NZARH Journal - Winter 2000
Contents
EditorialBill Cooke
The Building Blocks of Religion
Timothy Delaney
Southern Lights
Russell Dear
The Rationalist Agenda for the New Century
Sanal Edamaruku
Humanist Manifesto 2000
A Universal Commitment to Humanity as a Whole
Giordano Bruno and the Right to Dream
Peter Murphy
Adam's Rib
Anne Ferguson
Stranger Than Fiction
Elizabeth McKenzie
Current Comments
Book Reviews
Letters to Editor
Oddities
"Who so icheth to philosophy must set to work by putting all things to doubt."
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
Editorial
Y3KJ
Well, we've survived the millennium. Jesus hasn't returned to judge the living and the dead. The papers printed the mandatory range of warm Christmas messages. On the one hand religious liberals told us how nice Jesus the man was and how humanist his ideas really are. But on the other hand, religious conservatives retold the traditional story that Christ died for our sins, if only we would open our hearts and hear the message. The more high-brow magazines ran their inquiring articles about the state of Jesus as the end of the millennium. And most of the churches have taken down their '2000 years since what...' signs. The few who take the Christian basis of the millennium seriously complained to anyone who would listen that we have forgotten the reason for the season. But most people continued to ignore their ever more shrill pleas. But do they have a point?No. Scholars the world over have been warning of the ever-growing gulf between the Jesus of the scholarly understanding and the Christ that believers like to think they know. Van Harvey, a prominent New Testament scholar has commented: 'Anyone teaching the origins of Christianity to college undergraduates or divinity students cannot help but be struck by the enormous gap between what the average layperson believes to be historically true about Jesus of Nazareth and what the great majority of New Testament scholars have concluded after a century and a half of research and debate.' John Shelby Spong, the Episcopal Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, has gone further, describing this gap as a void. And Jim Veitch, a Presbyterian minister and Jesus scholar at Victoria University has ventured to explain the continued existence of this void. There is, Dr Veitch wrote in 1997, a 'deep, but disguised scholarly reluctance to fully apply the historical method to a study of the Gospels, because the impact the outcome might have for the figure of Jesus and the faith of the Church.'
We see evidence of this void every time we pass one of those '2000 years since what...?' signs. They are testimony to the appalling chasm of non-communication between Christian scholars and many Christian believers. In 1998 Dr Veitch used Easter and Christmas to highlight his con- viction that the Christian community has failed to come to terms with the implications of the image of Jesus that 150 years of scholarship has rediscovered.
Put basically, most scholars (outside sectarian colleges and seminaries) are agreed that Jesus was a Jew and had no intention of forming a new religion independent of Judaism. He would certainly have been horrified at the record of hatred to his own people from the religion that claims to speak in his name. Paul was the founder of Christianity as a new religion separate from Judaism, not Jesus. The Jewish nature of Jesus has been so systematically hidden from view, that we don't even call him by his proper name (Joshua), but by the Greek translation of his name. The person whom Christians call Jesus Christ would in all likelihood have been called Rabbi Joshua by his contemporaries.
Very few of the statements attributed to 'Jesus' in the Christian New Testament are likely to actually be his words. Indeed, the gospels are usually recognised to be post facto proclamations of a message that Jesus would have had difficulty understanding, let alone claiming ownership of. And one of the few things that scholars of the New Testament are agreed on is that the gospels were not written by the people under whose names they are traditionally given. Those gospels did not start appearing with the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John attached to them until more than a century after Jesus's death.
Rabbi Joshua's impact was so localised that he failed to attract the attention of any writer of the time who was not already a convinced believer. Even fellow Jewish authors such as Josephus and Philo did not mention him. As the prominent New Testament scholar E P Sanders wrote, Jesus became such an important figure in world history that it is hard to appreciate how unimportant he was during his lifetime. This transformation from unsuccessful provincial Jewish demagogue to light and saviour of the world is, to say the least, an impressive promotion. Indeed, one can follow the progressive divinisation of this poor man from the Jewish demagogue in 'Mark' to the saviour of the world in 'John'. In each successive gospel, Rabbi Joshua is successively rubbed out and replaced by Jesus Christ. I feel sorry for Joshua. Everything he truly believed in was forgotten and submerged under a pile of foreign platitudes and alien ideas. 2000 years since what? Since the biggest make- over job in history. And who can count the consequences of that?
Bill Cooke
Return to Contents
The Building Blocks of Religion
A Sociological Overview
Timothy Delaney
Religion is one of the oldest social institutions of human society. Religion is a major social institution because it carries out important social functions and encompasses a great variety of organisations. Defining religion is not easy. One could begin with a definition that has a concept of God as its core, but many religions do not have a clear concept of God. One could also define religions in terms of the emotions of spirituality, oneness with nature, mystery and many other feelings, but that does not provide a very helpful definition. Sociologists define religion as any set of coherent answers to the dilemmas of human existence that makes the world meaningful; a system of beliefs and rituals that serves to bind people together into a social group.Religion has played an important role in nearly all societies throughout time. The earliest forms of religion were polytheistic paganism. Religious answers to life's mysteries were often very irrational and seldom based on fact or knowledge. As society evolved a new social force emerged. The once unexplainable natural phenomena (eg, lunar and solar eclipses) were now being answered coherently through science. During the nineteenth century, many intellectuals believed that religion would eventually be replaced by science. Religion, they believed, was irrational and science therefore was better equipped to answer questions that plagued mankind. After all, science, is based on fact and religion is based on belief.
One such intellectual, Karl Marx, went as far as stating that religion was the 'opiate of the masses,' that it existed chiefly to pacify the poor, by turning their attention away from the misery of their life in this world and toward a happier one in 'the afterlife' (Glock & Stark, 1965 & McLellan, 1987). Marx argued that religion exists because it helps the ruling elite keep the masses docile, controllable, and exploitable. It does so in two ways: directly, by preaching that existing social arrangements are not only fair but sacred and therefore must be maintained, and indirectly, by focussing the believer's attention on a promise of a world beyond (Goode, 1988). Marx argued that religion serves to legitimate the social, economic, and political order, and thus allows the ruling elite to continue exploiting the masses.
Marx referred to religion as a form of slavery that was explicitly evil, and hampered man's attempt to reach their full human potential (Carlebach, 1978). For Marx the existence of a higher entity than man was not even conceivable (Aptheker, 1968). Marx believed that the world was a place of man and it was not a place of religion. It was man who made the world what it was and it was up to man to change it for the better, and no amount of church going or prayer could save the world, it was up to man to save the world. Consequently for Marx, religion is not necessary; it is universal only because exploitation is universal.
Max Weber, an intellectual of the early twentieth century, used religion to help explain the growth of capitalism. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905), Weber traced the impact of Protestantism - primarily Calvinism - on the rise of the spirit of capitalism. Calvinism was the belief that working hard on Earth would result in rewards in the afterlife. Only a select few would make it to Heaven. The individual looks for signs of grace to see if they are one of the chosen few. Protestantism succeeded in turning the pursuit of profit into a moral crusade. Ideas such as, 'time is money,' 'be industrious,' 'be frugal,' were all in the spirit of capitalism. This spirit allowed capitalists to ruthlessly pursue economic riches, in fact, it was their ethical duty. Workers could cling to their work as if it were a life purpose willed by God. The spirit of capitalism legitimised an unequal distribution of goods as if it were a special dispensation of Divine Providence.
The spirit of Calvinism helped to explain the growth of capitalism in the west, but Weber also wished to explain why capitalism did not grow in other societies. Weber found that 'irrational' religious systems inhabit the growth of a rational economic system. In China, Confucianism led people to simply accept things as they were. Active engagement in a profitable enterprise was regarded as morally incorrect. Taoism was essentially traditional with one of its basic tenets, do not introduce innovations. This approach to life did not motivate followers to innovative action. In India, with its structural barriers of the caste system, which hampered social mobility, tended to regulate most aspects of people's lives. The Hindu religion, with its irrational belief of reincarnation, was completely opposite to the Calvinist belief in predestination. The Hindu merely gains merit for the next life. This idea system failed to produce the kind of people who would create a capitalist, rational economy.
Whereas Marx and Weber examined religion primarily from political and economic points of view, Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist of the early twentieth century, described religion as a system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things that unite their adherents into a kind of moral community (Durkheim, 1915). Sacred items are those that we set apart and show reverence toward; the sacred is felt to be holy. The opposite of the sacred is the 'profane; - whatever is ordinary, mundane and secular. All societies distinguish things that are sacred from those that are profane. Durkheim believed that religion binds members of a community (society) together. In fact, religion, he argued, is the worship of society itself. In the act of worship, through religious rituals, society's members renew their bonds with one another and with society. Durkheim's belief that religion contributes to the stability, the cohesion, and the survival of all societies by binding a society's members together and making them loyal to it, would become the foundation of functionalist thought (Goode, 1988).
Functions of Religion
Religion helps to put order in our lives. It serves to explain and justify our place in the world. Religion tells its believers that the practices of a specific society are not a mere accident of history but cosmic in origin: eternal, inevitable, God- given. Religion offers a version of reality that 'makes sense' out of a vast, ever-changing and confusing world. Religion attempts to provide meaning in a seemingly meaningless universe. In Durkheim's sense of religion - dividing the world into the sacred and profane and establishing rituals around these beliefs - religion is universal. The reason for its universality, say functionalists, is that religion meets basic human needs (Henslin, 1993). Religion, then, provides many functions for people and society. Some of these functions are detailed in the following sections.One: Social Solidarity
Religion has always attempted to explain the unexplainable, and it is an institution that people have turned to for protection and guidance. Religion comes from the Latin word religare, meaning 'to bind together.' Religion is a way of getting a large group of people together to conform to common beliefs and values, where shared perspectives shape a 'we' feeling (eg 'we Jews', 'we Hindus') among its members. Thus, religion creates a bond among members to form a sense of community. Community, which has taken many structural forms in the past, may best be defined as a network of social relations marked by mutuality and emotional bonds (Bender, 1991). Community implies shared interests, characteristics or association, as in the expression 'community of interest' (Foster, 1990). Nisbet (1969) describes community as a fusion of feeling and thought, of tradition and commitment, of membership, psychological strength and historically and symbolically as family. Social solidarity among its members helps religion to form a sense of community. 'This idea was central to Durkheim's functionalist analysis of religion; in short, Durkheim claimed that religion was society' (Farley, 1998, p 363).
Two: Social Control
Nearly all religions have followings, memberships with common identities, practices, and world views that bind people together and set them apart from other groups. Religion forms a 'moral community' of like-minded people. This allows for constant reinforcement of beliefs and values (eg, the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, the Koranic rules). Religion attempts to control the behaviours of its followers by telling them what they need to do in order to gain salvation. Violating the rules can lead to strong negative sanctions.
For many people who practice religion, the beliefs that are rehearsed in the church or temple are those that are practised in everyday life. A religious person often refers to their church teachings when choosing what is right and wrong. If a person follows their religious beliefs throughout their life then they have faith that there is a place for them in an eternal world. In some societies, such as Iran, religion is the dominating force behind social control efforts. If you hold an opposing religious viewpoint you may face persecution. For that reason, the United States has a separation of church and state. Citizens of the US are free to pursue the religious expressions of their choice, but they must not violate civil law. This has caused a great deal of controversy on issues such as school prayer, abortion, birth control and the death penalty. The issue of social control becomes quite clouded when many religious groups oppose abortion while the US government guarantees the right of freedom of choice, including the right to have an abortion.
