(Credit to Richard Dawkins for the quote)
Showing posts with label Philosophy/religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy/religion. Show all posts
Thursday, 5 February 2009
My very own atheist bus!
I've just come across this great little tool (courtesy of Friendly Atheist) that allows you to generate your own version of the atheist bus slogan. Here's my effort
(Credit to Richard Dawkins for the quote)
(Credit to Richard Dawkins for the quote)
That praying stuff again
I was only talking about prayer a couple of days ago and now it gets into the news. This story has been all over the news and was even in my local paper tonight. Until I saw that, I hadn't realised it was a local incident. A community nurse has been suspended for asking a patient if she wanted to be prayed over (prayed upon? Not sure what the correct terminology is). Of course she is now being portrayed as a martyr, being persecuted for her faith. When you read the details of the story, it turns out that she had done this sort of thing before and had been told to stop, so I guess she doesn't have much of a complaint against her employers.
The strange this is that, as an atheist, I don't think it really would have bothered me if a nurse offered to pray for me (I'd obviously refuse!). My wife actually works as a nurse in the same health authority, albeit in a different area of nursing. She said it would be very unprofessional for a nurse or doctor to do what this nurse had done and she shouldn't have done it.
Relating to my earlier post about praying, does this nurse actually believe that a prayer for one of her patients would actually swing the decision with the big guy upstairs? Does she think that she could direct some supernatural force that would change the laws of nature just because she asked (while shutting her eyes tight and putting her hands together)?
The other odd thing is why she bothers to ask whether her patients want a prayer or not. If she really cares for her patients and really believes that prayer works, why wouldn't she just pray for everyone? Why does the recipient need to know? Perhaps the nurse knows deep down that the only possible effect of prayer would be a placebo effect on a credulous patient, in which case you don't really need to pray for them, just tell them that you are...
The strange this is that, as an atheist, I don't think it really would have bothered me if a nurse offered to pray for me (I'd obviously refuse!). My wife actually works as a nurse in the same health authority, albeit in a different area of nursing. She said it would be very unprofessional for a nurse or doctor to do what this nurse had done and she shouldn't have done it.
Relating to my earlier post about praying, does this nurse actually believe that a prayer for one of her patients would actually swing the decision with the big guy upstairs? Does she think that she could direct some supernatural force that would change the laws of nature just because she asked (while shutting her eyes tight and putting her hands together)?
The other odd thing is why she bothers to ask whether her patients want a prayer or not. If she really cares for her patients and really believes that prayer works, why wouldn't she just pray for everyone? Why does the recipient need to know? Perhaps the nurse knows deep down that the only possible effect of prayer would be a placebo effect on a credulous patient, in which case you don't really need to pray for them, just tell them that you are...
Monday, 2 February 2009
This is 2009, right?
I've been catching up on my podcasts and just listened to one from the Radio 4 Today Programme. This was originally broadcast last Friday. The story was about a hospital in Derbyshire where staff claimed to have seen a ghost and the hospital management have arranged for an exorcist to come in and sort out the problem. The daft story was picked up elsewhere on the BBC and in some newspapers, but Radio 4 outdid them. They interviewed a former Benedictine monk, now a parish priest, who explained the details of exorcism. He explained that ghosts just inhabit places, but the real difficulties are with demons who are evil spirits that can possess an unfortunate person. Apprently, ghosts are easy to get rid of with a few simple prayers, but demons are more tricky and require the special skills of a trained exorcist.
He was interviewed by Ed Stourton. Now I know Mr Stourton is a well-known catholic, but surely that's not a good enough reason to give the ex-monk such airtime. He was treated as if he was giving his opinion on the best way to stop slugs eating your lettuces, but he was talking about ghosts and demons. DEMONS!! Is this 2009 or 1609?? Either he was being treated seriously by a presenter who who actually believed in demons or Radio 4 were poking fun at a deluded old man. I don't think either reflects well on the BBC.
He was interviewed by Ed Stourton. Now I know Mr Stourton is a well-known catholic, but surely that's not a good enough reason to give the ex-monk such airtime. He was treated as if he was giving his opinion on the best way to stop slugs eating your lettuces, but he was talking about ghosts and demons. DEMONS!! Is this 2009 or 1609?? Either he was being treated seriously by a presenter who who actually believed in demons or Radio 4 were poking fun at a deluded old man. I don't think either reflects well on the BBC.
Sunday, 1 February 2009
I just don't get this prayer thing
I saw an article on the BBC website today about an online prayer service. Prayer is one of those aspects of religion that I never really understood. Even if you believe there is an omnipresent, omniscient supernatural being out there, how can you possibly believe that this being would change the natural laws of the universe just because you put in a special plea? If two sets of parents are worrying over the beds of their sick children, would a god choose to spare one just because the parents asked nicely? The whole concept is bizarre and a just a bit obscene.
