Monogamy evolves

Polygamy is pretty popular. Most pre-industrial societies were polygamous in some way, and there are increasing pressures in the west for polygamy to be legalised. After all, it's surely just a matter of personal freedom of expression. If homosexuality and other forms of sexual expression are legal, then why not polygamy. Polygamy never hurt anyone, right?

Well flat wrong, actually, if the evidence presented by Joe Heinrich, at the University of British Columbia, is anything to go by. Heinrich does some pretty interesting research on human culture and cognition, some of which I've covered before on this blog.

But the background to his latest is rather unusual. You see, in Canada they're holding a court case to determine whether the criminalisation of polygamy is constitutional. And Heinrich has presented some pretty compelling evidence to suggest that if it isn't, then it darned well should be.

Bottom line is that, in highly stratified societies like most of those in the modern world (and unlike the forager societies that dominated our evolutionary past) polygamy results in surplus males with no prospects of marriage. That in turn causes all sorts of problems. What's more, polygamy tilts society towards viewing women as property for acquisition, and also decreases investment in children. In the long run, social justice and equality is undermined.

For more on all that, take a look at the write-up in the Vancouver Sun, or read the Heinrich's brief itself - it's fascinating stuff!

But what interests me, from the point of view of this blog at least, is what Heinrich infers from these facts. He suggests no less than that the invention of monogamy was the first step in building our modern, democratic society.

Like most sexual innovations, monogamy seems to have been invented by the Ancient Greeks. And, it seems, they devised it as a deliberate ploy to create stronger, more unified city states. Greek culture was highly successful, which lead to monogamy being adopted and then enforced by the Romans. The early Christians incorporated these ideas into their religion as it expanded (there's no particular stricture against polygamy even in the New Testament).

What we have here is an example of what Heinrich calls 'cultural group selection'. Those societies that adopt the most effective cultural practices are successful, and they dominate and eventually swallow up the less successful societies around them. And so, around the world nations are gradually adopting monogamy as a social norm (just as Canada is now considering abandoning it!).

According to Heinrich, exactly the same phenomenon gave rise to religion. Although we have all sorts of weird cognitive biases, there is nothing inherent within us that gives rise to religion. But, those societies that were able to most effectively make use of our cognitive biases were the most successful, and the edifice they created is what we call religion.

In other words, God evolved - but in a memetic, not genetic sense, with human society as the host.


But of course, just because a cultural invention was successful in the past, does not mean it will be so when the environment changes. Polygamy works for hunter-gatherer societies, but not for more settled ones - and especially not urban societies. Heinrich quotes Satoshi Kanazawa, who has shown that polygamy in the modern world is linked to increased crime rates.

Kanazawa has also shown that polygamy is linked to IQ. It seems that, even controlling for other factors, nations with higher average IQ are less acceptant of polygamy. He suggests that, the better people are at abstract reasoning, the more likely they are to reject polygamy as unworkable for modern societies.

And Kanazawa has, of course, shown exactly the same thing for religion.


Creative Commons License This article by Tom Rees was first published on Epiphenom. It is licensed under Creative Commons.

Humanist Heroes: Omar Khayyam by Dabir Tehrani

Dabir Tehrani explains why Omar Khayyam, the Iranian poet, mathematician and philosopher, is his Humanist Hero.

Omar Khayyam

One of my humanist heroes is Omar Khayyam, the Astronomer, Mathematician, Philosopher, and Poet from Iran. He was born at Naishapur in Khorassan province of Iran in the latter half of the eleventh, and died within the first quarter of the twelfth century CE, at an age over 85, in the same town.

In a then deeply religious atmosphere of Iran, and at a time that the kingdom was under the threat of Hassan Sabbah (a fellow student of Omar Khayyam, who had turned out to be like Osama Ben Laden of today), Khayyam dared to deny the existence of the ‘next life’ and to urge all to drink wine (against the Koran’s rule), to love and enjoy this only life.

When the Malik Shah, king of Iran, determined to reform the calendar, Omar Khayyam was one of the eight learned men employed to do it; the result was the Jalali era (so called from Jalal-ud-din, one of the king’s names) –’a computation of time,’ says Gibbon, ‘which surpasses the Julian, and approaches the accuracy of the Gregorian style.’ He is also the author of some astronomical tables, entitled Ziji-Malikshahi, and the French have republished and translated an Arabic Treatise of his on algebra.

