western half of the Roman Empire without help of hindrance from an emperor. A less
assertive pontiff might have been warned by previous protestations from Constantinople.
For example:
In 1043 CE Michael Cerularus was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople. In 1053,
he circulated a Latin treatise by a Greek monk, which strongly criticised the Roman
Church for enforcing clerical celibacy, for using unleavened bread in the Eucharist,
and for adding filioque to the Nicene Creed. (Will and Ariel Durant, The
Age of Faith, p 544)
It was Pope Gregory VII who, in his previous capacity as Cardinal Hildebrand, proposed
compulsory celibacy of the clergy. Since the German priests, in particular, were
feudal nobles as well as clergy, and had families. Their loyalties were divided between
feudal vassals, liege-lords, families, their private armies, and of course, the Church.
Sometimes their secular interests were in conflict with those of the Church. Sometimes
they disobeyed their church.
When the German emperors Otto (there were three of them between 936 and 1002 CE)
were displeased with the Vatican, they led their armies who were devoted to protecting
the person of the emperor. The eastern clergy saw no reason to give up their wives,
children and properties. More important, neither did the patriarch and the emperor.
Under the inspiration of Cardinal Hildebrand (later Gregory VII) the Vatican issued
a number of decrees between 1049 and 1073 CE against married clergy.
By these [decrees] all priests were declared bachelors, their wives were stated to
be no wives at all, but concubines, and their children bastards. (Lamonte, p 253)
So much for the "family values" touted by the Church today, but we must
be realistic about politics, according to Niccolo Machiavelli. Control over the faithful
is desired by the clergy, and control over his clergy is desired by the pope. Control
is the name of the game, both in politics and religion. To achieve control, cruelty
is more effective than kindness, according to Machiavelli in his book The Prince.
The Latin clergy did what they had to do. Most obeyed the Vatican decree. Others
moved into bachelor quarters and maintained their wives in separate dwellings as
mistresses. It was this practice that Martin Luther denounced as "corrupt"
in the Ninety-five Theses in 1517.
Luther solved his personal problem by marrying a nun. Thus, he aroused the displeasure
of Pope Leo X, who made three different responses: I)- he accepted Luther’s challenge
to debate by sending a spokesman; 2)- he sent assassins to murder the troublesome
monk, and; 3)- he initiated a crusade known as the Thirty Years" War. This war
killed one-half of the German-speaking population of Europe.
Pope Gregory also promulgated the filioque clause as an amendment to the Holy
Trinity. According to this new doctrine, the Holy Spirit proceeded either "from
the Father and the Son" or "from the Father through the Son."
Both versions won supporting factions in the west, but the east rejected both as
unnecessary unilateral tinkering with a doctrine arrived at by the Council of Nicaea
in 325 CE.
The issue of icons became another bone of contention. Both in the Latin and the Greek
parts of the Roman Empire, faithful Christians became addicted to images. Inside
churches and outside, the revered statues of Jesus on the Cross, of the Virgin Mary,
the twelve Station of the Cross (in bronze or in stained glass), and the Nativity
(in two dimensions or in three) became standard and familiar images to Christians.
Relics too became popular. Pieces of the True Cross and swatches of a bishop’s trousers
were hawked as "indulgences" with magical powers of healing and the remission
of sins. This is what motivated Martin Luther to challenge his church. When a zealous
seller of indulgences named Tetzel offended Luther, he posted his now-famous Ninety-five
Theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg.
Moses" fourth and fifth commandments forbid the making or worship of "graven
images" (Exodus 20: 4-5)
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that
is in heaven above, or that is the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord am a jealous
God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth
generation of them that hate me.
A council of eastern bishops convened by Emperor Constantine V (741-775 CE) condemned
image worship as "abominable" and charged that through such worship "Satan
has re-introduced idolatry." The Council desired that all images should be erased
or destroyed. The edict governed Christians throughout the Empire; both Greek and
Latin.
Successive popes in the city of Rome did not accept this ruling. After centuries
of life in a theocracy which destroyed all books as evil (except the Bible of course,
which was available only to the clergy), the public in the Latin half of the empire
were totally illiterate, the public required the icons to understand the basics of
the faith preached by the church. As Confucius one said, "One picture is worth
a thousand words." Icons and relics remained a part of Western Christianity,
in defiance of Moses, the Patriarch, and the Emperor. They are visible in Roman Catholic
churches today.