This is related to one of my main gripes with organized religion. Why would anyone want to worship a supernatural power that demands to be worshipped in order to get special treatment? Shouldn't it be enough that you live a 'good' life ('good' obviously having different values depending on your flavour of religion). You would think that something powerful to create an entire universe wouldn't have this problem of low self-esteem with a constant need to have its postition confirmed.
I wonder if all the followers of a particular religion would be happy if the world followed the teachings of their religion apart from the bits that were 'religious', i.e. the morality and 'lifestyle' aspects, but explicitly rejected any supernatural beings?
This is related to one of my main gripes with organized religion. Why would anyone want to worship a supernatural power that demands to be worshipped in order to get special treatment? Shouldn't it be enough that you live a 'good' life ('good' obviously having different values depending on your flavour of religion). You would think that something powerful to create an entire universe wouldn't have this problem of low self-esteem with a constant need to have its postition confirmed.
I wonder if all the followers of a particular religion would be happy if the world followed the teachings of their religion apart from the bits that were 'religious', i.e. the morality and 'lifestyle' aspects, but explicitly rejected any supernatural beings?
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Atheist or Agnostic?
There has been a lot of discussion recently regarding the ‘Atheist Bus’ campaign set up by Ariane Sherine. The campaign was originally set up to raise a small amount of money in order to counteract some religious ads that kindly advised us non-believers that we would all burn in hell. The British buses sport the phrase ‘There’s probably no God so stop worrying and enjoy your life’. I actually prefer the one put out just before Christmas by the American Humanist Society which said ‘Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake’. I think that’s a much more positive message.
A lot of the discussion has been around the use of the word ‘probably’ in the ad. Some people said that this showed a lack of conviction and was really a statement of agnosticism. Actually the truth was that the word had to be added to satisfy the advertising authorities. I think most of us have come round to accept ‘probably’ as it is logically correct (you can’t prove that there isn’t a god), but I think it’s going a bit far to say that this makes us agnostics rather than atheists.
I call myself an atheist because I don’t believe in the existence of god, in the same sense I don’t believe in the existence of unicorns or the tooth fairy. I could never claim that I can prove the non-existence of any of these entities.
Some atheists describe themselves as strong agnostics as the argument cannot be proved one way or another. I think this is a fine philosophical point, but the problem is that the agnostic in general use tends to mean someone who is undecided and feels that the argument is evenly balanced on either side. You could be agnostic on the grounds that the evidence is only 99.99% on one side.
Also, theists cannot prove that their particular god exists so, until they start referring to themselves as agnostics, I’m still happy to call myself an atheist.
A lot of the discussion has been around the use of the word ‘probably’ in the ad. Some people said that this showed a lack of conviction and was really a statement of agnosticism. Actually the truth was that the word had to be added to satisfy the advertising authorities. I think most of us have come round to accept ‘probably’ as it is logically correct (you can’t prove that there isn’t a god), but I think it’s going a bit far to say that this makes us agnostics rather than atheists.
I call myself an atheist because I don’t believe in the existence of god, in the same sense I don’t believe in the existence of unicorns or the tooth fairy. I could never claim that I can prove the non-existence of any of these entities.
Some atheists describe themselves as strong agnostics as the argument cannot be proved one way or another. I think this is a fine philosophical point, but the problem is that the agnostic in general use tends to mean someone who is undecided and feels that the argument is evenly balanced on either side. You could be agnostic on the grounds that the evidence is only 99.99% on one side.
Also, theists cannot prove that their particular god exists so, until they start referring to themselves as agnostics, I’m still happy to call myself an atheist.
Saturday, 3 January 2009
Does business need to be moral or just amoral?
As it's still holiday season I'm getting a bit behind in listening to all my podcasts, so I've only just heard this one from the Radio 4 Today show (don't know how long they keep their links active!). Their guest editor was Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster. As he is such an important person ( :-/ ), he was able to arrange an interview with Gordon Brown. During the interview, the Cardinal was suggesting to the PM that, after the recent problems, businesses should take on higher standards of morals and this would somehow protect the public in the future.
I think he is missing the point here. I don't think it is the position of businesses to be deliberately moral or immoral. Businesses should do whatever they need to do to survive in the long term. Without wanting to sound too Darwinian, natural selection will tend to favour those businesses that act in what most people consider to be a moral or ethical manner. Any business that consistently acted immorally or unethically would eventually get caught out, either through legal action or through a failure of their business model (e.g. the irresponsible lending of money that we have seen over the last few years).