Most norms of a religious group apply only to its members, but some set limits on non-members as well. At times, for example, religious teachings are even incorporated into criminal law. In the United States, for example, blasphemy and adultery were once statutory crimes for which offenders could be arrested, tried, and sentenced. Laws that prohibit the sale of alcohol before noon on Sunday - or even Sunday sales of 'non-essential items' in some places - are another example (Henslin, 1993).
Three: Ceremonies of Status
Religion serves to confer legitimacy on a society's norms and values. Ceremonies of status represent the passing of one level to another. Baptisms, bar mitzvahs, confirmations, and other religious ceremonies mark the passage of children through their developmental stages and are occasions for statements about proper conduct and behaviour (Kornblum, 1994).
Rituals are generally associated with ceremonies of religious status. Rituals are usually specific, prescribed acts that take place within concrete, sacred contexts, such as public church services. Rituals are a system of established rites and ceremonies. Rituals and practices are outward behavioural expressions of a religion that adherents act out in order to reaffirm their devotion. 'Participation in ritual not only symbolises faith but also reaffirms and sustains it. When Christians take the communion wine and wafer, symbolising Christ's blood and body, they renew ties with Christianity as a whole. When Muslims face Mecca to pray, they renew their ties with Islam.' (Goode, 1988, p 371)
Four: Self-Esteem and Identity
Another function served by religion is the affirmation of social status. Not only does religion offer its adherents a sense of belonging (or community) and provide a meaning for life, it also offers a sense of self-identity and self-concept. Identity is acquired primarily through social interaction with others. Self-concept is not a fixed entity, it is subject to change, especially when presented by significant stimuli. For example, people who rise in the class system often change their religious memberships, just as they might change their neighbourhoods. There are many examples of this: in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as Pennsylvania's Friends (Quakers) became wealthy, they gradually became Episcopalians, because the Episcopal church had more social distinction than the Society of Friends (Baltzell, 1958). This social process continues today, and it is so common that clear-cut patterns have been established. Goode (1988) provides examples of these patterns: A Baptist lawyer from Georgia who moves to Los Angeles and becomes wealthy may well decide he could be more comfortable as a Methodist; the Orthodox Jewish physician who moves to the suburbs may decide to join a Conservative temple; the daughter of a Midwestern German Lutheran family who receives a PhD and gets a job teaching at a college may become a Unitarian.
Even within the religious confines, social identity can take many forms. The altar boy not only acquires an identity for himself but for his parents as well. Many members of the church community serve as ushers and donate time to a variety of church functions, thus creating a more positive identity. To have a member of your family serve as a clergyman is almost always a guaranteed form of self-esteem enhancement.
Five: Social Change
In many parts of the world religion is one of the primary forces opposing or supporting change. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church brokered a deal with 'royal' European kingdoms. In order for the Church to survive, it supported royalty through the concept of the 'Divine Right of Kings', thus securing the Church's role in society at the sake of masses who suffered needlessly.
In the United States today, the Catholic Church plays an active role in seeking social change. The church strongly opposes women's right to obtain a legal abortion. Instead, it supports a return to the traditional view of abortion as a crime, which is based on the belief that humans must submit to the will of god and not use technology to achieve power over life and death. Thus the social change advocated is a reactionary one. In contrast, throughout much of Latin America the Catholic Church is fighting in support of the poor masses who seek social justice and equitable economic development. Interestingly, in 1996, Pope John Paul II urged Argentina's Roman Catholic bishops to examine their consciences and beg for forgiveness for any crimes committed by Catholic Church members during the country's 'dirty war'. Some member served as revolutionary guerrillas (Los Angeles Times, 1996B)
Before the Civil War, almost all Christian churches in the South described slavery as 'God's will'. Many Northern churches opposed slavery, In 1996 the Christian Coalition, in a professed spirit of 'repentance' for the past sins of white Southern Christianity, pledged that they would raise one million dollars to help rebuild African American churches that were burned (Harrison, 1996).
Many religious leaders use ideas of moral reform to attack the wrongs of society and bring about necessary change to balance past inequalities. Rev. Martin Luther King used religious ideas to help spirit the civil rights movement of the 1960s to fight racial oppression.
Six: Psychological Support
A primary function of religion is providing emotional and spiritual support to its followers. Psychological support is especially important when a family member has died. The religious community unites and provides much needed support for the grieving family. Social researchers have devoted considerable effort to studying the actual effects of religious participation on psychological well-being. Most studies show positive effects (Lea, 1982; Witter et al., 1985; Bergin et al., 1988; Schumaker, 1992), although many only show small effects and the studies are not entirely consistent (Willits and Crider, 1988; Peterson and Roy, 1985; Chamberlin and Zika, 1992). Most likely the overall effect of religion on mental well-being is positive, but there appear to be some negative effects as well.
Psychological support is also critical during times of questioning one's faith and purpose in life. Many people find much needed comfort through the religious guidance of clergy. In short, psychological support is comforting during times of crisis (eg., illness, sickness) and times of happiness (eg., marriage). Thus, a primary function of religion is providing meaning for life's many uncertainties. Unfortunately, quite often these explanations are very irrational and dysfunctional.
Dysfunctional Aspects of Religion
Robert Merton (1968) was one of the first functionalists to emphasise that just because a social institution exists, one should not assume that all aspects of that institution are functional. He explained that any item of the social system may have negative consequences, which lessens its overall effectiveness and contribution to the system.Although religion often promotes solidarity, it can only serve this function on the societal level if there is some degree of consensus on religion. In the United States the vast majority have historically identified with the Judaeo-Christian tradition and until recently, religion has generally promoted solidarity. However, the 1980s and 1990s have been marked by heightened conflicts between followers of traditional, fundamentalist religions and those who follow more liberal religions or no religion at all.
The differences in religious beliefs in the United States are mild compared to many parts of the world. Some countries are dominated by religious groups that have little in common, or see one another's beliefs as being in opposition. Deep religious beliefs often entail intolerance toward people of other religious beliefs resulting in persecution, conflict and war.
War and Conflict
Religion is perhaps the single leading cause of war and conflict throughout human history. During the Middle Ages, Christian monarchs conducted nine bloody crusades in an attempt to gain control of the Holy Land from the Muslims. Unfortunately, religious conflicts are not a thing of the past.
1/. Muslims versus Hindus -
Tension between Hindus and Muslims in India date back centuries. One of the most violent manifestations occurred when the British pulled out of India in 1947 and split the old empire into India and Pakistan along Hindu-Muslim lines. Violence erupted following the partition leaving about a million people dead and sparked one of history's great migrations, forcing ten million Hindus and Muslims to flee their homes (Filkins, 1998).
In December 1992, a mob of fundamentalist Hindus attacked a 350 year old mosque in India. Several thousand strong and armed with little more than picks and shovels, they tore it down in a matter of hours. The primarily Hindu local police looked on but did not intervene. Within a week over one thousand people were dead. In India, Pakistan, Britain and elsewhere, Hindu temples were attacked in retaliation (Farley, 1998).
Muslim militants were suspected in a series of bombings in 1998 that killed at least forty people and wounded hundreds more in the southern city of Coimbatore. The bombings sparked clashes between Hindu and Muslim mobs.
2/. Protestants versus Catholics -
In Northern Ireland thousands of people have lost their lives in violence between Catholics and Protestants. The Catholics in Northern Ireland want to unite with the Republic of Ireland and want British presence off their island. The Protestants, fearing they will lose their political power if unification takes place, want to remain loyal to the United Kingdom.
Most people agree that 'the troubles' of Ulster, had their origins in a protest in Duke Street in 1968. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association decided to march from the railway station by the River Foyle to the Diamond in the centre of town. They never got there. The government of Northern Ireland in Stormont banned the march and police from the RUC attacked with batons those that defied the ban. By nightfall, the Catholic heartland of the Bogside was in full riot, particularly around what later came to be known as Aggro Comer (Out There News, 1996)
Northern Ireland is dominated by 'marches' and parades on the part of both the Catholics and Protestants. They routinely lead to violence, destruction, and death. Every attempt at cease-fire agreements predictably ends in conflict. During one cease-fire attempt in 1998 arsonists set fire to ten Catholic churches in Belfast. The 200 year-old St James' Church west of Belfast, the provincial capital, was left in ruins (Los Angeles Times, 1998).
3/. Muslims versus Christians -
Conflicts between these two religions can be traced back to at least the Middle Ages. Tension is a constant reality between Muslims and Christians. For example, in April of 1999 alone, two conflicts can be documented. In Indonesia, Christians and Muslims armed with swords, spears and home- made bombs battled and burned places of worship, escalating the deadly religious fighting between them. (Daily Breeze, 1999). And in the Middle East, tensions between Muslims and Christians in the Israeli town of Nazareth erupted into riots on Easter Sunday in which at least seven people were injured. Police battled to break up clashes over a disputed tract near the Basilica of the Annunciation, the holiest Christian site in the predominantly Arab city. Muslims are angry over the planned construction of a plaza for millennium Christians pilgrims near a mosque (Los Angeles Times, 1999).
4/. Muslims versus Orthodox Christians versus Roman Catholic Christians
More than anywhere else in Europe, religion and nationality merge in the Balkans, enabling the creation of potent propaganda and a unique myth or story that can be used to inspire hatred. Yugoslavia sat on an invisible fault line between the Islamic Middle East and the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity. Through the centuries each faith has attempted to gain control over the religious identity of the region (Rubin, 1999). In the Balkans religious identification has become part of national identity. The war in Kosovo underscored the problematic nature of involvement by outside nations. The root of the problem is religion, not politics.
5/. Jews versus Arabs
Perhaps no one single place commands as much religious intolerance as the Middle East, where Jews have an on-going battle with Arabs. Israel itself is a political compensation given to Jews following the devastating efforts of Nazi Germany, when Hitler attempted genocide against the entire Jewish people.
Religious Persecution
Throughout time many people have been victimised by religious persecution. Beginning in the 1200s and continuing into the 1800s, in what has become known as the Inquisition, Roman Catholic leaders burned convicted witches at the stake. In 1692, Protestant leaders in Salem, Massachusetts, did the same thing (Henslin, 1993). The last execution for witchcraft was in Scotland in 1722 (Bridgwater, 1953). Certainly the Aztec religion has its dysfunctional aspects - at least for the virgins offered to appease angry gods. In short, religion has been used to justify oppression and any number of violent acts.There is, perhaps, no better justification for the separation of church and state than to allow the freedom from religious persecution. The creators of the United States left their homelands because of religious persecution. Through the years, religion has gone from being a belief in one's own faith to a justification of conformity to the dominant group. No one has the right to tell you what to believe, but in the United States, they can try to convince you that their beliefs are right.
Some religious fanatics anoint themselves judge, juror and executioner and take civil law into their own hands. One such crazed fanatic is Paul J Hill, who five years ago murdered a defenceless doctor and his escort at a Florida abortion clinic. Hill is not only free from feelings of remorse, he is proud that he killed two people. On July 29, 1994, he lay in wait in the parking lot outside the Pensacola Ladies Centre with a loaded 12-gauge shotgun and fourteen shells. When 69 year old Dr John Bayard Britton, and Britton's escort, James H Barrett, 74, arrived, Hill committed cold-blooded, intentional murder.
Hill has said that he would not rule out the use of chemical or biological weapons by anti-abortion activists, and has said that it may be 'just' to assassinate Supreme Court justices who support legal abortion. Hill also believes that any faith other than 'true' Christian worship is in the service of Satan (Goldstein, 1999). Extremists like Hill have no place in civil society, nor do they try to hide their ignorance and lack of acceptance of others whose beliefs are different from his own. This type of intolerance cannot be accepted in civilised societies.