Such is the background for the first of many rifts in the Christian Church created
by the Emperor Constantine I at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The Council standardised
Christian dogma to eliminate hostilities between rival splinter groups of Christians.
When the council adjourned, there were two emperors, but only one empire, and one
Christian Church. The unity lasted for 729 years until Cardinal Hildebrand arrived
in the Vatican.
As Pope Gregory VII, Hildbrand unravelled the unity of the Emperor Constantine. By
initiating unilaterally new Christian doctrines and defying the authority of the
patriarch and the emperor, Gregory created controversies which were never resolved.
Instead, they led to the division of the Christian Church into two churches; the
Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic in the year 1054 CE.
A new threat was already in motion. It was the birth and expansion of Islam. Between
622 and 632 CE, the Prophet Muhammad established a small theocracy in what is now
modern Arabia. The Koran was purported to be a record of Allah’s words dictated
to Muhammad. Conversion to the new creed required total submission to Allah. When
the Muslims felt aggressive enough to spread the gospel, the choices they offered
to their prospective converts were to submit to Allah or die.
Muhammad’s successors embarked upon a military conquest of their known world. One
prong of their pincer movement drove through Persia and India to Indonesia. A second
prong drove west to conquer Roman Egypt, North Africa and Spain. For a time in Spain,
Muslims, Jews, Christians and infidels cohabited peacefully, but when the Muslim
conquerors crossed the Pyrenees into the Frankish Kingdom, their progress was arrested
by Charles Martel, the "Hammer’, at the bloody battle of Tours in October 732
CE.
According to our tour guide, Muslims blood flowed through the streets! Our tourists
were thirteen adults from North Bay, Ontario, Canada, led by Dr Diana Walton, Professor
of Classics at Nipissing University in North Bay.
A third Muslim prong moved against the Byzantine Empire, In 1071 the Seljuk Turks
decisively defeated the Byzantine forces under the command of Emperor Romanus Diogenes
at the Battle of Manzikert. The entire Roman Empire was now open to conquest.
Alarmed, the emperor appealed to the Vatican for help. Pope Urban II preached the
first of eight crusades commencing in 1095 CE. Volunteers were offered remission
of their sins. The Spanish monarchs were exempted from sending Christian soldiers
east. Spain had its own private crusade know as the Reconquest, later to develop
into the Inquisition. The period of peaceful co-existence was over. The Christian
state of Spain now authorised the torture and murder of Muslims, Jews, infidels,
and women alleged to be witches.
Surprisingly, the emphasis for the crusades was not to arrest the Muslim advance
into Byzantium, but to recapture the holy Sepulchre where Jesus of Nazareth was buried
after his crucifixion. Addiction to icons and relics is hard to shake. On one crusade
the illiterate western crusaders even invaded Byzantium and burned all the books
they could find in Athens and Constantinople! To the crusaders, all books except
the Bible were evil. In this respect, both educated Muslims and educated Greek-speaking
Christians were enemies to the illiterate crusaders from the west.
The First Crusade saw some of the bloodiest slaughters in all history. The crusaders
conquered Jerusalem, but the Muslims reconquered the city, prompting the pope to
call for seven more crusades. In all, there were a total of eight crusades, not counting
the Children’s Crusade, which should count as number three and a half, because the
French and German children simply disappeared en route to Palestine. The guess
is that the children were sold into slavery by Venetian merchants who employed Arab
Muslim sailors. The Venetians were more interested in commerce than religion.
After crusade number eight failed in 1291 CE, the Turks continued their conquest
of the Byzantine Empire. Crossing the Bosphorus, the Turks virtually annihilated
the Kosovo Serbs in 1389. They finally took Constantinople in 1453 after a long siege.
Then they drove north in the Balkans as far as the gates of Vienna. For five hundred
years since then, the three religious groups have co-existed in the Balkans like
three scorpions in a jar.