Even though my politics tend to be on the liberal side, I could agree with the point of a economist I heard recently. He said that the problem with the banking industry was not that they were too capitalist, but that they weren't capitalist enough. In a pure capitalist system, each bank would be entirely responsible for its own actions, without any chance of a government bail-out. In this situation, they would not take so many dangerous risks and, almost by default, would have to act in a more reasonable, ethical, moral manner.
To me, this is probably how ethics and morality evolved generally. There is no need to impose a set of moral rules from on high. There are certain sets of behaviour that will allow a society to flourish and others that will only lead to a complete breakdown. Any society where murder and theft were acceptable would just fall apart very quickly. The only societies that would survive would be those that embraced a general sense of trust, but punished those who broke that trust.
In fact, for a long time I've felt that it just comes down to Game Theory. I studied Game Theory a little when I was working with Artificial Life and it relates to a lot of complex real world issues. There doesn't need to any grand supernatural theory as to why being good is good - it just works! Incidentally, when I looked up the Tit for Tat strategy that the argument above relies on, there was a link to a Richard Dawkins programme that discusses how this relates to the evolution of altruism, so maybe I'm on the right track!
I think he is missing the point here. I don't think it is the position of businesses to be deliberately moral or immoral. Businesses should do whatever they need to do to survive in the long term. Without wanting to sound too Darwinian, natural selection will tend to favour those businesses that act in what most people consider to be a moral or ethical manner. Any business that consistently acted immorally or unethically would eventually get caught out, either through legal action or through a failure of their business model (e.g. the irresponsible lending of money that we have seen over the last few years).
Even though my politics tend to be on the liberal side, I could agree with the point of a economist I heard recently. He said that the problem with the banking industry was not that they were too capitalist, but that they weren't capitalist enough. In a pure capitalist system, each bank would be entirely responsible for its own actions, without any chance of a government bail-out. In this situation, they would not take so many dangerous risks and, almost by default, would have to act in a more reasonable, ethical, moral manner.
To me, this is probably how ethics and morality evolved generally. There is no need to impose a set of moral rules from on high. There are certain sets of behaviour that will allow a society to flourish and others that will only lead to a complete breakdown. Any society where murder and theft were acceptable would just fall apart very quickly. The only societies that would survive would be those that embraced a general sense of trust, but punished those who broke that trust.
In fact, for a long time I've felt that it just comes down to Game Theory. I studied Game Theory a little when I was working with Artificial Life and it relates to a lot of complex real world issues. There doesn't need to any grand supernatural theory as to why being good is good - it just works! Incidentally, when I looked up the Tit for Tat strategy that the argument above relies on, there was a link to a Richard Dawkins programme that discusses how this relates to the evolution of altruism, so maybe I'm on the right track!
Saturday, 13 December 2008
No, you can't have it both ways
Another day, another article on whether religion and evolution can coexist. I have never really understood the position of religious scientists who claim that there is no conflict and it is perfectly possible to accept both the theory of evolution and the existence of a supernatural. If you really understand the concept of evolution there can't be any place for an external force who either directed the process or interfered with the process as it went along. Evolution moves forward by the process of random mutation and mixing of genes through reproduction in conjunction with natural selection. How can you believe in this process, but also believe that man was created in god's image so that there was always some directionality to the evolution of humans and a known endpoint? Did god somehow tweak the environment in such a way that there was only one way that evolution could go? Or did he directly interfere with the process? If he was constantly adjusting, why did he stop about 150,000 years ago and then only start to interact with humans 6,000 years ago? It makes less sense the more I think about it!
I've dabbled a bit in genetic algorithms and Artificial Life, so I can sympathise with his job!
I've dabbled a bit in genetic algorithms and Artificial Life, so I can sympathise with his job!
Monday, 8 December 2008
Another facepalm moment
It's a pity that intelligence and education isn't a barrier to reproduction. I think some people are definitely holding this evolution business back...
Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Are they really that concerned about the
Maybe they are worried about the competition and that some creatures will be worshipping the Great Creator Craig Venter in a few million years.
Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Are they really that concerned about the
potential to create life at a nano scale without divine intervention
Maybe they are worried about the competition and that some creatures will be worshipping the Great Creator Craig Venter in a few million years.
Sunday, 7 December 2008
Morality
I get really fed up with religious people telling us that the reasons for the ills in today's society are due to our rejection of religion. See today's moan by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor for example.
The UK is certainly less religious than it used to be, say 50 years ago, and our society is probably worse now than it was then. The problems in the US are a lot worse when you look at measures such as murder, teen pregnancies and drug addiction. Is the US less religious than it used to be? I don't know.