Irrationalities of Religious Beliefs
Religious persecution, war and conflict are not the only dysfunctional aspects of religion. In trying to provide answers to life's meaning and providing interpretations of reality, religion is often guilty of many irrational explanations. These irrational explanations would be comical if not for the fact that they influence so many followers. The following are but a few of the countless examples of this type of illogic.* In Niger hundreds of people attacked bars and bordellos used by women accused of causing a drought. Police imposed a curfew after the mob injured three people. The mob was urged on by marabouts, charlatans claiming to be Muslim holy men. The marabouts said the women's 'indecent' dress and conduct were responsible for the lower- than-normal rainfall (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1992)
* Pop superstar Michael Jackson had to reschedule a concert in Jerusalem in an attempt to make his sponsor, Pepsi-Cola, kosher again in the eyes of rabbis. A Saturday night concert had been scheduled but Jewish ritual law forbids all trading between sundown on Friday and the appearance of at least three stars in the heavens on Saturday night (Los Angeles Times, 1993A)
* A man admitted that he committed a bank robbery that netted the largest single haul in Los Angeles history, but testified that he had been 'commanded' to do so by God. "The Lord specifically commanded me to rob the bank so that's what I did," said James Ambrose McGrath (Tamaki, 1993). McGrath said that it was not morally wrong to rob banks because the Lord had commissioned him.
* The leaders of a church in Los Angeles admitted to having sexual rituals, but claimed that they were a part of their religion that had been handed down from ancient times (Los Angeles Times, 1993B). Los Angeles police agreed that these sexual rituals were ancient in nature, specifically the oldest profession of all - prostitution!
* In 1960, Democrat presidential candidate John F Kennedy, speaking to a Protestant group in Houston had to reassure potential voters that just because he was a Roman Catholic, he would not attempt to form an allegiance between Rome and Washington DC if he were elected (Las Vegas Review- Journal, 1993A).
* A bullet-shaped hunk of granite that served as a traffic barrier in a past life has been reincarnated as a Hindu shrine in San Francisco, drawing worshippers to an out-of-the- way clearing in Golden Gate park. Some devotees want permission to build a permanent shrine around the ex-traffic barrier (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1993C)
* Southern Baptists estimate that 46% of the people in Alabama risk going to hell. Religious leaders calculated a formula based on Scripture to come up with the figure (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1993B).
* Occasionally we hear of parents who refuse to allow medical treatment for their ill and dying children because providing medicine is somehow against God's will. One such example occurred in Oregon, when a man chose prayer over medicine to treat his seven year-old son's leukemia. He was convicted to criminally negligent homicide (Los Angeles Times, 1996A).
* According to police reports angry mobs in the Ivory Coast burned or beat to death two alleged sorcerers after a penis- shrinking scare spread from neighbouring Ghana. Such attacks are not uncommon in West Africa. At least twelve men were killed in Ghana in January by mobs accusing them of making penises shrink or vanish. Victims say sorcerers simply touch them and make their penises shrink or vanish by witchcraft, demanding money for their cure (Geller, 1999).
* Religious people are sometimes preoccupied with finding signs from God, whether they be signs of atonement, forgiveness, or that the Messiah is coming. In Israel, the birth of a red calf is causing quite a bit of attention. The red heifer is believed to be the first born in the Holy Land in two millennia. The debate over her theological importance is one of the more bizarre signs of the growing rupture between religious and secular Israelis (Auburn Citizen, 1997). The birth of a white buffalo calf in Wisconsin held spiritual significance to religious native-Americans. Floyd Hand, a Sioux medicine man from Pine Ridge, South Dakota, explained, "This is like the second coming of Christ on this island of North America. The legend is she [the buffalo calf] would return and unify the nations of the four colours - the black, red, yellow and white." (Billings Gazette, 1994) Not surprisingly, the birth of this rare buffalo calf has not lead to world harmony. Indeed, if future world unity is determined by the birth of calves, then rapture is surely nearby, and rational thought has clearly taken a major blow.
Conclusions
Sociologists have been interested in the role of religion in society for a long time. From the days of Marx, Durkheim and Weber, social thinkers have debated the many functions and dysfunctions of religion. Functionalists like Durkheim argue that religion makes a positive contribution to society as a whole. It contributes to the well-being of a society by encouraging social solidarity and social control. It provides meaning, identity and psychological support to society's members, and allows for moral reform and a measure of social change. Conflict theorists like Marx view religion as a means that the powerful have of exploiting and oppressing the masses. They believe that religion, like all social institutions, serve the interests of the ruling classes by focusing people's attention on salvation in the next world, thus distracting them from the injustices in this world. Weber, on the other hand, saw religion as far too complicated to be limited to simply a class conflict. Instead, he offered religion as an explanation as to why the industrial revolution occurred in some societies, and not in others.Religion possesses many dysfunctional aspects. An overzealous defence of a belief system, based on little, in any, facts, often leads to intolerance of other peoples' beliefs. These intolerances toward others has lead to religious persecution, conflict and war. Religion is also guilty of providing many irrational explanations for life's uncertainties. Society today is far too scientifically advanced to simply accept the traditional answers from centuries ago. Droughts are not caused by prostitutes and former traffic barriers are not reincarnated holy shrines.
As people begin to accept scientific explanations of reality, religion has slowly begun losing its power in society. This process is known as secularisation. Some sociologists see secularisation as a natural extension of modernisation, urbanisation, and industrialisation. Although other sociologists might point to the fundamentalist revival in American society, we must all accept certain logical, scientific conclusions. Lunar and solar eclipses are not the result of angry gods, but merely celestial body alignments and proper medication will save more lives than prayers. Perhaps the best practice any society should adopt is separation of church and state. After all, religion is still very important to many people and everyone should have the right to participate in religious rituals. But this must not come at the expense of others. No one should be able to impose their religious beliefs on to another. Therefore, religion should be practised in private without government interference and without interference on the government. Life is too short and precious to condemn others simply because of their religious beliefs.
Dr Tim Delaney lectures in Sociology at Canisius College, Buffalo, New York. This paper was originally presented at the Science and Society International Conference, held in St. Petersburg, June 21 and 24 1999.
Bibliography
Aptheker, Herbert, Marxism and Christianity (New York: Humanities Press, 1968)
Auburn Citizen, 'Red heifer creating a big sensation in Israel', 29.5.97
Baltzell, E Digby, Philadelphia Gentlemen (New York: Free Press, 1958)
Bender, Thomas, Community and Social Change in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991)
Bergin, AE, Stinchfield, RD, Gasko, TA, Masters, KS & Sullivan, CE, 'Religiousness and Mental Health Reconsidered: A Study of an Intrinsically Religious Sample', Journal of Counselling Psychology, 1998,34: 91-8
Billings Gazelle, 'Indian tribes pay respect to rare white buffalo calf, 2.9.94, p 4A
Bridgwater, William (ed), The Columbian Viking Desk Encyclopedia (New York: Viking, 1953)
Carlebach, Julius, Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978)
Chamberlin, K & Zika, S, 'Religiosity Meaning in Life, and Psychological Well-Being', pp 138-148 in Schumaker, John F (ed) Religion and Mental Health (New York: Oxford University Press) Daily Breeze, '31 Dead in Indonesia's Battle over Religions', 4.4.99, p A6
Durkheim, Emile, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (London: Allen & Unwin, 1915)
Farley, John, Sociology (Upper River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998)
Filkins, Dexter, '40 Killed, More than 200 Hurt by Bombs in India', Los Angeles Times, 15.2.98, p A4
Foster, Janet, Crime and Community in the City (New York: Routledge, 1990)
Geller, Andy, "Witch-doctors Torched After Men See Shrink', New York Post, 8.3.99
Glock, Charles, & Stark, Rodney, Religion and Society in Tension (Chicago; Rand McNally, 1965)
Goode, Erich, Sociology (Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988)
Goodstein, Steve, 'Unrepentant Killer Symbolic of Divide in National Ordeal over Abortion,' Buffalo News, 9.5.99, p A13
Harrison, Eric, 'Christian Coalition offers Blacks Repentance, Funds' Los Angeles Times, 19.6.96, p Al
Henslin, James H, Sociology (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1993)
Kornblum, William, Sociology (Fort Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace, 1994)
Las Vegas Review Journal, 'Niger Women Blamed for Drought, Attacked', 19.7.92, p 11A
Las Vegas Review Journal, 'Almanac', 12.9.93A, p 14A
Las Vegas Review Journal, 'Estimates of Lost Souls be Devils Baptists' 18.9.93B, p 8A
Las Vegas Review Journal, 'Ex-Traffic Barrier now a Shrine', 26.10.93C, p 1E
Lea, G, 'Religion, Mental Health, and Clinical Issues', Journal of Religion and Health, 21, 1982, pp 336-351
Los Angeles Times, 'Leaders of Church that Uses Sex Sue County', 24.9.93B, p B2
Los Angeles Times, 'Man Found Guilty in 111 Son's Death', 23.4.96A, p A12
Los Angeles Times, 'Bishop Apologises for Civil War Crimes', 28.4.96B, p A10
Los Angeles Times, '10 Catholic Churches in Northern Ireland Torched', 3.7.98
Los Angeles Times, 'Muslims, Christians Clash on Easter,' 5.4.99, p All
McLellan, David, Marxism and Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1987)
Merton, Robert K, Social Theory and Social Structure (New York: Free Press, 1968)
Nisbet, Robert, The Quest for Community (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969)
Out There News, "Duke Street, Civil Rights March 1968.' Guild Hall Press [also available online: www.outtherenews.com]
Peterson, L R & Roy, A, "Religiosity, Anxiety, and Meaning and Purpose: Religious Consequences for Psychological Well-Being', Review of Religious Research, 27: 49-62
Rubin, Alissa, 'Age-old Issues of Faith Underlie Balkan Test of Will', Los Angeles Times, 18.4.99
Schumaker, John F, 'Mental Health Consequences of lrreligion', pp 54-69 in Schumaker, John F (ed) Religion and Mental Health (New York: Oxford University Press)
Tamaki, Julie, 'God Told Him to Rob Banks, Man Testifies', Los Angeles Times, 30.9.93, p B3
Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Scribner, 1930 [1905])
Willits, F K & Crider, D M, 'Religion and Well-Being: Men and Women in the Middle Years,' Review of Religious Research, 26: 332-342
Witter, R A, Stock, W A, Okum MA & Harring, M J, 'Religion and Subjective Well- Being in Adulthood: A Quantitative Analysis', Review of Religious Research, 23: 332-342
Return to Contents
Southern Lights
When Change Hurts
Russell Dear
Little Johnny clutches his mother's hand in a tight grip, an apprehensive look on his face. He turns away from the stranger and wraps his other arm round his mother's leg. Little Marie, eyes wide like saucers, finger in mouth, clings to her father's thumb as the noisy engine revs up. These are young childrens' reactions to unfamiliar events. Who hasn't seen them? Visiting the doctor, the first day at school, meeting new baby sitters, there are many stressful situations where children turn to their parents for the comfort of a smile, or a hug to let them know that everything's OK. With encouragement and reassurance we learn to cope with perceived changes in our world. As we get older, we manage them on our own. At least, most of us do. There are some people, though, who find change worrying, unacceptable even. They tend to hold fixed world views on important issues and are not flexible in outlook. When circumstances change, or quick decisions have to be made they have no recourse but to fall back on fixed personal guidelines. For them, a set of rigid rules makes life bearable.One of the subjects that gains immediate response in our local paper's Letter to the Editor column is the issue of creationism versus evolution. The creationists fall back on authoritative, rigid Biblical interpretations to make their arguments, ones that are essentially quite straightforward. The evolutionist, knowing that the issues are more complicated, has a flexible approach. Perhaps it is not surprising that people have problems with the seemingly shifting sands of scientific knowledge, where models are continuously changing to adapt to increased understanding of our world.