Journalist Peter Newman has a comment about the Turkish massacre of the Serbs of
June 23 1389. He quotes a displaced Serb in Vancouver, British Columbia:
That was the day the Turkish army of the Ottoman Empire massacred 50,000 of our soldiers
in Kosovo. To us, it’s still holy ground. To bomb and machine gun Serb soldiers won’t
make much difference. Their places will be taken by their grandfathers and their
teenage children. Ours is that strong a culture. We shall never surrender. (Peter
Newman, "Horrific reminders of my days as a refugee’, Maclean’s, April
19, 1999, p 50)
Since then, Roman Catholic Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence from
Yugoslavia. They expelled their Greek Orthodox Serb population in 1992, murdering
some. Predominantly Muslim Bosnia followed suit. Now, Serb President Slobodan Milosevic
had 855,000 Greek Orthodox refugees to relocate - somewhere.
In 1999, the Kosovo Muslims (called ethnic Albanians by most of our media) also rebelled
against Serb control. They mobilised a force called the Kosovo Liberation Army. With
long memories, the Serbs consider this move as a repetition of the 1389 humiliation
- again by Muslims. Bearing in mind the sentimental attachment of the Serbs to Kosovo,
it should not surprise anyone to learn that the Milosevic plan was to relocate many
of the 855,000 displaced Serbs in their homeland, which his Kosovo: but first the
Kosovo Muslims must be expelled. It’s tit for tat!
Such arrangements are rarely made by bilateral negotiations between religious groups.
The Dayton Accord and Rambouillet were fine diplomatic arrangements in theory, but
to achieve results, the standard decision-making method is by military action. This
was the way the Balkans were conquered in the first place.
This is an abbreviated history of the Balkans. Most of our media have spouted terms
such "ethnic Albanians" and "ethnic cleansing" to avoid identifying
the combatants as religious groups. I say to our media: "Face the facts and
tell us the truth!". The "ethnic Albanians" are Kosovo Muslims, and
"ethnic cleansing" is a euphemism for religious genocide.
In addition to the hostilities in the Balkans discussed so far, atrocities are being
practised in other locations:
- Genocide in Indonesia: Muslims on Christiansin East Timor and Ambon
- Civil War in Sri Lanka between Tamils and the Buddhist Singhalese
- Kashmir: Muslim Pakistan versus predominantly Hindu India - for the fourth time
since the two states were formed in 1947
- Afghanistan: the Taliban Muslims have not quite completed their conquest of the
country for the purpose of establishing an Islamic government
- Sudan: during the civil war, the Muslims of the north capturing the Christians
in the south to enslave them. To free a slave costs $50 Canadian
- Egypt: random murders by fundamentalist Muslims to establish an Islamic government
- Random throat-slitting of civilians in Algeria; some by Muslims to establish
government, others by the government to prevent the establishment of an Islamic
government
- Northern Ireland: the Protestant versus Catholic conflict continues since the
British Act of Supremacy declared King Henry VII to the head of the Roman Catholic
Church in England in 1534
- Chechnya and Dagestan: rebellion in the Russian Caucasus to create two small Islamic states
In the Middle East, two Islamic organisations are dedicated to the murder of Isaeli
civilians, who are Hebrews of course. In Lebanon, the Hizbollah (Party of God) is
controlled from Shi’ite Muslim Iran. In the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas is a Palestinian
organisation. Both wage Islamic Jihad (Holy War) upon Israelis. They also bomb Israeli
buses loaded with civilians. Often, the bombers are killed by their own bombs. The
suicide bombers expect favours from Allah in the next world.
Fortunately, the rule of secular law still holds in Canada. However, we Canadians
should take warning. The separation of church and state should never be taken for
granted. If respect or reverence for Islamic law or any other religious code ever
takes hold in Canada, we Canadians may be subjected to the same kind of violence
that now prevails in the Middle East. We’ve already had one such action in Surrey,
British Columbia. There, the editor of a newspaper who criticised a rival faction
of a Sikh temple was murdered.
We can observe some rules in the development of religions. When a new cult is created,
its leaders practice violence upon their own members. When a rival cult is formed,
both leaders practice violence upon their rivals. All commit atrocities for their
respective gods.
Our scientists have practically eliminated tuberculosis and the bubonic plague. They
are now concentrating on heart diseases, arthritis, sexually transmitted diseases,
and cancer. They should find some way to abolish religion, or at least eliminate
religious intolerance. I would estimate that the deaths and injuries caused by the
malpractice of religion on our planet exceeds the casualties of all ailments combined.
We may yet achieve that "peace on earth, goodwill toward men" promised
by Christians! With help from the United Nations, we should achieve that goal without
first experiencing an apocalyptic world conflict as promised in John’s Book of Revelation.