It's interesting that there are studies like those of Gregory Paul that show there is a correlation between sociological problems and religiousness and there is also the work of Phil Zuckerman who has shown that the most stable, balanced, safe, societies are the most secular, non-religious ones such as the Scandinavian countries.
Here's my take on this issue. Societies that have historically had their morality imposed on them from religious authorities have never been forced to think for themselves. It's the equivalent of a parent telling a child to do something 'because I say so'. Once that religious authority loses its influence, then there could well be a loss of moral direction, in the same way as a child might misbehave once a parent loses control.
In a society where morality isn't imposed and could be said to be somewhat subjective, you have to consider for yourself what the consequences of your actions are and take full responsibility for your actions. This internally generated morality will always stay with you.
The UK is certainly less religious than it used to be, say 50 years ago, and our society is probably worse now than it was then. The problems in the US are a lot worse when you look at measures such as murder, teen pregnancies and drug addiction. Is the US less religious than it used to be? I don't know.
It's interesting that there are studies like those of Gregory Paul that show there is a correlation between sociological problems and religiousness and there is also the work of Phil Zuckerman who has shown that the most stable, balanced, safe, societies are the most secular, non-religious ones such as the Scandinavian countries.
Here's my take on this issue. Societies that have historically had their morality imposed on them from religious authorities have never been forced to think for themselves. It's the equivalent of a parent telling a child to do something 'because I say so'. Once that religious authority loses its influence, then there could well be a loss of moral direction, in the same way as a child might misbehave once a parent loses control.
In a society where morality isn't imposed and could be said to be somewhat subjective, you have to consider for yourself what the consequences of your actions are and take full responsibility for your actions. This internally generated morality will always stay with you.
Sunday, 30 November 2008
The Age of Reason
I don't know how I've gone this long without reading it, but I've finally started to read The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. It's very interesting so far and an easy read. It's written from a deist point of view and is as scathing of organized religion as anything from the atheists of today such as Dawkins and Hitchens. I wonder if the deists of the 18th century who became the founding fathers of America would be atheists today when it's not so much of a terrible sin to denounce completely denounce god and religion.
Even in the first few pages, I've found some choice quotes on religion in general
and the Old Testament
The worst thing is that I probably won't have enough time to finish the book until Christmas.
Edit: It just struck me that Thomas Paine looked familiar
Even in the first few pages, I've found some choice quotes on religion in general
The un-natural anything is, the more is it capable of becoming the object of dismal admiration
and the Old Testament
It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.
The worst thing is that I probably won't have enough time to finish the book until Christmas.
Edit: It just struck me that Thomas Paine looked familiar
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Catch them while they're young
I've been wondering whether it's easier to decide on your philosophy of life, a particular religion or lack of religion, when you are older or younger.
Like most people in the UK I was brought up in a culturally Christian household. The rest of the family believed in the religion they had been brought with, but didn't go to church and religion didn't really have any effect on our daily lives.
At the age of about 11-12, I decided to take myself off to the local Baptist church and Sunday school to find out what this religion business was all about. I began to realise that I couldn't take all the parables literally, as everyone seemed to, and the whole story started to make less and less sense.
Not long after my church experience, we were given a course in Comparative Religions in school. This finally convinced me that religion was a made-made phenomenon and that all the believers around me were just following the religion that they were brought up in.
So, by the age of 13 I was a devout atheist (although strictly I should say a strong agnostic - just to be logically consistent!). Maybe I was lucky as my parents hadn't forced religion on me, but I didn't ever feel that I had wasted any time or intellectual effort on believing. My 'belief' was just something that I went along with, like Santa or the tooth fairy and giving it up didn't worry me.
I can imagine that if I had truly believed what people had been telling me and I had run my life on that basis, that it would be very difficult to make such a change in philosophy later in life. I guess the longer you follow a particular way of thinking the harder it is to change. Also, you get comfortable with your way of thinking and you may not want to start thinking about it too deeply in case you realise you have been wasting your time.
I'm not saying that everyone ought to believe the same as me, but as most children are brought up in a society that is culturally religious, they should be given full sight of all the alternative viewpoints (through comparative religion or critical thinking courses) so they realise there is a choice and they don't have to believe everything they have been told.
Like most people in the UK I was brought up in a culturally Christian household. The rest of the family believed in the religion they had been brought with, but didn't go to church and religion didn't really have any effect on our daily lives.
At the age of about 11-12, I decided to take myself off to the local Baptist church and Sunday school to find out what this religion business was all about. I began to realise that I couldn't take all the parables literally, as everyone seemed to, and the whole story started to make less and less sense.