A classic example of model evolution is that of our solar system. Early Greek philosophers placed the Earth at the centre of the universe with the sun, moon and known planets rotating around it. Despite this poor model Thales, in the sixth century BCE was able to predict the year of a solar eclipse. As more accurate measurements of the positions of the planets were obtained the simple concentric model broke down. It didn't explain, for example, why some planets changed direction in the sky. To overcome these problems, in about 120 BCE Hipparchus proposed a system of epicycles in which each planet was assumed to rotate in a circle, the centre of which rotated about the Earth. Later the system was refined until, at its most complicated, 77 circles were necessary to account for the motion of the nine heavenly bodies. This Earth-centred model gave fairly accurate measures of the positions of heavenly bodies. Lunar eclipses, for example, could be predicted within a few hours and the time of one year calculated to within a few minutes. In the sixteenth century Copernicus suggested a sun-centred system, based on circles, and fifty years later Kepler refined the new model to one based on ellipses. And so it went on, with Isaac Newton's laws of motion and gravitation, Einstein's relativity laws, each model having wider application and greater predictive value. The process never ends.
Contrast this type of knowledge with religious knowledge. Although different schisms of the Christian Church have different emphases, the core of knowledge is fixed. For some people, such a reassuringly unchanging belief system is bound to come into conflict with one where understanding evolves. For them change is tantamount to not knowing, and that is in direct conflict with religious dogma and therefore in direct conflict with their own personally held rigid beliefs.
Return to Contents
The Rationalist Agenda for the New Century
Sanal Edamaruku
Speech delivered during the Second International Rationalist Conference held at Trivandrum, India: 17-21 January 2000Moving forward the wheel of human progress has been the task of the rationalist movement from its early beginnings at the dawn of history. Meeting the challenges of nature and improving the conditions of human life, nurturing knowledge and spreading education, lightening the spirit of freedom and self-determination, of growth and development of the individual, encouraging creativity, cultivating responsibility, compassion, fraternity among humankind, guarding the ideals of justice and equality and human rights.
Understanding the conditions of their time and the needs and limitations of the society which they were destined to serve, rationalists had to meet different challenges through the ages. From the Lokayatas, the first known rationalists in ancient Asia, to our present time at the beginning of the third millennium of our chronology, the rationalist movement has come a long way. To rise to the demands of today's planetary society, this multifaceted, interrelated and interdependent community, a new global agenda for the rationalist movement, if it is to correspond with the complexity of the real world, has to be developed on a broad information base and in a wide frame with careful considerations and balances. Much has been analysed and proposed and discussed and worked out by rationalist leaders over the last years to develop a solid theoretical concept for the work to be done. And I am very happy that Prof. Paul Kurtz is with us during this conference, who has the merit of bringing the fruits of this long common discussion process into a form which reflects systematically all its general aspects while remaining very readable. The document, which he has set up, has met with appreciation and broad consents and has been endorsed by a wide spectrum of leaders of the movement, among them many who are with us in this conference - including myself. The document has the name Humanist Manifesto 2000. But it is, in fact, in the true sense and without any reservation, a rationalist manifesto. There is no contradiction in this. Rationalists, as we want to use the name, include of course all those rationalists who for technical or traditional reasons call themselves humanists, atheists, secularists or freethinkers.
While not all humanists etc. are necessarily also rationalists (for example religious humanists are not), rationalists do certainly subscribe to the ideals of humanism and they are freethinkers and secularists and strong atheists. While appreciating that we have reached a broad consensus about our common agenda within the international movement, a look back to the past century shows that it will depend on various different factors, if we shall be able to use our historic chances and to realise our aims. Not to deviate from our course, we need to understand the undercurrents and carefully watch the winds. We need to take the bearings and to implement course control whenever it proves necessary. We have to be alert and vigilant.
The Modern Age
Fear of conflict is a crippling weakness. In the known history of humankind every single step forward has been determined by men and women who had the courage and the strength to move against the prevailing tide. The wheel of progress has through the ages been rolled by those who would not submit to power structures, traditions and taboos, who were ready to face obstacles and fight resistance to move forward and further freedom and advance civilisation. Resistance came - vehemently, often with unimaginable brutality - from those, who enjoyed the fruits of the existing order, privileged minorities, equipped with authoritarian philosophies and military powers - and every time in good company of religion. It has, indeed, never been easy to move the wheel and thousands of courageous rationalists have paid the attempt in the torture chambers of the Inquisition. But heresies of yesterday often turned into accepted worldviews when they met the necessities and incensed the imagination of their times - and humankind made another leap forward. The modern rationalist movement made its first steps in the beginning of the last century. On the foundations established by Thomas Paine, Robert Green Ingersoll and Charles Bradlaugh, inspired by Renaissance and Enlightenment, rationalism - not withstanding its nomenclatures - emerged powerfully and broke open new avenues of thought. The authority of religion was challenged, social systems and hierarchies were questioned, unheard-of alternatives were discussed. The clarion of liberty called in dramatic changes in the hitherto known world order. The French Revolution and the ideals it had brought forward, the growing anti-colonial movements around the world and above all the everywhere arising resistance against the old social orders, against the dominance of religion over political structures, against oppression based on racial discrimination or caste systems - all these provided fertile ground for the growth of a new human species, a species that transcended frontiers of nations and borders of colonies and awakened thinking minds everywhere. Science emerged as a great force of liberation. Technology shortened distances and experiences. Information, freed from the treasure boxes of the former elite, became accessible for everybody.Communication broke monopolies and created new alliances. The horizon broadened. The world of gods and ghosts and the terrain of churches and empires shrinked. The great leap forward shook the power structures of the past and threatened to break them. And the cracking forces of reaction answered with all-out efforts to save their old position. And we have to admit that those efforts have been partially successful. They diluted the spirit of the great leap.
The bygone century has seen the rise of despotism, world wars, agonies and pain. Fascism emerged powerfully, with vigour supported by the Pope in distress. The holy symbiosis paid off for both sides: Mussolini presented the Pope generously with the Lateran Treaty, which granted him a special status for the Vatican. The Hitler Concordat offered him unprecedented privileges in the German Reich. Pious XII, in return, recognised the fascist states and used his authority to give them political and moral backing. He did not only look the other way when millions of humans were slaughtered, he blessed and awarded the slaughterers for their great services for Christianity - after all, the Jewish and Orthodox victims had the wrong religion.
The rule of fascism did not last its thousand years. But it lasted long enough to have a disastrous impact on Europe. The forces of progress suffered a hard blow. The movement was practically dissolved. To combat the fascist onslaught it had partly merged with resistance or communist movements and exhausted itself. There were countless victims, who paid for their conviction with their lives.
The Weak Phoenix
Time went by. The rationalist movement consolidated. But it was a weak Phoenix which had risen from the ashes. Despite great moral authority on its side and despite widespread optimism - sometimes even enthusiasm - for a new start into a better world, the historic chance to powerfully take up the spirit of the great leap and unite the world against the forces of reaction remained unused. The fascists lost the war - the Pope did not. There was no trial, the Vatican was never held responsible for its crimes. It continued to enjoy the fruits of collaboration and emerged a respected global political negotiator. Fury evaporated, memory faded, wounds healed. Thirst for a new world had to be quenched with soft drinks. Public memory, if not supported, is weak.The rationalist movement that had once been able to shake and brake the adversaries, grew and flourished again, but it had lost much of its determination and strength. The broad horizon, which once had been opened, moved out of reach and out of sight, the vision of a new world order got lost.
Fear of conflict took its toll, force of habit and lure of comfort and the little advantages which use to reward the obedient: corruption. Here and there symptoms of degeneration became visible and spread like an ailment. Armchair humanism developed in some parts of the movement, satisfying itself on Sunday afternoon with sweeping statements or just enjoying the tickling of playing cards on Sabbath. Feel-good humanism established hermitages in the wonderful world of the happy humans club (for members only).
The process of degeneration was, needless to say, promoted and used by the forces of reaction. The movement perverted there, where apologists took the lead and celebrated the 'essentially integrative aspects' and the 'ethical qualities' of religion. The idea to build up a new religion - a humanist religion - caught the imagination of many. The 'ethical baby' should not be thrown away along with the religious bathwater, they warned, conveniently forgetting that the 'ethical baby' has been growing in the crate of civilisation, from where organised religion tried to steal it only. The champions of the new religion pleaded for equal status with the established religions and a chair at their table, some of them very proud, if accepted by real bishops.
In some countries, national organisations got trapped in a fix. They had successfully managed to secure a share of the tax money, which their respective states would reserve for funding of religious communities. Such payments would, of course, be dependent on co-operative behaviour and could stop any moment, if they attacked their paymasters or the church, which happened in some cases to have the status of a state church - a quite delicate situation.
Phoenix tried to fly with clipped wings. Since the Christian home front seemed in some countries taboo or hopeless, other fields of useful work for the course of progress had to be identified. The sprouting neo-religious movements, the so-called sects, came under attack. The situation in the developing countries and the victims of non-Christian religion moved into the focus of attention and sometimes even action. These evading strategies had some positive outcome: sailing in less controversial waters, these organisations use to appeal to a wide spectrum of the population and can score high membership numbers. Since the majority of their members are 'also'-humanists without necessarily cutting their ties with religion, this success does, however, not prevent the church to step forward. So it has, for example, happened that quasi over night a new law emerged forcing state-religious education on all school children, and despite enormous membership and great efforts there was nothing which could be done about it.
Despite the still powerful position of the Vatican and occasional attempts of the Christian churches to push forward and reconquer lost ground, the situation in the Western hemisphere is not so hopeless as many in the movement seem to feel - and are only too ready to accept. Organised religion had to loosen its grip considerably. Today more and more people take religion lightly and consider it no longer the guiding force of their day to day life. The influence of bishops and other religious leaders is diminishing. The rationalist movement - despite some clipped wings - has been growing and broadening its base. Rationalist ideas and arguments are taken up by wider forums. The very good example that the Rationalist Press Association went practically out of business because the main stream publishing took over the task shows the broad acceptance of the views which once had been banned in the poison-chest of history.
The weakening of the traditional religions has, on the other side, orphaned a major section of religiously oriented people. No longer able to find relief in their old religion, they look for new ways to fulfil their urges. Some of them end up as rigid dogmatic offspring of the old religion with aggressive and intolerant leadership. Such fundamentalist groups - which can be seen in Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism - show extreme views and high psychological tension and find a new dimension with political aspirations to bring back the lost glory, if necessary by force. A major section of others, in polarisation, does not want to change reality at all. They just want to close their eyes and ears and find solace in one of the mushrooming new mystic religions, faith healing, charismatic prayers or submission to a guru.