A burning question remains: with all their resources available to them, why do our
journalists frequently fail to identify the three warring factions in the Balkans
as three religious groups - Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Muslims. Journalist
Dalton Camp has an answer of sorts. "The media could be viewed as a conspiracy
to disguise the extent of political interference." (Sunday Star, 19 September
1999)
A translation is necessary. The faithful in western society do not want to know.
They don’t want to know that the Churches they attend were and are still thousands
of times more murderous than the Mafia ever were. The faithful prefer to sit on their
comfortable pews and allow "the peace that passeth all understanding" pass
through their veins and brains. The majestic chords of the church organ and soporific
cadence of the sermon have that effect.
Victor Boldt lives in Canada. This is his first article for the NZ Rationalist
& Humanist.
Return to Contents
Adam's Rib
The Tyranny of the Temporal Lobe
Anne Ferguson
'When the masses become better informed about science,
they will feel less need for help from supernatural Higher
Powers.'
Francisco Ferrer (1859-1909)
"My hope for the New Millennium is that people will
stop putting their faith in the supernatural but instead
employ common sense and compassion when dealing with
mankind's troubles." This is what I plant to say when the
Paul Holmes Show comes knocking on my door over New
Year.
By the time you read this, the Biggest Party of the All will
have been and gone and life will be back to normal. At the
time of writing, peace keepers are doing their best in East
Timor, the Russians are bombing Chechnya and in Kosovo
they are still falling out with each other. There has been
appalling loss of life in Taiwan and Mexico from
earthquakes. News of all this mayhem and catastrophe
comes to you courtesy of all the brilliant scientific advances
of the twentieth century.
Francisco Ferrer is just one of several intelligent and
learned people writing a hundred years ago who believed
that scientific knowledge would pull the yoke of
superstition from off the shoulders of mankind. How could
they have got it so wrong? In the last hundred years
scientific knowledge and technological developments have
progressed at an unprecedented rate. In the developed world
everyone has the opportunity to be literate. Even illiterates
have access to the plethora of TV and radio programmes
on science. The public libraries are stuffed with science
books; in the children's section there is a wealth of beautiful
books explaining scientific subjects with simple clarity.
Everyone uses the useful and enjoyable products of science:
cars, 'washing machines, fridges, televisions, word
processors. Not to mention metalled roads, clean piped
drinking water and the electricity to make all the gadgets
go. Despite the fact all this would not have been possible
without considerable exercise of the scientific principle,
despite constantly tested and proved technology and despite
the evidence of their senses that science produces things
that work, still people believe in the existence of things
impossible to prove. Why? What was missing from the
equation of those rationalists of yesteryear? What is still
missing? Why, here and now, is it possible for me to ask:
"How can any intelligent, informed person believe all that
nonsense?"
Perhaps, a hundred years ago, as now, our question is based
on a false hypothesis: that belief in the supernatural has
anything to do with intelligence and education.
Only very preliminary research has been done so far but
there are indications that religious experiences are the result
of brain aberrations, sited in a part of the temporal lobe
'naturally attuned to ideas about a supreme being.'
Temporal lobe epileptics are known sometimes to have
powerful religious experiences during their seizures and
to remain fanatically religious thereafter. Dr Michael
Pressinger of Laurentian University, USA, has carried out
experiments producing mini-seizures in otherwise healthy
people who reported 'a feeling of floating', a 'sensed
presence' and specifically religious, dreamlike
hallucinations.
Such mini-seizures can also occur naturally in
extraordinary circumstances-prolonged stress, starvation
and fasting, at altitude, in near-death situations. The Buddha
is alleged to have achieved enlightenment under his bodhi
tree after a period of self-inflicted starvation: Muhammad
was 'visited' by the Angel Gabriel in a cave up on Mount
Hira: Moses came down from a mountain with his Ten
Commandments: Jesus was given to wandering off into
the wilderness. Is it possible that world religions, for the
sake of which millions have suffered, killed, tortured, have
all been instigated by a temporal lobe seizure?
People who are in the grip of religious conviction following
such episodes seem very focussed, unbothered by self-
consciousness and self-doubt. If, in addition, they are
possessed of the gift of oratory and have charisma; if too,
there is turmoil in the land, it's not hard to imagine how a
new movement could spring up.