Not long after my church experience, we were given a course in Comparative Religions in school. This finally convinced me that religion was a made-made phenomenon and that all the believers around me were just following the religion that they were brought up in.
So, by the age of 13 I was a devout atheist (although strictly I should say a strong agnostic - just to be logically consistent!). Maybe I was lucky as my parents hadn't forced religion on me, but I didn't ever feel that I had wasted any time or intellectual effort on believing. My 'belief' was just something that I went along with, like Santa or the tooth fairy and giving it up didn't worry me.
I can imagine that if I had truly believed what people had been telling me and I had run my life on that basis, that it would be very difficult to make such a change in philosophy later in life. I guess the longer you follow a particular way of thinking the harder it is to change. Also, you get comfortable with your way of thinking and you may not want to start thinking about it too deeply in case you realise you have been wasting your time.
I'm not saying that everyone ought to believe the same as me, but as most children are brought up in a society that is culturally religious, they should be given full sight of all the alternative viewpoints (through comparative religion or critical thinking courses) so they realise there is a choice and they don't have to believe everything they have been told.
Friday, 21 November 2008
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Restoring My Faith in Human Nature
One of the big discussion points between atheists and theists is 'do you need religion in order to be moral?'. Hmm, just saw this headline from the BBC pop up on my news aggregator...
Monks brawl at Jerusalem shrine
Funny, I don't remember seeing anything like 'Atheists and agnostics brawl at science museum'.
Monks brawl at Jerusalem shrine
Funny, I don't remember seeing anything like 'Atheists and agnostics brawl at science museum'.
Monday, 6 October 2008
3 for the price of 1
When I checked the BBC News website today, the top 3 emailed news report were all related to religion and none of them showed the subject in a great light.
The first one, here, was the most interesting. It concerns the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest known copy of the Bible. Quoting the article,
It's interesting that some of the comments on the article concede that the bible was written by man, not god, but that it was 'guided' by god. It seems obvious that here's a collection of odds and ends that has been collated over hundreds of years, many years after the events are alleged to have taken place. The crazy part is that some people believe that their version of the book is absolutely 100% true and they will live their life by it. What do they do when different versions of the book appear? Do their heads explode?
The second story was titled 'Pope criticises pursuit of wealth'. I'm not sure which palace the leader of this multi-million (billion?) dollar organisation was speaking from. I hope the credit crunch doesn't effect them too much.
The third story was a bit weird. Another example of religious people wrapping themselves in knots trying to reconcile Bronze Age ideas with the real world. This one was about ultra-orthodox Jews making sure their mobile phones are kosher. I suppose that any group that deliberately puts itself at a disadvantage will eventually fade away.
The first one, here, was the most interesting. It concerns the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest known copy of the Bible. Quoting the article,
For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.
It's interesting that some of the comments on the article concede that the bible was written by man, not god, but that it was 'guided' by god. It seems obvious that here's a collection of odds and ends that has been collated over hundreds of years, many years after the events are alleged to have taken place. The crazy part is that some people believe that their version of the book is absolutely 100% true and they will live their life by it. What do they do when different versions of the book appear? Do their heads explode?
The second story was titled 'Pope criticises pursuit of wealth'. I'm not sure which palace the leader of this multi-million (billion?) dollar organisation was speaking from. I hope the credit crunch doesn't effect them too much.
The third story was a bit weird. Another example of religious people wrapping themselves in knots trying to reconcile Bronze Age ideas with the real world. This one was about ultra-orthodox Jews making sure their mobile phones are kosher. I suppose that any group that deliberately puts itself at a disadvantage will eventually fade away.
Monday, 8 September 2008
More business for Claims Direct?
Now here's an interesting development...
The church of scientology is being taken to court in France for 'organized fraud'. There are some more details in here on the BBC and here in the Washington Post. This particular case is related to a woman being persuaded to hand over money in return for items such as courses and books that would, I guess, improve her mental and spiritual condition. She then claimed that these were fraudulent. I'm not really up on scientology, but are their claims for the wellbeing of their 'clients' significantly different to that of any other religion?
Would it be possible to sue the church of scientology if their claims were accepted to be true? Would it be equally possible to sue some other religions based on their claims?
The church of scientology is being taken to court in France for 'organized fraud'. There are some more details in here on the BBC and here in the Washington Post. This particular case is related to a woman being persuaded to hand over money in return for items such as courses and books that would, I guess, improve her mental and spiritual condition. She then claimed that these were fraudulent. I'm not really up on scientology, but are their claims for the wellbeing of their 'clients' significantly different to that of any other religion?
Would it be possible to sue the church of scientology if their claims were accepted to be true? Would it be equally possible to sue some other religions based on their claims?
