Monthly Archives: April 2012

Anti-Catholicism and the Protection of Freedom

Standard

My last few posts have been about things which I only partly understand — for example, universes from nothing, the relation of science, philosophy and culture — but now I want to turn in a different direction, and change the pace of discussion. A few days ago Ophelia Benson, over at Butterflies and Wheels, brought our attention to the theocratic, totalitarian, repressive streak running through Catholicism (in her post “Donohue’s success” and a later one, “Donohue to citizens: stfu“). Ophelia links to the Network for Church Monitoring, and Chapter 15 of Stephen Mumford’s book The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a US Population Policy, under the title “The Catholic League and the Suppression of the Press Today.” The chapter goes into a great deal of detail about how the Catholic League, led by William Donohue, brings its power and influence to bear on newspapers, TV networks, and other media, should they have the gall or audacity to criticise the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a disturbing story.

Mumford speaks of the principles that guide the League’s activities:

One is revealed in a vicious 1994 attack against the New London newspaper, The Day, for an editorial critical of the Catholic Church: “What is truly ‘beyond understanding’ is not the Catholic Church’s position, it is the fact that a secular newspaper has the audacity to stick it’s nose in where it doesn’t belong. It is nobody’s business what the Catholic Church does.”

The Catholic Church, then, is supposedly above criticism. What the Catholic Church does is its own business, and no one should criticise it. This goes for dissident Catholics as well as those who have no relationship to the Catholic Church. Whether the Catholic Church engages in activities that threaten the freedom of citizens is irrelevant to the point that is being made. The church itself is above criticism, and it is not the public’s business. Should they not get the point, the League will fight for the right of the church to remain above criticism, by threatening newspapers, TV channels, etc., with mass action.

Continue reading →

About these ads

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Standard

This is the large “philosophical” question that underwrites a lot that passes as philosophical theology nowadays, and, to the degree that it does not track the progress of science — and in particular, here, of course, physics — it is a nonsense question, and attempts to answer it with a god or gods or some transcendent cause or Aristotelian first mover are bound to end up in a dead-end. Lawrence Krauss has now, for the benefit of us all, provided a more comprehensive, and clearly thought out version, of what he said off-the-cuff in his earlier interview with the Atlantic. In this he has also expressed his apology to those whom he “may have unjustly offended by seemingly blanket statements about the field [viz., philosophy],” and has placed those remarks very carefully in context — and now I find little to disagree with him about. Indeed, it seems to me that he says some very important things that are worthwhile ruminating on for a few moments.

Let’s begin at the end, where he says, trenchantly:

To those who wish to impose their definition of reality abstractly, independent[ly] of emerging empirical knowledge and the changing questions that go with it, and call that either philosophy or theology, I would say this: Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature.

And to this I can only say: Agreed. By and large the attempt to speak abstractly about reality, as though we could spin out a theory of the nature of Being (with a capital “B”) from our own minds, is the proprietary bailiwick of theology, though a pursuit that, in the person of someone like Leibniz, trespassed ever so slightly into the domain of philosophy. It is important, in this connexion, to remember that the ancient Greek “philosophers” were as much empirical scientists as they were armchair ontologists or metaphysicians. Aristotle’s Metaphysics is the book the comes after (“meta”) the Physics, and while it may seem to be an abstract discipline, was, it is fair to say, a conceptual amanuensis to physics and not a freestanding theory of being on its own. Philosophy does not, and cannot, exist independently of science. Even morality or ethics must keep the science of human origins and evolution, as well as discoveries in neuroscience, sociology, political science, and history in mind, if it is to apply with any purpose to real human beings living their lives in the world as we are coming to know it. Perhaps the most cogent moral theory today is Philip Kitcher’s The Ethical Project (which I am slowly making my way through), which provides an evolutionary account of a project which is steadily developing and evolving along with our knowledge of ourselves. Patricia Churchland’s book Braintrust is another work by a philosopher who takes serious account of the discoveries of neuroscience and their impact on morality.

Continue reading →

Science, Philosophy and Culture

Standard

Some time ago I was taken aback when I heard Richard Dawkins say, without any apparent discomfort, that he had thought philosophy a waste of time until he met Dan Dennett. The trouble is that his approval of Dan Dennett was closely allied to his agreement with him. This, it seems to me, is a deeply troubling trend. While I understand that scholarship tends to be a full contact sport, and that not a little blood is spilt in the prosecuting of it, the condemnation of something that you do not understand, without any attempt to understand it, is, in general, to be deplored. I have sometimes made an exception in the case of theology, defending Dawkins against Terry Eagleton’s criticism that he had not studied Duns Scotus and Aquinas on epistemology, but Eagleton’s warning is not something that should be simply dismissed. Here is what he said:

What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?