I think the religious can be divided into two categories;
those who have conviction based on an 'experience' and-
the great majority - those who hold the religion they do
because they were brought up in it, have never questioned
it and feel a sense of comfort and belonging in its embrace.
If, as a result of scientific research, it should be proved
that a 'religious experience' is nothing but a temporal lobe
transient, a mental affliction which can be treated with
modem drugs, will this be the beginning of the end of belief
in supernatural phenomena? One day, will 'religious
experiences' be considered interesting and amusing like
vivid dreams, to be recounted over the coffee cups but,
ultimately, be as trivial and unimportant? I would like to
think so.
Return to Contents
Current Comments
Light Relief
On the day the election was called, the country was treated to some light relief
from an Australian new-ager who flew in for a conference with the grand title of
the International Gathering for Higher Consciousness. While those who attended the
conference may well have enjoyed a Higher Consciousness, a Higher Income would also
have helped, as the conference cost $300 a head.
Anyway, the star of the show was Ellen Greve, who likes to call herself Jasmuheen.
Now Greve claimed not to have needed any sort of food for the last five years. This
is because she can nourish herself on the inner light within her deeply spiritual
Self. This was too much for kill-joy Rationalists and Humanists, who challenged Greve
to a month under supervision without any sort of calorie intake. Were she to have
met this challenge, the Association would have paid her the princely sum of $100,000.
Greve spurned our offer, claiming to be under investigation by a "panel of independent
scientists" (how new-agers like that phrase!) and by the Australian television
documentary team 60 Minutes. We didn’t hear anything more of this panel of
independent scientists, but 60 Minutes set Greve up with a week-long challenge.
And, lo and behold, she lasted only four days before suffering the normal symptoms
of hunger; dehydration, weight loss, dilation of pupils, listlessness and so on.
On the advice of the 60 Minutes doctor, the challenge was called off. Worried,
no doubt, by the potential damage to her credibility, Greve blamed the low level
of nutrients in the hotel’s air, and the level of noise and pollution. Well, you’ve
got to think of something when you have 100 million supporters - another of her claims.
What was even more annoying than Greve’s relentless silliness is the affected superiority
of commentators like Gordon McLauchlan, a regular columnist in the NZ Herald,
who accused the NZARH of "hilarious stupidity" for taking Greve seriously.
It’s all very well for intelligent people like McLauchlan to parade his superior
scepticism in public, but he rather misses the point. Thousands of people take Greve
and her ilk seriously. After the 60 Minutes programme, a poll of Australians
found that 56% actually believed that it is possible to sustain oneself on nothing
other than air. Does one simply let such credulity go unchallenged? Catty comments
from the safety of the wealthy suburbs may impress one’s friends, but do little to
exposecharlatans and their irresponsible claims. The challenge by the NZARH was an
excellent example of Rationalism and Humanism in action.
Six billion and rising
Wednesday October 13 1999 was an ominous date in world history. It was the notional
date that the world population was thought to reach six billion people. The population
of the planet now rises by about 90 million people every year, or about the same
as the entire world population was thought to be around the time of Socrates.
We hear that the rate of growth is falling off, and sincerely hope that this is so.
Whether the rate of population growth is slowing enough for the level to be sustainable
for the planet is another thing altogether.
The rise in population makes the education of women and the plentiful provision of
sex education and contraceptives among all peoples of the world one of the top priorities
of planetary humanism of the twenty-first century. Educating women to be able to
take control over their own reproductivity is probably the key task of the twenty-first
century. And few people would fail to appreciate that this will involve primarily
a battle against age-old religious prejudices.
Truly, the environmental front line is not forests or endangered species or the ozone
layer or global warming. The front line of the environmental movement is, or should
be, family planning clinics and abortion centres.
X-Files star speaks out against paranoia and pseudoscience
The X-Files actor William B. Davis, who plays the sinister "Cigarette-Smoking
Man" in the hit TV series, criticised public gullibility and paranoia in a special
meeting at the University of Southern California in October. Davis' talk, titled
"A Look at Skepticism through X-Files Eyes," was delivered to a joint meeting
of the Center for Inquiry and the Atheist, Agnostic and Humanist Group of the University
of Southern California.
The X-Files has been criticised for its role in promoting belief in government conspiracies
and cover-ups of alien invasions and paranormal phenomena. At the centre of all The
X-Files' conspiracies is "The Cigarette-Smoking Man". Despite his role
as the most famous "conspirator" in America, Davis will speak about the
dangers of uncritical belief in conspiracies, pseudo-science and the paranormal.