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
Leave them kids alone
As the parent of a child who attends a local village school (and a second one starting this week) that has the misfortune to be Church of England Voluntary Controlled, I was concerned to see this report from the National Secular Society. We don't send our children to a VC school out of choice - the church controls almost all village schools in the area. In fact, a quick check on the net shows that there are 7 primary/first schools in the area and they are all controlled by the Church of England. To compound the problem, the middle school and secondary school that take children from the area are also C of E.
The history of the VC and VA (Voluntary Aided) status seems to be a hangover from the donation of land or buildings by the church in the distant past. The annoying thing is that the church still gets a say in the running of the school and the appointment of teachers even though they don't contribute anything towards the upkeep of the school or the teachers' salaries. The money comes from our taxes
The report from the NSS shows that the government are trying to make the situation worse. It's bad enough that the schools are obliged to employ a teacher who can teach RE. Now a proposed change in the law makes it possible for a VC school to restrict the post of head teacher to someone who has the 'right' religious views. Previously, it was not permitted for a school to restrict the head post to so-called 'reserved teacher'. The actual definition in the Act (School Standards and Framework Act 1998) is
The proposed law change means that it is possible for a school to reserve the head teacher role for someone who meets the criteria above. So, now the head teacher has to live a 'Christian' life in and out of school and if the governors of the school decide so, no non-Christian would be allowed to take the role of head. By the way, the local vicar always gets a seat on the board of governors.
To be fair in our case, the amount of religion that the children are 'taught' is minimal and so far we have managed to counter it in our son by letting him know that people believe lots of different things and that you shouldn't believe something just because someone important tells you that it is true. He knows that we don't believe in god, but we aren't telling him what to think, just that he is allowed to work it out for himself.
There has been a lot of discussion in the media over the last few weeks about faith schools (like here and here). A big problem I have with the supporters of faith schools is when they talk about the ethos of the school as if there are certain aspects of behaviour, ethics or morality that could be taught in a religious context. I've found through a recent diocesan inspection of our local school that you pick out all the good bits, like politeness, good manners and hard work and call them Christian values. Parents who send their children to religious schools do so because they appear to get better results. Of course, allowing a school to select its pupils on any grounds gives it the opportunity to weed out less able pupils and less interested (and possibly less wealthy) parents. The sooner we removed all religion from schools (apart from some healthy Comparative Religion classes), the better. If anyone can provide some evidence that faith schools are better because of their faith, then I'd like to see it.
The history of the VC and VA (Voluntary Aided) status seems to be a hangover from the donation of land or buildings by the church in the distant past. The annoying thing is that the church still gets a say in the running of the school and the appointment of teachers even though they don't contribute anything towards the upkeep of the school or the teachers' salaries. The money comes from our taxes
The report from the NSS shows that the government are trying to make the situation worse. It's bad enough that the schools are obliged to employ a teacher who can teach RE. Now a proposed change in the law makes it possible for a VC school to restrict the post of head teacher to someone who has the 'right' religious views. Previously, it was not permitted for a school to restrict the head post to so-called 'reserved teacher'. The actual definition in the Act (School Standards and Framework Act 1998) is
(5) If the school is a voluntary aided school—
(a) preference may be given, in connection with the appointment, remuneration or promotion of teachers at the school, to persons—
(i) whose religious opinions are in accordance with the tenets of the religion or religious denomination specified in relation to the school under section 69(4), or
(ii) who attend religious worship in accordance with those tenets, or
(iii) who give, or are willing to give, religious education at the school in accordance with those tenets; and
(b) regard may be had, in connection with the termination of the employment of any teacher at the school, to any conduct on his part which is incompatible with the precepts, or with the upholding of the tenets, of the religion or religious denomination so specified.
The proposed law change means that it is possible for a school to reserve the head teacher role for someone who meets the criteria above. So, now the head teacher has to live a 'Christian' life in and out of school and if the governors of the school decide so, no non-Christian would be allowed to take the role of head. By the way, the local vicar always gets a seat on the board of governors.
To be fair in our case, the amount of religion that the children are 'taught' is minimal and so far we have managed to counter it in our son by letting him know that people believe lots of different things and that you shouldn't believe something just because someone important tells you that it is true. He knows that we don't believe in god, but we aren't telling him what to think, just that he is allowed to work it out for himself.
There has been a lot of discussion in the media over the last few weeks about faith schools (like here and here). A big problem I have with the supporters of faith schools is when they talk about the ethos of the school as if there are certain aspects of behaviour, ethics or morality that could be taught in a religious context. I've found through a recent diocesan inspection of our local school that you pick out all the good bits, like politeness, good manners and hard work and call them Christian values. Parents who send their children to religious schools do so because they appear to get better results. Of course, allowing a school to select its pupils on any grounds gives it the opportunity to weed out less able pupils and less interested (and possibly less wealthy) parents. The sooner we removed all religion from schools (apart from some healthy Comparative Religion classes), the better. If anyone can provide some evidence that faith schools are better because of their faith, then I'd like to see it.