As it happens, I don’t think anything in Eagleton’s specific suggestions in his review would really have helped Dawkins come to terms with the debate between faith and unfaith. If Eagleton thought there was something worthwhile that would really have challenged Dawkins’ criticisms, then he needed to become much more specific than simply to show off his learning.

But this does not diminish the importance of knowing something of your opponent’s strongest case before crowing too loudly about having consigned him to the dustheap. I am reminded of this by two blog posts that were published today or late yesterday, one by Massimo Pigliucci, the other by Bart Ehrman. Professor Pigliucci dismembers Lawrence Krauss’s dismissal of philosophy in an interview in the Atlantic Monthly, whereas Professor Ehrman takes Richard Carrier to task for his rather over the top dismissal of the former’s book, Did Jesus Exist? The Sophists of ancient Greek, perhaps the first self-help gurus known to history, promised to teach their acolytes how to make the weaker argument appear the stronger. Scholarship, however, is supposed to lead to the truth, and sort out the criteria by which the truth in various fields is established, and — while I have indulged in it myself from time to time — brash dismissals of one’s opponents is not the best way through the maze of question and counter-question that can be put on practically any topic you care to name.

Continue reading →

Let’s get specific, shall we?

Standard
Error
This video doesn’t exist

To wake up to the smell of academic napalm in the morning it not altogether invigorating, whatever might be thought of the real thing. It doesn’t smell like victory. However, ten minutes after I turned on my computer I was mired in buttals and rebuttals about the Jesus of history v the Jesus of myth — never mind the Christ of faith — and claims and counterclaims about who is competent to discuss this issue, and what particular academic qualifications are necessary in order even to speak upon the subject, let alone charge exorbitant fees to listen in on parts of the discussion. Jerry Coyne points out, with some justice, that if Ehrman chose to respond (sort of) to Richard Carrier’s criticism of his book, he should at least have considered some other aspects of his argument than simply the question whether a penis-headed cock statue resided somewhere in the Vatican archives, especially since this was one of the marginal points that Carrier made in his critique. Meanwhile, R. Joseph Hoffmann attacks P.Z. Myers (amongst others) – Hoffmann, with wonted politeness, calling him the ”atheist blogger and full-time loudmouth P Z Myers” — for his blog post “Carrier cold-cocks Ehrman” (which is, it should be noted, a response to Ehrman’s HuffPo piece touting his new book, and not Carrier’s more comprehensive response to the book itself). Much of the to-and-froing about the historical Jesus seems to come down to academic qualifications and whether those engaged in the discussion have written a book, or are tenured academics, or have the requisite expertise, or not, as the case may be, something that seems to take up as much space as the arguments themselves. And while, of course, one expects people to use critical methods in their study of anything at all, if they want to approach more closely to the truth, this is not comprehensively dealt with by listing a person’s academic credentials.

Continue reading →

Hobson’s Choice

Standard

Theo Hobson, with whose contributions to the Guardian I do not often agree, has a new column this morning entitled: Can Liberal Christians stop banging on about gayness? He’s afraid that liberal Anglicanism is becoming a one pony show, and that liberal Anglicanism is becoming identified as the gay party at prayer (though this is not the way he puts it), thus distracting from so many other things that liberalism should represent. Basically, Hobson thinks that this is just poor communication:

Dwelling on the issue is a bad form of Christian communication. The point of Christian communication, or “proclamation”, is to interest people in Christianity, to make it seem attractive, inviting, serious. Banging on about gayness puts people off.

That at least has the virtue of being clear, a bit like Chris Mooney’s claim that accommodationism is bad form for atheist scientists, or like the old saw that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

However, Hobson doesn’t seem to recognise why this particular agenda is so high on the list for liberal Anglicans. It’s in a sense a moral marker for liberal Christianity. Like racism for earlier Christian radicals, the cause of gay Christians has dominated liberal Christianity now for nearly three decades, if not a bit longer. Why? Because this is the one area about which conservative, evangelical Anglicans, or conservative, high church Anglicans, are not prepared to give a centimetre, let alone an inch.