He will examine whether television, and The X-Files in particular, should be blamed
for the public's increasing hostility to critical thinking and orthodox science.
Matt Cherry, executive director of the Center for Inquiry, commented, "The
X-Files has generated a tidal wave of belief in the paranormal, at the same
time as creating a paranoid fear about our own government. Davis will explain
how critical thinking and the scientific method can help us find a happy
medium between gullibility and paranoia."
(Source: Council of Secular Humanism internet newsletter)
Return to Contents
Book Reviews
On the Eve of the Millennium:
The Future of Democracy Through an Age of Unreason
(The Free Press, 1995), by Conor Cruise O'Brien
O'Brien sets the scene for his book by quoting in its
entirety The Second Coming. The poem sits perfectly
although W B Yeats wrote for a different time and
had no 'millennial' date in mind. A reasonable
perspective might compel the reader to accept that
history is always 'on the eve' of something or other
and that the magical line-up of three zeroes has no
significance. Among those who attach metaphysical
importance to the year 2000 the current pope sees it
as his destiny to usher in some kind of triumphant
new religious epoch. On the verge of the putative
bimillennium of the Christian era, O'Brien interestingly
quotes Jules Michelet, from his History of France,
commenting on the unrealised superstitious
expectations of the year 1000 CE. Surprisingly nothing
of a supernatural order happened on that occasion;
we may expect more of the same this time around.
Mr O'Brien brings vast experience, based on a long
and successful life as a politician and a bureaucrat,
together with wonderful scholarship and literary talent,
to focus on his chosen topic. His confidence and skill
are admirable, his opinions are powerful and his
arguments carefully constructed. O'Brien holds the
view that the Enlightenment tradition is at risk from
the menace of an alliance between the Vatican and
Islam; that democracy is threatened by its inherent
weakness, by tabloid journalism and by terrorism; and
that civilisation and human survival are endangered
by uncontrollable population growth.
There is something of the patrician about Conor Cruise
O'Brien; he is an Irish Anglophile who tends to equate
the United States (and 'the American ethical
imperative') with all that is worthwhile. The book
might be seen as a thinking man's conspiracy theory,
as secular prophecy or simply as a collection of witty
observations. It is much more, as the problems
presented are real and pressing while easy solutions
are nowhere apparent. Given the mass of nonsense
that has been written about the 'm' word, it is an
immense relief to find something on the subject that
is intelligent, challenging and worthwhile.
The ultimate paragraph, contains this sentence: 'The
millennium should be an occasion for self-
questioning, for rational apprehension, above all for
trying to clear our heads, before it is too late.' Most
people in this country seem content to make it an
excuse for wasting public funds, for getting drunk or
for making a quick dollar.
Peter Murphy
The Catlins Collection
(Morepork Press, Invercargill, 1998), by Lynley Millar
Readers will recall the intelligent and perceptive columns written for this journal
by Lynley Millar a year or two ago. After withdrawing from the Adam’s Rib column,
Lynley devoted her time to a collection of impressions of one of the most beautiful
and isolated parts of New Zealand.
Subtitled "Verse and Vistas - A Personal Journey’, this short work has 31 poems,
accompanied with a line drawing and a paragraph or two of prose telling us about
one aspect or another of this unique area.
Lynley’s aim is to both express the "spectacular yet subtle and elusive"
beauty of the area, and to encourage the enjoyment others may find in the Catlins,
whether being there physically, or enjoying it through this book. Lynley talks of
the many moods of the Catlins, but for me there was one mood that dominated. Sadness
might be too strong a word; perhaps melancholy. These poems speak to me of the fragility
and the cruelty of nature. They are about nature, the nature that can be brutalised
by mankind, but the same nature that will return once homo sapiens" brief whirlwind
has blown out.
Yes, melancholy is a better word, because there is a warmth in melancholy that is
absent in sadness. One can weep for joy in melancholy as one cannot in sadness. These
poems are about nature as it expresses itself in one small part of the world, and
about the humility, doubt and eventual happiness that humans can, with difficulty,
achieve when nature is looked at sensitively and with love.