Monday, 18 August 2008
The Genius of Charles Darwin
Just watched the 3rd part of The Genius of Charles Darwin (presented by Richard Dawkins) and I must say that this was Richard's best TV performance yet.The tone and pace of the programme was perfect. I'm now getting less frustrated by the collection of ignorant creationists, as Richard's technique of letting them talk their way into deeper and deeper holes just makes them look like the idiots they are.
I was not impressed by the wishy-washy science teachers who didn't want to offend the feelings of their students by emphasizing the truth of scientific evidence over the 'evidence' of their religious beliefs.
I thought the segment with the Archbish of C was quite funny. He really was squirming when Richard pushed him on whether he thought that the virgin birth was a scientific fact and all but admitted that his views were a bit silly and didn't make any sense as a truthful representation of the world. It was good of him to appear on the programme, but if he is the top guy in the C of E, then we don't have much to worry about!
I was not impressed by the wishy-washy science teachers who didn't want to offend the feelings of their students by emphasizing the truth of scientific evidence over the 'evidence' of their religious beliefs.
I thought the segment with the Archbish of C was quite funny. He really was squirming when Richard pushed him on whether he thought that the virgin birth was a scientific fact and all but admitted that his views were a bit silly and didn't make any sense as a truthful representation of the world. It was good of him to appear on the programme, but if he is the top guy in the C of E, then we don't have much to worry about!
Sunday, 17 August 2008
Why does ethics have to equal religion?
I've been keeping a close eye on the lead up to the US elections. I'm not sure whether I've become more politically aware, or whether I've just been following more US blogs and podcasts over the last few months. One story that I spotted today was on the good old BBC, however. It was a debate between McCain and Obama. Nothing unusual so far. The odd thing in this case was that it was billed as a 'religious forum', hosted by the pastor of a mega church (that phrase makes me shudder) called Rick Warren.
The reports I've read so far don't really spell out why the questions asked of the candidates were particularly religious and why they couldn't have equally been asked in a secular context on the ethical and moral beliefs of the two men. Abortion, same-sex marriage, teen pregnancies and, more personally, "What was your greatest moral failure?", "Who are the three wisest people in your life?", "Why do you want to be president?".
Why do questions like this need to be asked in a religious setting? If I wanted to vote for someone, I would want to know how he came to hold his views on a particular subject. If somebody is against same-sex marriage or abortion in any situation, then I'd expect to hear reasonable argument about why that is a sensible position to hold. Just saying "That's my position because my religion says so" doesn't give me a lot of confidence in someone who has to make important decisions based on many sources of evidence and opinion.
To pick out one of these "moral" issues, I find the obsession with same-sex marriage particularly annoying. Apart from the obvious point that it's nothing to do with anyone else, the argument often seems to over a matter of semantics. Obama was quoted as saying that marriage should only be a "union between a man and a woman", but he supported same-sex civil unions. If there is no legal difference between a marriage and a civil union, then is the argument just over m-word? Some even argue that the only true marriage is a religious one. Of course, what they mean by this is a Christian marriage ceremony, pushing away other religions as well as secularists.
I once heard someone from one of the humanist organizations suggesting that we could leave the word 'marriage' as the description for the Christian ceremony and everyone still goes has to go through a civil process to formalize their union. At first I thought this was a good idea. Of course, everyone would still refer to the civil unions as 'marriages' and 'weddings', whatever the formal designation. The other reason it would be a bad idea is that marriage didn't ever start off with religious connotations. Marriages were going on long before it became a Christian ceremony in the Middle Ages. The Romans even had legal same-sex marriages!
It would be interesting if any politican who made a statement on a moral matter actually explained why they held that view rather than just refering to the standard line of the party they belong to or the religion they happened to be born into.
The reports I've read so far don't really spell out why the questions asked of the candidates were particularly religious and why they couldn't have equally been asked in a secular context on the ethical and moral beliefs of the two men. Abortion, same-sex marriage, teen pregnancies and, more personally, "What was your greatest moral failure?", "Who are the three wisest people in your life?", "Why do you want to be president?".
Why do questions like this need to be asked in a religious setting? If I wanted to vote for someone, I would want to know how he came to hold his views on a particular subject. If somebody is against same-sex marriage or abortion in any situation, then I'd expect to hear reasonable argument about why that is a sensible position to hold. Just saying "That's my position because my religion says so" doesn't give me a lot of confidence in someone who has to make important decisions based on many sources of evidence and opinion.