Growing fundamentalism and boomtime for gurus and faith healers may create the impression that religion makes a powerful comeback. But one has to see that the monolithic powerblocks of established religions are crumbling and giving way to a colourful exotic multitude of neo-religions - a quasi-Indian scenario. In this frame, competition keeps the newcomers in control and weakens the traditional religions. More than the rationalists, the established religions have to worry about this development. Threatened by a multitude of 'illicit' competitors, they have a vital interest to stop them. In their struggle for survival, some of their leaders don't hesitate to adopt a somewhat progressive attitude in order to garner rationalist support. The basic question whether we should collaborate with them to fight out the newcomers seems to divide the movement. The bishops' new friends, who lobby for the 'essentially integrative aspect' of religion (which means every time: established religion) stand on one side. We stand on the other. We would not let the old enemy of civilisation escape so easily. Our fight against the new exotic religious phenomena is only one inseparable aspect of our fight against the greatest evil that blocked the progress of humankind. The apologists have tried to brand this position as 'abolitionist' and predicted it was, damned to be unsuccessful, heading for the scrap yard of history. Working with the probably largest and most vibrant and visible rationalist movement in the world, I can assure: they are wrong. More: the agenda of the rationalist movement, as long as it deserves its name, has to be based on the determination to shackle not only the superstructure but the very foundations of organised religion and help more and more people to come out to freedom. We shall not build a new prison house for those who come out. Let the liberated have free air, let them enjoy the fruits of their new freedom and learn to value life without religion. If we try to make a new religion, a new prison house for them in competition with gurus and faith healers, the rationalists of the coming generations should take up the cudgels of their armoury against the new rationalist and humanist bishops. We have no right to survive if we emerge as a new religion. All religions the world has ever seen asked for submission and wanted to orient our views. The place of the rationalist movement is at the forefront of the avowed march of civilisations. Let civilisation take us forward with a beacon light.
Our New Agenda
Losing their grip in Europe, the Christian churches have turned East. On his recent visit to India, Pope John Paul II signed the document Ecclesia in Asia, which will serve as a blueprint for the activities in the new millennium. The language does not leave any scope for interpretation: 'Just as in the first millennium the Cross was planted in the soil of Europe, and in the second in that of the Americas and Africa, we can pray that in the third Christian millennium a great harvest of faith will be reaped in this vast and vital continent.' The evangelisation of Asia had to be an 'absolute priority', the Pope said, and the Asian Synod was 'an ardent affirmation of faith' and a 'call to conversion.' The Pope spoke under a historic map, marking the route of Vasco da Gama to India.Besides the Roman Catholic church there are others in the race: Protestants, Evangelical church, Baptists, Pentecostals - they all are trying hard to get the best piece of the Indian cake. 'Joshua 2000', an united 'Prayer Mobilisation Network' of different Protestant churches announced the implementation of 'Hindi-Heartland Penetration Strategies' and unleashes thousands of newly trained missionaries on the country. The great hope into India, which all these christianisers share, is founded on the experience that poverty is an ideal base for religion. 'The poor have the natural capacity to put their trust in almost everything... That has always been the entry point in the structure of any society', speaks a representative of the Evangelical church. Overpopulation, poverty, ignorance, illiteracy and superstition are the religious monster's most reliable brothers in arms. Therefore they enjoy its special care and protection.
The invasion of the Third World countries is operated from safe forts in the West, where the Christian churches have established themselves comfortably. There seems to be nobody there who would disturb them. Having survived times of public criticism by wearing sheep's clothes and chalk softening their voices, they have managed to silently creep deep into the systems and to get integrated into the states as respected 'social partners' and advisors. They had to loosen their grip all right, but under cover they have also consolidated their positions. They are sitting at all round tables. The Vatican sits in the policy setting conferences of the UN and the WHO and tries to block all programmes to check overpopulation without being challenged by anybody (except, recently, by a progressive group of Catholics) How can one fly with clipped wings?
'If there is an iota of sincerity about changing the situation in the Third World, the base of the religious monster has to be attacked with moral authority. That has to be done where it has sternly placed its foot. The comfortable forts have to be stormed.' - This appeal to our Western colleagues I have made last year in my speech at the Hundredth Anniversary of Rationalist Press Association at Birmingham. It provoked some very sincere responses, which give some hope that things may change in future.
To develop a rationalist world movement, strong and decisive enough to lead the fight against the multinational religious and social monsters, has to be our agenda for the time to come. It has to overcome fear of conflict, force of habit and the tendency to corruption. It has to beware the apologists, who insult the victims of religion by praising its 'ethical qualities.' It has to beware of budding bishops who dream of a new prison house. It has to free its wings.
It has to overcome pseudo-international structures and grow into an integrated world movement. Parasitism is banned: no clip-winger should decorate himself with feathers from far-off countries, bought for baksheesh. No small-time Vasco da Gama is tolerated. No begging bowl should be raised any more, no pseudo-project business for money's sake should flourish, and no mailbox clubs should be 'created' to fill up address lists.
We need a world movement of equal partners in East and West, committed and sincere, each of them facing up to the situation and the needs of their own society and inspiring by their example of successful work in their own country, and all of them united in the spirit of co-operation and solidarity.
This world rationalist movement has to identify fearless and uncompromising leaders, considerate and responsible and with wisdom and vision. Under their guidance and watchful eyes, it has to cut-off its degeneration and cure its illnesses and overcome its weakness and put-off its childish ways and grow to become the avant-garde of human progress, the guardian of the wheel.
Let us finally set course again for an Age of Reason.
Sanal Edamaruku is founder president of Rationalist International and Secretary General of the Indian Rationalist Association
Return to Contents
Humanist Manifesto 2000
A Universal Commitment to Humanity as a Whole
The overriding need of the world community today is to develop a new Planetary Humanism - one that seeks to preserve human rights and enhance human freedom and dignity, but also emphasises our commitment to humanity as a whole.- First, the underlying ethical principle of Planetary
Humanism is the need to respect the dignity and
worth of all persons in the world community. No
doubt each person already recognises multiple
responsibilities relative to his or her social context:
persons have responsibilities to family, friends, the
community, city, state, or nation in which they
reside. We need, however, to add to these
responsibilities a new commitment that has
emerged - our responsibility to persons beyond our
national boundaries. Now, more than ever, we are
linked morally and physically to each person on
the globe, and the bell tolls for all when it tolls for
one.
- Second, we ought to act so as to mitigate human
suffering and to increase the sum of human
happiness wherever it is possible to do so, and this
responsibility extends to the whole world. This
principle is recognised by both religious believers
and nonbelievers. It is essential to the entire
framework of human morality. No community can
long endure if it condones wholesale violations of
the common moral decencies among its own
members. The key question today concerns the
range of the principle. We submit that this moral
duty should be generalised: we should be
concerned not only with the well-being of those
within our community or nation-state but also with
the entire world community.
- Third, we should avoid an overemphasis on
multicultural parochialism, which can be divisive
and destructive. We should be tolerant of cultural
diversity except where those cultures are
themselves intolerant or repressive. It is time to
rise above narrow tribalism to find common
ground. Ethnicities are the result of past social and
geographical isolations that are no longer relevant
in an open global society where interaction and
intermarriage among different ethnicities are not
only possible, but are to be encouraged. Although
loyalty to one's own country, tribe, or ethnic group
can take individuals beyond selfish interests,
excessive chauvinism among ethnic groups and
nation-states frequently becomes destructive.
Moral caring and loyalty thus should not end at
ethnic conclaves or national frontiers. A rational
morality enjoins us to build and support institutions
of cooperation among individuals of different
ethnicities. It would integrate, not separate us from
one another.
- Fourth, respect and concern for persons should
apply to all human beings equally. This in turn
means that all human beings should be treated
humanely and that we should defend human rights
everywhere. Accordingly, each of us has a duty to
help mitigate the suffering of people anywhere in
the world and to contribute to the common good.
This principle expresses our highest sense of
compassion and benevolence. It implies that people
living in the affluent nations have an obligation to
mitigate suffering and enhance well-being, where
they can, of people in the impoverished regions of
the world. Likewise, it means that those in the less-
developed regions have an obligation to replace
resentment against the affluent with reciprocal
goodwill. The best that the affluent can do for the
poor is to help them help themselves. If the poorer
members of the human family are to be helped,
the affluent may have to limit their own wasteful
consumption and excessive self-indulgence.
- Fifth, these principles should apply not only to the
world community of the present time, but also to
the future. We have a responsibility to posterity -
both in the immediate future and on a longer time
scale. Rational ethical persons thus recognise their
extended obligation to our children's children's
offspring and to the community of all human
beings, present and future.
- Sixth, each generation has an obligation as far as
possible, to leave the planetary environment that
it inherits a better place. We should avoid excessive
pollution, and we should use what we need
rationally and sparingly to avoid wasting the earth's
nonrenewable resources. At a time of rapid
population growth and accelerating consumption
of resources, this may seem an impossible ideal.
But we must try, for our actions today will
determine the fate of generations to come. We can
look back and retrospectively evaluate the actions
of our forebears, and we can praise or blame them
for their acts of omission or commission. We can
criticise, for example, those who depleted oil and
natural gas reserves with abandon, or exhausted
water supplies. Conversely, we can thank the
architects and engineers of the past for the natural
preserves, fine water-treatment plants, underground
disposal systems, highways, and bridges that they
built and which we use today.
We can empathise with the future world and imaginatively project what those who will live then will be like, and we can infer obligations today for those tomorrow. Our obligation to the future stems in part from our gratitude, or perhaps condemnation, of generations previous to ours and the sacrifices that they made from which we benefit. Future generations need spokespersons today, serving as their proxies and defending their future rights. To so argue is not to impose an impossible obligation, because a good portion of the human race already is morally concerned about future posterity, including a concern for the environment. One may even argue that the heroic idealism devoted to a beloved cause beyond themselves and for the greater good of humanity has always inspired human beings.
- Seventh, we should take care to do nothing that would endanger the very survival of future generations. We must see to it that our planetary society does not so degrade the atmosphere, waters, and soil that life in the future would be drastically undermined. We should see to it that our planetary society does not unleash weapons of mass destruction. For the first time in history humankind possesses the means to destroy itself. The present abatement of the Cold War is no guarantee that the ultimate sword of Damocles will not be dropped by fanatical disciples of vengeance or by those whose brinkmanship would allow the world to be destroyed in order to save it.
We need to convince our fellow human beings about the imperative to work together in creating a new planetary consensus in which preserving and improving the lot of humanity as a whole is our supreme obligation.
Stop Press: 35 more prominent people from ten different countries have signed up to the Humanist Manifesto 2000. New signatories include: Lavanam, Atheist Centre, Vijayawada, India; Ye Xiu Shan, Institute of Philosophy, The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing; Thomas B Cech, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry and Distinguished Professor, University of Colorado at Boulder; Nadine Gordimer, Nobel Prize, Literature, South Africa; Richard P Lipka, Professor of Education, Pittsburgh State University; Dr Roberto Llanos, Psychiatrist, Asociación Peruana de Bioetica, Peru: Dr Klaus von Klitzing, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Max-Planck-Institut für Festköperforschung, Stuttgart, Germany; and Dr John Xanthopoulos, Academic Dean, Grandview Preparatory School, Florida.