Bill Cooke
Return to Contents
Letters to Editor
Dear Bill
I was so pleased to read the article "Is Humanism a Religion?" in the Winter
1999 issue of the journal. When I read some time ago the views , or reviews of the
works of Beverley Earles, I concluded that her view of what Humanism means and what
it is about must differ markedly from mine. I was surprised at the general response,
amounting almost to acclaim, that her views elicited. I considered her to be virtually
a fraud.
On reflection, I suppose it depends upon how widely you define the term "religion"
as to whether you can include Humanism under that heading. I have found a definition,
or rather an analysis of the essence of religion, as propounded by the eminent historian
Arnold Toynbee in one of his works, to be helpful. He lists the primary features
of religion, or at least of the main religions of the world, as being beliefs in:
a) the existence of a deity, call it God or Creator or what you will;
b) the existence of a soul or some sort of spiritual concept outside the material things
we know in this life; and
c) some sort of existence after death.
He proceeds to list a number of secondary or peripheral features that occur in most
if not all religions. These include: holy places; shrines, temples and churches;
rites and rituals; moral rules of frameworks for everyday living; a priesthood or
superior sect or caste; codes of dress, hair, beards; and holy writings.
Under this approach or definition, which I think is entirely valid, it is not possible
that Humanism, as we understand the term today, can be classed as a religion. Not
only is it wrong to treat Humanism as being a religion, but it is misleading and
unhelpful, especially for the many people who are not in the Humanist movement but
are disillusioned or dissatisfied with religion, and possibly looking for "somewhere
to go".
That there is, for want of a better term, a spiritual side to human existence is
not denied. I experience something when listening to certain works of music, when
I contemplate a beautiful mountain. But that is another matter.
Norman Lewis
Tauranga
Dear Bill
I find no difficulty in accepting your arguments against describing
Humanism as a religion (NZ Rationalist & Humanist, Winter
1999, pp 2-6), especially as Humanists customarily describe
Humanism as an alternative to religion.
However, I find it difficult to accept your rejection of Beverley
Earles' argument that there is a faith dimension in Humanism.
She defines 'faith' in this context as 'a response of fundamental
commitment and trust to the challenge of existence'. One of the
usual meanings of faith, according to the Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary, is 'belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or
authority'. I tend to see Humanism as a rational faith based on
the evidence or testimony of human experience in the natural
world. I do not think this is a blind faith.
Authoritative statements on the nature of Humanism generally
refer to it as a faith. For instance the declaration made by the
Congress which in 1952 inaugurated the International Humanist
and Ethical Union, to which the NZARH belongs, described
Ethical Humanism as 'a faith that answers the challenge of our
times'. The Humanist Manifesto of 1973 declared that its
affirmations 'are not a final credo or dogma but an expression
of a living and growing faith.'
Leading Humanists also have referred to the idea of faith in their
statements about Humanist beliefs. For instance Paul Kurtz in
his book Eupraxophy (p 56), when pointing out the need of
Humanists for courage, asserts: 'They have confidence in the
ability of human beings to overcome alienation, solve the
problems of living and develop the capacity to share the goods
of life and empathise with others.' Surely this is a kind of faith.
Bertrand Russell in his pamphlet The Faith of a Rationalist (of
which I have a copy) appears to base his faith on his admiration
for two special human qualities - kindly feeling and veracity.
He justifies his emphasis on these qualities by observations on
human experience. In this statement of his life stance he asks
the question 'What sort of things is it reasonable to believe
without proof?' and gives the following answer: 'The facts of
sense-experience and the principles of mathematics and logic -
including the inductive logic employed by science.' His faith
would appear to be based on a rational assessment of human
experience.
Thus I would argue that there is good reason for asserting that
there is a faith dimension in Humanism.
Yours sincerely
Jim Dakin
Wellington
Editor's response: We all agree on the divergence between
Humanism and religion. Good. The issue over faith could become
one of how we define the word. The definitions Jim Dakin uses
would indeed give Humanism a faith dimension. The question
is, are they meaningful? I don't think so. They are also
contradictory. His dictionary definition conflicts with Beverley
Earles' and again with the notion of a rational faith - an idea I
regard as a non sequitur. We do not need faith for something we
can find reasons for. Faith is by definition irrational, as the New
Testament recognises when it sees faith as an assurance of what
is hoped for, a conviction of unseen realities (Hebrews 11:1).