To pick out one of these "moral" issues, I find the obsession with same-sex marriage particularly annoying. Apart from the obvious point that it's nothing to do with anyone else, the argument often seems to over a matter of semantics. Obama was quoted as saying that marriage should only be a "union between a man and a woman", but he supported same-sex civil unions. If there is no legal difference between a marriage and a civil union, then is the argument just over m-word? Some even argue that the only true marriage is a religious one. Of course, what they mean by this is a Christian marriage ceremony, pushing away other religions as well as secularists.
I once heard someone from one of the humanist organizations suggesting that we could leave the word 'marriage' as the description for the Christian ceremony and everyone still goes has to go through a civil process to formalize their union. At first I thought this was a good idea. Of course, everyone would still refer to the civil unions as 'marriages' and 'weddings', whatever the formal designation. The other reason it would be a bad idea is that marriage didn't ever start off with religious connotations. Marriages were going on long before it became a Christian ceremony in the Middle Ages. The Romans even had legal same-sex marriages!
It would be interesting if any politican who made a statement on a moral matter actually explained why they held that view rather than just refering to the standard line of the party they belong to or the religion they happened to be born into.
Monday, 11 August 2008
Atheist Blogroll
My blog has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Freedom to be wrong
I'm currently reading "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill and there is one section early on that jumped out at me.
It's that last sentence that I found particularly interesting. The first example that came to mind was of the debate between those who accept evolution and those who believe in a religious version of creation. Does it strengthen the position of a true viewpoint to be tested against a falsehood rather than avoiding the debate? I know Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists because it is not possible to hold a sensible debate based on evidence and reasoned argument against someone who doesn't play by the same rules of evidence and reason. After hearing 'debates' between biologists and creationists who refuse to accept the existence of transitional fossils I can see his point.
I'm wondering if the nature of public debate was really different in Mill's time or whether he was only involved in debates with other educated people. The problem these days is that you don't have to have any understanding of a subject or hold any evidence in order to put your case to a mass audience. Witness the case of the MMR scare where one dodgy study put one side of the case, but there was an overwhelming number of studies that showed the opposite. If you just looked at the mass media, the simple fact that there were two sides to the argument was treated as if both sides were of equal merit. This story just won't go away, Americans are now getting 'advice' on the safety of vaccines from those bastions of the medical profession, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, on Oprah.
Was Mills correct that debate between two opposing positions - 'true' and 'false' is a benefit to the side of the truth? Or have we got to a point in society today where the lack of critical thinking and the persuasiveness of the mass media means that 'truth' doesn't mean anything and that any point of view that is put forward on TV must automatically be valid? Also, there doesn't seem to be any real argument - everyone's position is equal, so there is never any reason to be persuaded to change your mind. Without trying to sound like a Monty Python sketch, there's more to an argument than saying 'No, it isn't'.
Was there ever a golden age of civilized debate when, to win an argument, it was enough just to be right?
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is; that is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
It's that last sentence that I found particularly interesting. The first example that came to mind was of the debate between those who accept evolution and those who believe in a religious version of creation. Does it strengthen the position of a true viewpoint to be tested against a falsehood rather than avoiding the debate? I know Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists because it is not possible to hold a sensible debate based on evidence and reasoned argument against someone who doesn't play by the same rules of evidence and reason. After hearing 'debates' between biologists and creationists who refuse to accept the existence of transitional fossils I can see his point.
I'm wondering if the nature of public debate was really different in Mill's time or whether he was only involved in debates with other educated people. The problem these days is that you don't have to have any understanding of a subject or hold any evidence in order to put your case to a mass audience. Witness the case of the MMR scare where one dodgy study put one side of the case, but there was an overwhelming number of studies that showed the opposite. If you just looked at the mass media, the simple fact that there were two sides to the argument was treated as if both sides were of equal merit. This story just won't go away, Americans are now getting 'advice' on the safety of vaccines from those bastions of the medical profession, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, on Oprah.
Was Mills correct that debate between two opposing positions - 'true' and 'false' is a benefit to the side of the truth? Or have we got to a point in society today where the lack of critical thinking and the persuasiveness of the mass media means that 'truth' doesn't mean anything and that any point of view that is put forward on TV must automatically be valid? Also, there doesn't seem to be any real argument - everyone's position is equal, so there is never any reason to be persuaded to change your mind. Without trying to sound like a Monty Python sketch, there's more to an argument than saying 'No, it isn't'.
Was there ever a golden age of civilized debate when, to win an argument, it was enough just to be right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)