Return to Contents
Giordano Bruno and the Right to Dream
Peter Murphy
Four hundred years ago, on February 19, 1600, in the city of Rome, a middle-aged man was taken alive to a public square called Campo dei Fiori (the Field of Flowers), there he was bound and gagged, and burned to ashes. His death marked the end of the Italian Renaissance. Within three years the Vatican had placed all of his written works on its Index Expurgatorius and from then on editions of his books, plays and poetry were systematically destroyed, consequently copies of his work are extremely rare. They have never achieved great popularity. The Church has almost succeeded in obliterating every trace of the man who is often referred to as 'the forgotten philosopher'. The records of his trial by the Inquisition that condemned him to prison and death have never been made available to the public. When the death sentence was passed by the Grand Inquisitor, the condemned man answered, 'Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with far greater fear than I receive it'. Before his execution he refused to accept the crucifix which was offered to him. This year people all around the world will quietly commemorate the life of Giordano Bruno. A special assembly has taken place in the Campo dei Fiori, in a city overflowing with monuments, a bronze state stands in honour of this pantheist, heretic and dreamer.He was born Filippo Bruno, the son of a soldier, in the town of Nola in southern Italy in 1548, not far from the fiery crater of Vesuvius. He received his education at the hands of Dominican monks who were impressed by this precocious child who learned fast and forgot nothing. From the age of 13 he trained at the Monastery of Saint Domingo in Naples, the very monastery where Thomas Aquinas had taught his blend of Aristotle's philosophy and theology that has ever since been central to any worthwhile understanding of Christianity. Young Filippo was an outstanding student, and his obvious intellectual ability, particularly his phenomenal memory, attracted wide interest. His fame lead to an invitation by the pope to visit Rome and demonstrate the memory system he had devised. In 1572 he adopted the name Giordano when he took the vows of priesthood. The recurring pattern of his life was set when he was forced to leave Naples after attracting the attention of the local Inquisition by expressing doubts about Christian dogma. He went to Rome, and when he was forced to flee again he left his homeland and quit the Dominican Order. Travelling to Geneva he found that Protestant Calvinists posed as much of a danger as had the Inquisition.
Among the aristocracy and the Royal Houses of Europe there was, at this time, a more liberal attitude towards religious criticism and a more protective environment for free expression than in society at large. Wealthy families acting as patrons supported scholars in return for tuition and stimulating company. Bruno lived his life lecturing, teaching, and translating, going from one patron to another. He worked in Paris (on two occasions), London, Wittenberg, Prague, Marburg, Helmstedt, Frankfurt, Zurich, Toulouse, Genoa and Padua. Bruno was well known among the educated figures of the day including Elizabeth I of England and Henri III of France. Inevitably he would fall out with this patrons and local religious authorities when he crossed the sharp border that separated scholastic inquiry from heresy. Probably the passionate, radical personality of this brilliant Catholic-educated foreigner caused envy and suspicion throughout the northern European circles in which he moved for so much of his life. He made enemies very easily. In the end his lack of family wealth and connections left him impoverished and vulnerable to attack. In 1591, Bruno chose to return to his homeland at the invitation of a young man by the name of Giovani Mocenigo, who offered him accommodation and employment as a tutor in Venice. It was the hospitable Mocenigo who denounced Bruno to the Venetian Inquisition. After imprisonment in Venice he was handed over to Rome. A further six years of jail and interrogation passed before Giordano Bruno was condemned to death.
Giordano Bruno's ideas were far ahead of his contemporaries and his courage in expressing them was breath-takingly audacious. It is often noted that Galileo, who undoubtedly read Bruno's work, was not notably sympathetic to Bruno, but this is understandable when one considers how close to a fiery death Galileo himself came. Bruno remains a beautiful example of the forward looking, free thinking type of philosopher or scientist and is the ultimate example of scientific martyrdom. He roused Europe from an intellectual coma. He championed the Renaissance's most stimulating idea - that the universe is infinite. Bruno is a recognised pioneer in investigating the scope, the nature and the limits of human knowledge. The word for this sort of study, 'epistemology', was not known in his day. Being neither a scientist or a mathematician, he relied on his powerful imagination and immense intellect to envision a relativistic, infinite model of the universe, a lot of which is supported by today's scientific knowledge.
His method of rational speculation brought him to a view of the universe with no boundaries, no beginning, and no end, either in time or space. There are countless worlds in his cosmology and he imagined life to exist beyond the Earth. As he wrote:
This entire globe, this star, not being subject to death, and dissolution and annihilation being impossible anywhere in nature, from time to time renews itself by changing and altering all its parts. There is no absolute up or down, as Aristotle taught; no absolute position in space; but the position of a body is relative to that of other bodies. Everywhere there is incessant relative change in position throughout the universe, and the observer is always at the centre of things.In his infinite universe there was no spare room for a dualist concept of being, no spiritual dimension, no 'God' in the Biblical sense. His deity was existence itself. His 'religion' was mystical Neoplatonism allied with pantheism, a foretaste of seventeenth century monism, approaching the blurry boundaries of theoretical atheism. New Age adherents of the 'Gaia' concept are somewhat close to Bruno's faith. He was a sceptic, a doubter who refused to accept authority or dogma as being satisfactory starting points for inquiry. He wrote 'Who so itcheth to philosophy must set to work by putting all things to doubt.' Scornful of the mysteries of religious faith and the superstitious beliefs of his time, he realised that existing dogma would crumble in the face of new scientific discoveries. Bruno presented the idea that Christianity, in which he had been raised and schooled, is entirely irrational, that it is contradictory to philosophy and disagrees with other religions. Bruno pointed out that religion is a matter of faith, not proof, and that revelation has no scientific value. He naively imagined that only the ignorant could take the Bible seriously and that the educated religious hierarchy could be persuaded by reason. He saw no heresy in logic. The path to pure truth he sought all his life could only be recognised by those who doubted all existing notions, who challenged and critically examined all dogma and all appeals to authority. 'Everything, however men may deem it assured and evident, proves when it is brought under discussion to be no less doubtful than are extravagant and absurd beliefs.' He has the unique distinction of having been excommunicated by the Catholic, the Lutheran and the Calvinist churches. Among those philosophers who have continued in the Bruno tradition must be included Leibniz, Spinoza and Descartes. We see Bruno's methods and cosmology clearly in the work of Hawking, Rutherford and Einstein.
Bruno is considered the greatest thinker of the Italian renaissance. Pierre Bayle, the French rationalist philosopher, called Bruno the 'knight errant of philosophy'. He stands out as a fine example of the progressive, free thinking philosopher or scientist, and remains unequalled as the archetype of scientific martyrdom. He awoke Europe from an intellectual coma by championing the Renaissance's most stimulating idea- that the universe is something more than a mere sandpit for gods and demons to play in. He was driven from his home, his school and his country in search of the freedom to exercise intellectual integrity which he could find nowhere. By the power of his genius, and his scholarship, he rose from humble beginnings to travel the civilised world as a guest of artistocrats and royalty. He extended mankind's appreciation of the scope of the universe and the nature of the laws that govern it. In the words of Dr H James Birx, Professor of Anthropology at Canisius College, USA, 'The world has yet to come to grips with Bruno's awesome perspective and its ramifications for science, philosophy, religion and theology...Bruno is the supreme martyr for both free thought and critical inquiry.'
Bruno wrote, in his play Il Candelajo (The Candle Maker):
Behold the candle borne by this chandler, to whom I give birth, that which shall clarify the shadow of ideas...I need not instruct you of my belief. Time gives all and takes all away; everything changes but nothing perishes. One only is immutable, eternal and ever endures, one and the same with itself. With this philosophy my spirit grows, my mind expands. Whereof, however obscure the night may be, I await the daybreak, and they who dwell in day look to night...Rejoice, therefore, and keep whole, if you can, and return love for love.It was Giordano Bruno who first claimed, for all humanity, 'Libertes philosophica'. It is his own term and it refers to the right to think our own thoughts; the liberty to philosophise and to reason. The freedom to dream.
Peter Murphy is convenor of the Waikato and a regular contributor to the NZ Rationalist & Humanist.
Bibliography
Birx, H James, 'Giordano Bruno: From a Closed to an Infinite Universe', NZ Rationalist & Humanist, Summer 1997-8, pp 2-8
'Giordano Bruno 2000', International Humanist News, Vol 7, No 1 & 2, December 1999
Kessler, John J, 'Giordano Bruno: The Forgotten Philosopher', http://www.infidels.org
Lecky, W E H, The Rise and the Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, Longmans, 1904
'Giordano Bruno', Lincoln Library of Essential Knowledge, The Frontier Press Co.
'Giordano Bruno', Microsoft Encarta 95
Minois, Georges, Histoire de l'Atheisme, Fayard
Van Helden, Albert, 'Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), http://es.rice.edu
It is interesting to note that during the recent round of papal apologies for past misdeeds, it was not thought appropriate to include Giordano Bruno. The Evening Post reports the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano regretting the use of violence against opponents, while noting, as if this exonerates the Church's behaviour, that Bruno's thought was "incompatible with Christian doctrine". Sodano even felt moved to say that the Inquisition judges "had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life."Return to Contents
Is this why Bruno was taken to the cross naked and with a nail piercing his tongue so that he could not speak?
Adam's Rib
Life's a Ball Game
Anne Ferguson
"...in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life." In these words from the 'Committal' in the Book of Common Prayer I think we have an oxymoron. 'Hope' is, by definition, uncertain and unsure. Perhaps the writer was implying the condition that, so long as the deceased had led a blameless life or had at least repented his sins, he was certain of resurrection at the Last Trump. Whatever. What nonsense."People need certainty," assert promulgators of religious faith, arguing that people want assurance there is a God out there rooting for them and that there is life after death when they will once again see their 'dear departed'.
Agreed, people need to feel that when next they are hungry there will be food for them to eat and shelter from the elements, a bed for them to sleep in and that the person who climbs into their bed late at night is their partner and not some total stranger. Mankind puts a lot of time and energy into ensuring that these certainties are met. If they are threatened or destroyed, by natural or man-made disaster, the result is much trauma and distress. Accepting that food, shelter, and personal security are essential for our well-being and continued existence, once we have got them, are living a comfortable, safe life, what then?
As a National Radio listener I often find myself listening to book reviews. The reviewer will be burbling away when suddenly (s)he says: "But I mustn't give away the plot!" Why not? For two very good reasons. The first is that listeners won't buy the book and secondly, if the reviewer has sufficiently whetted listeners' interest, they will want the fun, the thrill of reading the book and discovering for themselves how it all turns out.
Imagine a 'who-dun-it' which told you on the first page who did it. Why do newscasters tell you to look away while the score comes up on the screen of some game which has already been played but which is to be telecast later? Because people don't want to know, of course. They want excitement, anticipation, the heart-stopping thrill of uncertainty. Compulsory games four times a week at school put me off sport for life but even I can feel the adrenalin pumping as the last few balls are bowled of some 'to-the-wire' one-day cricket match. Bookies would soon go out of business of punters only ever bet on certainties.
What puts the flush in the cheek, the brightness in the eye, the lightness in the step of the early stages of courtship? It's that delicious feeling of uncertainty as to whether or not one's interest is reciprocated. The chase is more fun than the kill.
Earlier in the year we were treated to a week of delightful speculation. Avidly we checked the weather forecasts. "Will there be a race today?" "Will Team New Zealand beat Prada five-zip?" Even those non-yachties and unsporty people found it all fun. We loved the uncertainty of it all.
People do love uncertainty. They thrive on it. They get a buzz from not knowing how things are going to turn out. It's the breath of life. They are able to live with it very well.
From where, then, has come the notion that, about life itself, people need certainty? Why should they crave a finite answer to the questions: "Why am I here?" "What's it all for?" "How is it all going to end?"
Perhaps it isn't uncertainty that bugs people. Perhaps it's that one inalienable certainty - we are all going to die. They don't want the end, that feeling of anti-climax, the plot to be revealed. So, eternal life has had to be invented. Sitting on a cloud playing a harp may be the respectable image of eternal life but everlasting rugby matches, horse races, and bungy jumps, eternal who- dun-its, romances and car chases would be much more fun.