Also, it has to be said that most of Jim's examples have now been
superseded. The IHEU wording reflects the unhelpful influence
of Julian Huxley, whose ever-more mystical brand of Humanism
succeeded only in muddying the waters. Humanist Manifesto II
was replaced by the Secular Humanist Declaration of 1980 for
precisely the reason that the second manifesto laid humanism open
to the charge of being a religion. And there is certainly no use of
the concept of faith in Humanist Manifesto 2000.
Return to Contents
Nostradamnonsense
Failed Biblical Prophecies
- Adam should have died the day he ate the dodgy apple (Genesis 2:16-7)
Adam actually survived the expulsion from Eden and lived 930 years.
- Abraham was to receive the land of
Canaan and his descendants were to retain it forever. (Genesis 17:3-8)
Jewish control over their promised land has always been decidedly tenuous.
- Jewish territory to extend from the Nile to the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18)
Look at any atlas.
- David’s kingdom to be eternal and his progeny will rule forever (2 Samuel 7:16)
David’s corpse was hardly cold and his kingdom started looking fragile.
- Solomon’s throne to be everlasting (2 Chronicles 9:8)
Solomon’s corpse was hardly cold and his kingdom collapsed forever.
- Damascus to become a heap of ruins (Isaiah 17:1)
Damascus is still there, one of the oldest continuously settled cities on earth.
- God will dry up the Nile so that it will run empty (Isaiah 19:5)
Unless God is working through the Aswan Dam, we’ve yet to see progress on this one.
- Jerusalem to be a city of perpetual tranquillity (Isaiah 33:20)
Try telling the crusaders that, or the Muslims, or the Turks...
- The ten tribes of Israel to be restored to Judah (Jeremiah 33:7)
Seems that the Jews preferred the fleshpots of Babylon.
- Tyre shall be destroyed forever (Ezekiel 26:1-14)
Look at any atlas: Tyre lives!
- The believer in Jesus will never hunger or thirst (John 6:35)
I guess we take that one metaphorically, huh?
- You’ll not taste death because of the imminent coming of the kingdom
(Matthew 16:27-8, Luke 9:27)
And they’re still waiting...
- I am coming soon (Revelation 3:11)
...and waiting
- Behold, I come quickly (Revelation 22:7)
...and waiting.
But wait, there’s more!
Nostradamnonsense (speaking through Isaiah) has the reason for this prevalence of error:
"These also reel with wine and wander about because of strong drink;
bothpriest and prophet reel because of strong drink; they are victims of
wine; they wander about due to strong drink; they err in vision and stumble
in giving judgment." (Isaiah, 28:7)
Hallelujah brothers!
Sources: G W Foote & W P Ball, The Bible Handbook
(Pioneer Press, London, 1961) and C Dennis McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy
(Prometheus, Buffalo, 1995)
Return to Contents
Oddities
Honorary Associates - Focus on...
Paul Kurtz, Richard Dawkins, Richard Leakey, Taslima Nasrin, Anwar Shaikh,
Lewis Wolpert, H James Birx, Timothy J Madigan, Michael Martin, Ibn Warraq;
they all signed Humanist Manifesto 2000.
Fifty Years Ago
It is time that the great majority of people, about 80 in every 100, who desire to
pass Sundays in their own way, spoke up and demanded that petty restrictions be abolished.
There is nothing in the way of this being accomplished but the moaning protest of
church addicts, who, as a body, are selfish and interfering, and in no way better
citizens than golfers, fishermen, tennis players and motorists. They, too, would
be stopped and thrown into restrictive gloom by the narrow-minded, were it possible.
It is unheard of that anyone wants to stop a church service while a football match
is in progress, but according to these pious busybodies the match should not defile
any part of the day on which their services are held.
NZ Rationalist, November 1949
The Last Word
The Natural Law Party will maintain a group of 1000 Yogic
Flyers to create an indomitable influence of harmony and
positivity throughout the country by enlivening the Unified
Field of Natural Law in national consciousness.
A group of 1000 Yogic Flyers will create harmony,
positivity, and coherence - integrated national consciousness
- preventing internal weakness in all areas of national life.
Integrated national consciousness results in an invincible
shield for the nation, which automatically prevents harmful
foreign influences from disturbing the country's internal
peace and harmony.
Natural Law Party election pamphlet
Er, right, thanks guys...yeah, great.
Return to Contents
|
|