Continue reading →

On the perfection of Jesus’ moral teaching

Standard

It is almost universally taken for granted that Jesus’ moral teaching, whatever else we might want to say about him, is exalted, if not perfect. Even Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, suggests as much. As he puts it, making sure that no one should misunderstand what he is saying – giving respect where, in my view, it is not due — and confuse it with his earlier description of the Old Testament god:

Well, there’s no denying that, from a moral point of view, Jesus is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of the Old Testament. Indeed Jesus, if he existed (or whoever wrote his script if he didn’t) was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history. The Sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. His ‘turn the other cheek’ anticipated Gandhi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years. It was not for nothing that I wrote an article called ‘Atheists for Jesus’ (and was later delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the legend). [250]

Some Christians might retort that Jesus did not so much anticipate Gandhi or Martin Luther King, but that these two modern heroes learned from him.  However, not to put too fine a point on it, during my years as a priest I kept stumbling over Jesus’ morality, until, in the end, it seemed clear to me that, on the whole, I preferred the Old Testament god. Certainly, there are unlovely features of the Old Testament god, but the best of the Old Testament — or what should more appropriately be called the Jewish scriptures, the Tanach — presents us with a loving and caring god, concerned with justice, and at least dreaming of peace. Jesus, on the other hand, is quite different, and, I believe, morally far less defensible.

I want to take the Sermon on the Mount as the basis of this discussion (Matthew chapters 5-7), since this is what people reflexively refer to when they are thinking of the purity and perfection of Jesus’ moral teaching, but which I think shows, not a perfect man, but someone able to dream up a list of sentimental comforts, and append to them a morality so grotesque in its cruelty and inhumanity that it should be rejected by every thoughtful, caring human being.

Continue reading →

See! As I said: Religion is Tyranny

Standard

Vatican takes on U.S. nuns over gays and all-male priesthood

Apr 19, 2012 – 11:50 AM ET

As if it didn’t already have enough problems on its hands, the Vatican has picked a fight with a group you might expect to be among its chief supporters: nuns.

According to the New York Times, Pope Benedict XVI has named a U.S. bishop to lay down the law to “the largest and most influential group of Catholic nuns in the United States, saying that an investigation found that the group had “serious doctrinal problems.”

The Times reports:

Read more…

Guest Post: Isobel McLachlan to Members of the Scottish Parliament

Standard

[I want to thank Isobel for allowing her email to the Members of the Scottish Parliament on Margo MacDonald's assisted dying bill, which she is reintroducing to the House, to be published here. This is a thoughtful and courageous letter from someone who is on the brink of death, and wants to be in control of her dying. While I wish her well in her ongoing treatments and care, I also recognise with admiration her courage and her determination to argue for her right, and the right of others, to receive assistance in dying and to be permitted to die with the same dignity she shows in her appeal to the Members of the Scottish Parliament.]

I understand Margo Macdonald’s End of Life Bill will be debated & voted on in the the near future.  I wish my views on this matter to be known and considered.

I am 55 years old and suffering from Stage IV Breast Cancer.  Although I have great faith in, and admiration for, the scientists & doctors who work tirelessly and with incredible ingenuity to produce treatments which give people in my situation a good quality of life for as long as possible, the fact remains the condition is incurable.  I have, therefore, had to come to terms with my death in the not too distant future.  In this I am resigned, as I can do nothing to change the fact.  The manner of my death, however, is another matter and, over this, I strongly feel I can and should be able to exert a degree of control.

This Bill would mean that those with the necessary expertise, i.e. doctors, would provide a suitable drug to ensure a peaceful end.  I have heard too many horror stories of dreadfully distressing attempts by family members trying to help a loved one die.  A doctor takes an oath “to do no harm”.  This can be interpreted as prolonging life at all cost.  Weight must also be given, however, to the principle of providing relief from pain and distress, even if this results in the end coming slightly sooner for a terminally ill patient.  I can understand that some medical professionals would not wish to be involved in assisted suicide and so there must, of course, be a means of allowing doctors to “opt out” if it gives them a problem of conscience.