It is said of Rationalists/Humanists that how we differ from the rest of mankind is that we are prepared to live with uncertainty. I would suggest that the opposite may be the case. In fact we are the ones more prepared to live with certainty. Firstly we accept we don't know the meaning of it all and secondly we accept the finality of our own demise.
Of this I'm sure. If a match were to be played Humanists vs Superstitionists, I'd be up there on the terraces roaring for the Humanists.
Return to Contents
Stranger than Fiction
Writing About Science
Elizabeth McKenzie
Nowadays it is difficult for the general public or even scientists from a different discipline to read and understand scientific manuscripts. Although there is a certain amount of 'popular' literature written for the general layperson, a lot of science is inaccessible because of its obscure jargon and lack of style. Scientific papers are often unpleasant to read because of boring black and white diagrams or total lack of illustration, including metaphorical illustration. Science writers appear to have forgotten the craving of primates for colour and form in both the real visual manifestation and in their visual imagination. I believe there are historical reasons for this phenomenon.The change from public invention, investigation and participation in science to an exclusionist, professional system began in the early nineteenth century. Formation of new, exclusively male societies (for example, the Geological Society of America, American Mathematical Society, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society) resulted in the devaluation of 'amateur' family science; that is, science that was undertaken by someone not authorized by a University. The common language that was formerly used to convey scientific discoveries and inventions to the public was discarded in preference to a new, exclusive and esoteric language.
David Noble ("A World Without Women, the Christian Clerical Culture of Western Science" Oxford University Press) suggests that the change came about as early as the late seventeenth century by means of a "Royal Society campaign to reform language itself so that "if language can be toned down, so too can peoples' ideas and passions". Thus figurative and metaphorical language that conveyed and encouraged enthusiasm was denounced as "fanciful, romantic, worthless or subversive" and generally suspect. Although the new language of science reduced ambiguity, it flattened the tone of the writing.
Compare Walter Harvey Weed from the United States Geological Survey writing about hot springs in the late 1800's:
"...these multitudinous tints of red and yellow, green and brown, are all produced by the growth of hot-water algae, which, as I shall show further on, eliminate silica from the hot waters by their vital growth, and contribute largely to the building up of the sinter deposits, besides giving them their brilliant tints."
with Nicholson and Aquino writing on the same subject in 1989:
"...while silica sinter can undoubtedly form by the accumulation of inorganic siliceous matter without a biogenic contribution, perhaps the production of a well- developed thick sinter rim or terrace is dependant on an infrastructure of filamentous particles of an algal or bacteriological origin."
We haven't gone a great deal further in our understanding of hot spring deposits since Weed, but the language has changed. Nicholson and Aquino's piece is clear and well written, for this era, but is still wordy and takes longer to digest, while Weed uses commonly understood adjectives and personal pronouns to lay claim to the ideas put forward by himself. Young scientists nowadays are advised to write in the third person. However, use of the third person instead of the first person removes both responsibility and credit from the author, resulting in the loss of reader's ability to identify personally with the writer.
There is a lot of boring or simply bad writing being published in scientific journals. This could be due to the pressure on scientists to chum articles out - "publish or perish", or it could be that many scientists find writing a chore or don't think it is as important as the scientific content. Or maybe the editors are impressed by the long words and don't worry too much about the readability.
Whatever the reason, problems are now arising from overuse of jargon. For example, biologists and geologists studying the field of geomicrobiology or biogeochemistry (depending on whose side you are on) use different words for the same thing, for example "stromatolite" = "organosedimentary structure" = "microbial mat". This results in a lot of wasted time inadvertently "rediscovering the wheel", arguing about definitions and talking past each other.
Which is why scientists should learn to be good communicators, because if they can't explain their science clearly to the educated public, the value of their scientific discoveries cannot be appreciated or utilised.
Return to Contents
Current Comments
Kansas Strikes BackDr Fred Whitehead, Associate Professor of Family Medicine at Kansas University Medical School, is being dismissed from the faculty after 21 years of service, effective June 30. According to Dr Deborah Powell, Executive Dean of the School, his 'research does not fit the mission of the Medical School.' Also, alleges Powell, Whitehead's department is 'in a deficit,' so he must be let go.
It is difficult not to be suspicious about this. Dr Whitehead is principally concerned with the Preceptorship Program, a required rural experience for senior medical students, but is also an active historian of several aspects of American cultural history, particularly freethought history. In November last year he sponsored a national conference at KUMC, 'Monkey Business in Kansas,' on the evolution controversy. He has just published the first of a series of articles on notable Kansas scientists, for The Kansas Biology Teacher journal. Among Whitehead's other publications are an anthology, Freethought on the American Frontier (co-editor); Encyclopedia of the American Left (contributing editor); a textbook entitled Culture Wars (editor); oral histories published in journals; two scholarly newsletters, Freethought History, and People's Culture; and hundreds of book reviews. Dr Whitehead notes: 'It seems bizarre that KU cannot support good science education, at a time when Kansas is an example of the reverse of that for the entire world.'
The NZARH has written a letter of support of Dr Whitehead to Kansas University. The letter reads:
It has come to my attention that Dr Fred Whitehead is under pressure for his position at the Kansas University Medical School. The reasons given apparently include that Dr Whitehead's 'research does not fit the mission of the Medical School.'
Coming in the wake of the decision of the state of Kansas to place controls on the science curriculum, it is difficult not to be suspicious that it is Dr Whitehead's views are under attack here, rather than some less controversial example of research being incompatible.
The academic community that I circulate in here in New Zealand is alarmed by the implications of this move against Dr Whitehead. It is doing little to help rehabilitate the academic reputation of Kansas, which has become a topic of humour here.
As a lecturer in philosophy and systems of belief in an art college (Manukau Institute of Technology, School of Visual Arts, Manukau City, New Zealand) I too could come under the sort of shadow Dr Whitehead is under. But I enjoy the sort of freedom of expression that I have always understood was one of the hallmarks of the American constitution, and one of the reasons it is a defining document in world history.
It is deep regret to me, and a number of colleagues of mine, that this proud tradition should be under threat - again - in Kansas.
Suicidal move
There was a tremendous fuss in March over an article run by Craccum, the Auckland University students magazine. The article by Tim Selwyn was entitled 'Suicide and how to do it'. All over the country people howled in protest about grossly irresponsible youngsters promoting youth suicide. People called for the editor's head.
And yet when one looks at the article, it is difficult to see what the fuss is about. Here are some points about this article which were not mentioned. The title page for the article is on a black background with half the page given to a framed warning message which reads "This is a warning. The content of this article may shock you. The content of this article may offend you. The content of this article may disgust you. If you have a problem with this, we recommend that you don't read it. Don't say we didn't warn you.' Suitably warned, we turn the page and find another head- ing, repeated five times. It says 'Suicide Painless?'
The article then says:
Our prime motive for printing this article is to provide information. If you think that you want to commit suicide, you need to know what you're getting into. Very, VERY few forms of suicide are painless. Those that are have not been listed - this guide is not intended to advocate or promote suicide. This guide is designed to explode the myth that suicide is a 'painless, easy way out'.Just in case we missed the point, Craccum then placed the sentence they put in bold right the way across the following page as a banner. The article then goes on to highlight just how painful and bloody most forms of suicide are. To take but one example. In the section on 'jumping off a high place', Selwyn writes: 'Don't buy into the long defunct theory that die of 'fright' before you hit the ground. You'll experience a level of sheer terror that might make you wish you were dead, but that won't come until later. Possibly.' Selwyn is very critical of those who fake suicide in an attempt to gain sympathy or recognition, but is genuinely supportive of voluntary euthanasia.
And at the bottom of each page of the article, seven in total, Craccum placed a boxed notice advising that Auckland University has the Student Health and Counselling Service, located above the Chemist. Call in to make a booking, or call 373-7599 ext 7681. Urgent cases will probably be received without prior booking.' It seems clear to me that Tim Selwyn and Craccum are to be congratulated on raising a difficult subject in a responsible way.
Return to Contents
Book Reviews
Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesusby John Dominic Crossan (HarperSanFrancisco, 1995)
Who Killed Jesus? By John Dominic Crossan, is one long self-contradiction. When Crossan writes, 'I see Jesus as the manifestation of God;' explains that execution without trial would have been a normal procedure for 'a peasant nobody like Jesus;' and concludes that Jesus was left on the cross to be eaten by carrion crows like any other crucifixion victim, I can only interpret those comments as expressing the belief that Jesus was a real person from history. But practically everything in Crossan's book is a plausible reconstruction of how the Christian myth evolved only if Jesus originated as a literary creation and there were no real events with which the myth could be compared.
The title and subtitle are both misleading. The question of whether Jesus was killed by Jews or Romans is examined only from the perspective of which version was written first, not which is more accurate. And while the gospels' anti-semitism is discussed, it is far from the major focus implied in the subtitle.
Most of Crossan's book is an argument with Raymond Brown, author of The Death of the Messiah, over whether the gospel of Peter was written before or after the canonical gospels, an issue about as profound as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The main difference is that, in Peter, Jesus is tried and condemned by Jews, and in the canonical gospels the judge and executioners are Romans. Crossan gives priority to Peter even though, if a gospel ignoring the Roman role already existed, the synoptics' desperate attempt to transfer the blame for Jesus' execution from the Romans to the Jews would have been unnecessary. In fact Mark started the process of making Jesus and enemy of the Jews, and Peter (not the author's real name) carried Mark's falsification to its logical conclusion. The only way a gospel author writing in the forties could had Jesus crucified by Jews with no Roman participation, and expected to get away with it, is if Jesus was a totally mythical character so that the objection, 'That is not the way it happened,' could not be raised. But that is a presumption Crossan cites to provide strong evidence for Jesus's historicity. It makes no sense for the gospel authors to go to extraordinary lengths to show the Roman procurator trying to save Jesus' life, if they were not stuck with the reality that Jesus did exist, he was crucified, and the person who ordered his crucifixion was Lucius Pontius Pilate.
Crossan writes, 'In the gospel of Peter, Jesus' enemies see the actual resurrection itself, but in all other gospels nobody sees the resurrection, and Jesus appears only to his followers.' That is only one of several instances where he cites as evidence that Peter was written before the canonical gospels, a uniqueness better interpreted as proving that it was written much later, when the possibility of witnesses coming forward and saying, 'That never happened,' had dropped from low to zero.
Furthermore, Peter and John were the only gospels to pretend that Jesus' legs were not broken. If Peter was written later than John, that does not present a problem. But if Peter was written as early as 40 CE, the synoptics' failure to pick up such a theologically juicy tidbit would be inexplicable. At the risk of appearing to side with Brown, whose dogmatic orthodoxy causes him to ridicule the myriad of scholars who have identified Jesus as the leader of a ten-minute war of independence, I have to conclude that Crossan is just plain wrong.
As with virtually all books by theologians, Crossans bibliography does not include a single book by any author with the competence to recognise that all claims of a god revealing its existence have been traced to the same writers who assured their readers that the earth is flat. But particularly indefensible, given the title of Crossan's book, is the omission of Harry Goldin's The Case of the Nazarene Reopened, Martin Larson's The Essene-Christian Faith, and Randel Helms' Gospel Fictions.
Goldin made the point that, even as late as 71-73 CE, when Mark was written, only a person far removed from Judaea and Judaism could have described a trial before the Sanhedrin as incompatible with Jewish law as the fiction in that gospel. Yet Crossan maintains that the even more blatant impossibilities in Peter were written at a time when there were no Christians (Greek Jesus- followers), only Nazirites (Jewish neo-Essenes), who could not possibly have taken such a gospel seriously.
