Contents
Editorial
Bill 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 2000
Moving 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.
Thus, a viable new Planetary Humanism focusing on
a safe, secure, and better world should be our over-
riding obligation, and we should do what we can to
engender ethical commitment. This commitment
should apply to all people on the planet, whether
religious or naturalistic, theist or humanist, rich or
poor, of whatever race, ethnicity, or nationality.
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."
Is this why Bruno was taken to the cross naked and
with a nail piercing his tongue so that he could not
speak?
|
|
Return to Contents
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 Back
Dr 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 Jesus
by 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
Return to Contents
|
|