I supported Margo’s previous Bill, but its defeat came as no great surprise.  The breadth of qualification for assistance – with which I agreed – was always going to allow plenty of scope for alarmists to do their worst, ignoring examples in other parts of the world where protection for the vulnerable has been put in place and has been effective.  Her new Bill is, of course, greatly pared down to applying only to the mentally competent terminally ill.  Frankly, it is beyond me how anyone can seriously justify objecting to this, other than sadists and the religious.  In a secular society such as ours, the latter – a minority – should not be allowed to force their beliefs on the majority.  To anyone who would want to deny a peaceful and dignified death to the terminally ill, I would ask “Where is your compassion?”, “Where is your humanity?”

Continue reading →

Religion is an intellectual and social pathology

Standard

All of us have heard by now of the poisoning of schoolgirls in Afghanistan. Ophelia has a short post on “Poisoning schoolgirls for god.” Of course, this is a heinous crime: poisoning girls for the offence of wanting to learn; but it must not be thought to be a distinct crime from the offence of poisoning the minds of the men who committed the act. Religion is an intellectual and social pathology, and should be recognised as such. Of course, the same kind of pathology is evident on occasion in the atheist movement, as the discussion over at RDF of the Women in Secularism Conference demonstrates. Some idiot calling himself “The Ghost of Mr Emmeline Pankhurst” has taken it upon himself to trash the whole discussion thread for his own amusement. It is the institutionalisation of this kind of brainless misogyny that constitutes at least part of religion’s pathology. (And RDF had better start cleaning up its house if it doesn’t want to be painted with the same brush.)

You can see the pathology neatly at work in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:

Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. [1 Cor 7:20-22]

Paul simply reads slavery as freedom and freedom as slavery. Because you are a freed person belonging to the Lord your outward circumstances make no difference. “You were bought,” as he says in the very next verse (23), “with a price.” Life doesn’t count. Your situation or condition now is a matter of indifference. What matters is your belonging to the Lord. You are property, so stop worrying about what you do or do not have. Don’t worry about the injustice of slavery: that would show worldly concern, and you are already set apart from the world. Your earthly life is an irrelevance, because you have been raised with Christ, and that new life is not something of this world, worldly, but it is a foretaste of heaven, of what will happen at the resurrection of the dead.

Continue reading →

How Odd of God to Choose the Jews: Martin Luther, Cardinal Pell, and the Intolerance of Religion

Standard

This is a continuation from my last post about why I write about religion, but from a slightly different angle. While it was mentioned in the press, and Cardinal Pell responded to criticism of his comments about the Jews, and about the dire suffering of the Germans (believe it or not!), it seemed to me worth thinking about for a few more minutes, at least. Something like this should not be allowed to slip quietly under the radar. When cardinals make anti-Jewish remarks — that is, Christian ones — it may seem like a slip of the tongue, but it goes much deeper than that. It’s a bit like when Margaret Somerville says, without any tongue in cheek, that the only reason people are concerned about assisted dying is the intense individualism of contemporary Western society. That, of course, is the flip side of the pope’s concern about relativism. Relativism happens when you don’t agree with the pope. Individualism is intense when individuals claim rights the church is not prepared to countenance.

However, to the point. The epigram in the title (“How odd of God to choose the Jews”) is attributed to William Norman Ewer (1885-1976), one time foreign affairs correspondent for the London Daily Herald. Doubtless in intent an anti-Jewish witticism, it was countered, according to Wikipedia, by equally witty replies:

Not odd of God. / Goyim annoy ‘im

– attributed to Leo Rosen. Or:

But not so odd
As those who choose
A Jewish God
Yet spurn the Jews

– written by either Cecil Brown or Ogden Nash.

Why this sudden burst of interest in anti-Jewish wit and repartee? Well, as I said above, simply because Cardinal Pell, in his debate with Richard Dawkins on Australia Broadcasting Corporation’s “Q & A” the other day, lapsed into some surprising antisemitisms of his own, without any apparent reason or justification. Apparently, this Prince of the Church has apologised, but this should not mean that he should be given a free pass just because he has made pro forma apology. What he said was said before a TV audience and a viewing audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions, and now it’s posted on Youtube for all to see and hear. It was clearly unrehearsed, and thus it would seem expressed a view readily accessible to memory, no doubt because not seldom repeated. And saying that Jesus was the greatest human being who ever lived doesn’t do a thing to qualify the harm, because, for Christians, Jesus was rejected by the Jews, who thereby took the blame upon themselves and upon their children and their children’s children. But couple these remarks about the Jews with his comments about the suffering of the Germans and you end up with the obvious fact that antisemitism is a deeply rooted part of his mental economy.

Continue reading →