That Jesus was executed for being the leader of an insurrection against the Roman occupation is disputed only by those who deny that Jesus was a person from history, and biblical literalists. Since the Romans were not so naive as to imagine that the Jews loved them, Mark's only reason for transferring responsibility for Jesus' execution from the Romans to the Jews was the need to dissociate Jesus, and by implication the Christians, form the Jews against whom Vespasian and Titus were fighting a war. Promoting a version of events in which Jesus' opponents were Jews and only Jews, as the author of Peter did, would have made no sense in the decades before that war began. But it made a lot of sense after 132 CE, when the Bar Kokhba rebellion again made it essential for the Christians to portray themselves as untarnished by any connection with the rebellious Jews.
Crossan identifies Jesus' assault on the temple moneychangers as the immediate cause of Jesus' arrest, but jumps to the non sequitur that the Romans would have found a Jewish inter-sectarian squabble treasonous. He ignores the obvious explanation, made by Larson, that it was the daily sacrifice on behalf of Tiberius, symbolic of Judaea's subservience to Rome, that Jesus vandalised, and that his action amounted to nothing less than a unilateral declaration of independence. The Roman procurator's execution of the perpetrator becomes much more understandable in the light of that interpretation. Yet even though Crossan quotes the reference to 'the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection,' in connection with Barabbas, he misses the obvious implication that Jesus' arrest coincided with an uprising in which people were killed. The author of Mark tried to suppress Jesus' status as an anti-Roman revolutionary. Brown derided it. Crossan hopes that if he ignores it, it will go away.
As for Crossan's statement, after quoting two conflicting gospel accounts of Jesus' arrest, 'Neither is historical, but both are true,' I will not even attempt to guess what that means.
I have previously predicted that certain theologians who have shown some ability to go with the evidence would eventually abandon religious belief altogether. In Crossan's case, I predict that the will eventually conclude that no such person as Jesus the Nazirite ever lived.
Dr William Harwood
Author of Mythology's Last Gods
Canada
Values
by Finngeir Hiorth (Human-Etisk Forbund, 1999)
ISBN 82-90425-98-8
Since retiring from the philosophy department of the University of Oslo in 1993, Finngeir Hiorth has been busy doing something desperately important for international humanism. He has written a number of short, easily accessible works on a variety of subjects of interest to the humanist reader. In fact, Finngeir Hiorth would have to be the most prolific humanist populariser of the last decade. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of writing material for the non-specialist. The hearts and minds of people are not won by erudition locked away in scholarly journals.
Following his Introduction to Atheism (1995), Introduction to Humanism (1996, and both available for sale at Rationalist House), Atheism in India, Ethics for Atheists (both 1998), Dr Hiorth's latest venture is this short introduction to values. Given the debate we are having in New Zealand about values at the moment, this book could hardly be more timely.
The whole book takes no more than 130 pages, so it is a survey. In short chapters we are introduced to the subject, given overviews of the values of antiquity in Europe and China. Then we get a summary of western ideas about values leading on to an excellent chapter on contemporary humanism and values. Dr Hiorth finishes off with a look at some major philosophers, European and Asian, and some other trends, such as the vogue for 'Asian values' in Malaysia and Singapore. One of Dr Hiorth's strengths is his familiarity with the Asian situation. He retains an interest in Asia, having been born and raised in the Dutch East Indies, as they were then.
The only downside to such obviously useful work, is that Dr Hiorth's book is not easy reading. A Norwegian, he writes these works in English (one of several languages he is familiar with), but the writing is somewhat heavy-going. This said, Values is well worth reading. The general reader gets the studied views of an expert in an unpretentious presentation. Now, that is valuable.
Bill Cooke
Return to Contents
Letters to the Editor
Dear Bill,Your 'Millennium Awards' article was excellent for the most part but there was one statement of yours which I found unbelievable. This was that socialism was 'a greater doctrine than Nazism', that it had 'something to offer humanity in a way Nazism clearly did not' and that its failure 'could be seen as the greatest disappointment of the millennium.'
Why, primarily, would one consider Socialism as a greater doctrine than Nazism? They are identical. You said so yourself in the Summer 1995 edition of this journal when you said that both Communism and Fascism felt themselves 'justified in eliminating any individual that refuses to conform with a preconceived pattern', and which mistake 'individuals in society for inanimate matter which may be transformed at the will of the leaders.' Any difference between Communism and Socialism or Fascism and Nazism is purely cosmetic. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme Karl Marx defined communism as 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need' and socialism as 'from each according to his ability to each according to his work.' Both involve coercive redistribution: 'from A to B'
Ernst Huber, a spokesman for the National Socialist Party said that, all 'property is common property. The owner is bound by the people to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is justified only when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.' His words would have found agreement in Moscow (and also with those who drafted the Resource Management Act in our own country). As another example of the sameness of their underlying ethical premises, consider the following words of Alfred Rocco, a leading fascist theoretician: 'Fascism stresses the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals on behalf of society. For fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and fascism's whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.'
Secondly, what did Socialism have to offer humanity? The destruction of liberty and thus individuality are not laudable goals. Socialism can only be considered a potent political system if enslavement, starvation and slaughter are the ends one seeks. But to do so one would have to give up any semblance of morality and treat man as merely a means to an end. The abhorrent nature of this view can be seen not only in the quotes above, but in the actions of all those who agree with it. I recommend a book by Stephane Courtois called The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. It catalogues the actions of Communist leaders the world over, adding up to around 100 million murdered. After noting how all privately owned cutlery was smashed to prevent pilfering of the food supply in Mao's Great Leap Forward it comments that the 'excesses of repression were terrifying. Thousands of detainees were systematically tortured, and children were killed and even boiled and used as fertiliser-at the very moment when a nationwide campaign was telling people to 'learn the Henan way.' In Henan and elsewhere there were many cases of cannibalism. Children were sometimes eaten as a communal decision.' This demonstrates that evil political systems engender evil political acts, regardless of the particular politicians involved. Those murdered by trendy left governments are no less dead than those by the more despised right wing ones.
So is it a disappointment that Stalin has poisoned the public perception of this evil? Hardly. I would regard people holding socialism's failure as a disappointment as something to really feel disappointed about.
Kind regards
Hayden Wood
North Shore
Editor's response: Hmmm, difficult letter to answer. I suppose the difference between socialism and nazism was in the promise they made rather in the way they actually delivered on those promises, which as you correctly point out, bore many depressingly similar marks. Socialism promised a kingdom of heaven on earth where each would take sustenance according to his or her need and where all material wants would be provided for by virtue of efficient and co-operative production. Nazism, by contrast, offered nothing more than a promise of being the biggest bully in the sandpit.
You are mistaken to claim that socialism offered the destruction of liberty and individuality as goals. Remember Bertrand Russell could advocate socialism as one of the chief bulwarks to a genuine individual freedom. That these things happened under socialism is proof of its failure to live according to its noble promises. Nazism, by contrast, succeeded only too well in living up to its promises of death or glory.
Dear Bill
I have just received your autumn issue, and was most impressed with your comment piece on agnosticism, and am writing to ask whether I could reproduce it in the June issue of The Freethinker (which I hope you are regularly receiving). It will of course be fully acknowledged.
Regards
Barry Duke
Editor The Freethinker
Dear Bill
With regard to your editorial on 'The decline and fall of agnosticism', there are a number of flaws in your argument.
You define atheism as 'Atheism does not claim to know that there is no god: it claims that belief in god is not justified and that disbelief in god is justified.' The trouble with this is that it excludes someone who does claim to know that there is no god but does not have any opinion upon whether belief or disbelief in god is justified. For most people this person is the archetype for an atheist; but by your definition this person is not an atheist
Secondly by your definition, 'atheism...claims that belief in god is not justified.' The problem here is that this claim itself cannot be justified. It is like claiming that because there is no known proof of Goldbach's theorem (that all even numbers can be written as the sum of two primes) that such a proof does not exist. This is clearly an invalid assumption. Even if someone is confident that they have not come across a valid justification for a belief in god, it nevertheless requires a leap of faith to believe that such justification is impossible. It is such a leap of faith that agnostics prefer to avoid.
Finally, your last paragraph contains the statement '...agnostics will have [to] justify why they refuse to engage with the question of god's existence...'. This is simply not true; agnostics do not have to justify anything.
Bruce Robertson
Auckland
Editor's response: I see your point but don't agree with you. I fail to see how anyone can reasonably claim to know there is no god. It seems as presumptuous as the person who claims to know there is a god. Both claims require a level of knowledge about the universe that is beyond our reach.
As to your second point, of course the claim can be justified, simply be verifying whether there is a quantity of evidence against the existence of God, which there is. Claiming that belief in God is unjustified is saying that the balance of evidence weighs against the theist and by doing this avoids precisely the leap of faith you accuse this position of requiring. I suggest you have missed the point in this argument.
And finally, yes, you're right that agnostics don't have to justify their position. My statement was simply suggesting that the ball is in their court, so to speak, to justify their continued use of the term agnostic. They don't have to do anything, but the onus is now on agnostics to defend their position, not on atheists.
Return to Contents
Oddities
The Rationalist Virtues
Above all, Rationalism emphasises the importance of practising the great virtues which are necessary to secure true happiness. These virtues are: Wisdom, for without this transitory and selfish pleasures may be mistaken for real happiness; Fortitude, which enables us to bear, when necessary, the deprivation of personal comforts; Temperance, for with excess no permanent happiness is possible; Magnanimity, for only by aid of this virtue can we keep steadily in view the acquirement of the "greatest good of the greatest number"; Truth, for without it the stability of society could not be maintained; Justice, for it is the possession of the equal rights of all which inspires and impels us to seek the freedom and happiness of mankind. And to these great virtues of the mind we must add, as essential to true happiness, what are called the virtues of the heart, such as the fervour of Enthusiasm, and the finer fervour of Sympathy, or, to use the better name, Love. For, if wisdom gives the requisite light, love alone can give the requisite heat.
Charles Watts, The Meaning of Rationalism, 1905
Honorary Associates - Focus on...
Steve Cooper who has just published Origins of the Christian Faith, designed for the enquiring Christian.
Fifty Years Ago
Recently, after participating in the Commonwealth talks at Sydney, the Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Marine, Mr R Mayhew, and the Minister of Finance of Ceylon, Mr J R Jayawardene, visited New Zealand as guests of the NZ Government. Met at the flying- boat base, Auckland, by the deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of External Affairs, the NZ Herald informed us that the welcome was 'on a Christian name basis of friendly informality.'
This statement has provoked me to raise a point that has, I am sure, exercised the mind of other Rationalists - the widespread use of the term 'Christian' where, logically, its use is not applicable. When one considers the numerous official forms in which Rationalists, Jews, Mahomedan, Buddhists, Confucians and others without allegiance to Christianity are given space in which to write in their full 'Christian names' it would seem that the time is ripe for the insertion of 'first' names in place of the prevailing custom.
NZ Rationalist, July 1950
The Last Word
Legislation that has passed in the Kentucky House would amend state anti-discrimination law to permit religious organisations to refuse to transact business with persons or organisations lacking belief in a Supreme Being. Religious organisations would still be forbidden to discriminate based on race, creed, or sex. But they could discriminate against atheists qua atheists. Amazingly, the bill was inspired by Camp Quest, the Council for Secular humanism-affiliated summer camp operated by Free Inquiry Group of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky. Four years ago, Camp Quest organisers rented camp facilities from Bullittsburg Baptist Assembly, which requested the new legislation so it would never have to face such besmirchment again.
Free Inquiry, Spring 2000, p 66