Following are quoted from a preamble by Edward Fitzgerald, who has translated Khayyam’s Rubaiyat (Quatrains) into English:

Omar was too honest of Heart as well of Head for {floating luxuriously between Heaven and Earth, and this World and the Next, on the wings of a poetical expression that might serve indifferently for either}. Having failed (however mistakenly) of finding any Providence but Destiny, and any World but This, he set about making the most of it; preferring rather to soothe the Soul through the Senses into Acquiescence with Things as he saw them, than to perplex it with vain disquietude after what they might be…”

And:

Professor Cowell, to whom I owe the Particulars of Omar’s Life, concludes his Review by comparing him with Lucretius, both as to natural Temper and Genius, and as acted upon by the Circumstances in which he lived. Both indeed were men of subtle, strong, and cultivated Intellect, fine Imagination, and Hearts passionate for Truth and Justice; who justly revolted from their Country’s false Religion, and false, or foolish, Devotion to it; but who fell short of replacing what they subverted by such better Hope as others, with no better Revelation to guide them, had yet made a Law to themselves. Lucretius indeed, with such material as Epicurus furnished, satisfied himself with the theory of a vast machine fortuitously constructed, and acting by a Law that implied no Legislator; and so composing himself into a Stoical rather than Epicurean severity of Attitude… Omar, more desperate, or more careless of any so complicated System as resulted in nothing but hopeless Necessity, flung his own Genius and Learning with a bitter or humorous jest into the general Ruin which their insufficient glimpses only served to reveal; and, pretending sensual pleasure, as the serious purpose of Life, only diverted himself with speculative problems of Deity, Destiny, Matter and Spirit, Good and Evil, and other such questions, easier to start than to run down, and the pursuit of which becomes a very weary sport at last!.

And Fitzgerald ends his introduction by:

However, as there is some traditional presumption, and certainly the opinion of some learned men, in favour of Omar’s being a Sufi—and even something of a Saint–those who please may so interpret his Wine and Cup-bearer. On the other hand, as there is far more historical certainty of his being a Philosopher, of scientific Insight and Ability far beyond that of the Age and Country he lived in; of such moderate worldly Ambition as becomes a Philosopher, and such moderate wants as rarely satisfy a Debauchee; other readers may be content to believe with me that, while the Wine Omar celebrates is simply the Juice of the Grape, he bragg’d more than he drank of it, in very defiance perhaps of that Spiritual Wine which left its Votaries sunk in Hypocrisy or Disgust.

Omar Khayyam’s poetry speaks for itself (as translated by Edward Fitzgerald):

Dreaming when Dawn’s Left Hand was in the Sky
I heard a Voice within the Tavern cry,
“Awake, my Little ones, and fill the Cup
Before Life’s Liquor in its Cup be dry.”

And, as the Cock crew, those who stood before
The Tavern shouted–”Open then the Door.
You know how little while we have to stay,
And, once departed, may return no more.”

“How sweet is mortal Sovranty!”–think some:
Others–”How blest the Paradise to come!”
Ah, take the Cash in hand and waive the Rest;
Oh, the brave Music of a distant Drum!

Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into the Dust Descend;
Dust into Dust, and under Dust, to lie,
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer and–sans End!

Alike for those who for TO-DAY prepare,
And those that after a TO-MORROW stare,
A Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness cries
“Fools! your Reward is neither Here nor There.”

[Muezzin: The person who cries calling for prayer from a minaret tower]

Why, all the Saints and Sages who discuss’d
Of the Two Worlds so learnedly, are thrust
Like foolish Prophets forth; their Words to Scorn
Are scatter’d, and their Mouths are stopt with Dust.

Oh, come with old Khayyam, and leave the Wise
To talk; one thing is certain, that Life flies;
One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown for ever dies.

Into this Universe, and why not knowing,
Nor whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing:
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not whither, willy-nilly blowing.

Up from Earth’s Centre through the seventh Gate
I rose, and on the Throne of Saturn sate,
And many Knots unravel’d by the Road;
But not the Knot of Human Death and Fate.

[Remember that he was an astronomer.]

There was a Door to which I found no Key:
There was a Veil past which I could not see:
Some little Talk awhile of ME and THEE
There seemed–and then no more of THEE and ME.

Then to this earthen Bowl did I adjourn
My Lip the secret Well of Life to learn:
And Lip to Lip it murmur’d–”While you live,
Drink!–for once dead you never shall return.”

Ah, fill the Cup:–what boots it to repeat
How Time is slipping underneath our Feet:
Unborn TO-MORROW and dead YESTERDAY,
Why fret about them if TO-DAY be sweet!

The mighty Mahmud, the victorious Lord,
That all the misbelieving and black Horde
Of Fears and Sorrows that infest the Soul
Scatters and slays with his enchanted Sword.

For in and out, above, about, below,
‘Tis nothing but a Magic Shadow-show,
Play’d in a Box whose Candle is the Sun,
Round which we Phantom Figures come and go.

And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,
Whereunder crawling coop’t we live and die,
Lift not thy hands to IT for help–for It
Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.

Oh Thou who didst with Pitfall and with Gin
Beset the Road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with Predestination round
Enmesh me, and impute my Fall to Sin?

Oh Thou, who Man of baser Earth didst make,
And who with Eden didst devise the Snake;
For all the Sin wherewith the Face of Man
Is blacken’d, Man’s Forgiveness give–and take!

And strange to tell, among that Earthen Lot
Some could articulate, while others not:
And suddenly one more impatient cried–
“Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot?”

Ah, with the Grape my fading Life provide,
And wash my Body whence the life has died,
And in a Windingsheet of Vineleaf wrapt,
So bury me by some sweet Gardenside.

And, as the Cock crew, those who stood before
The Tavern shouted–”Open then the Door!
“You know how little while we have to stay,
And, once departed, may return no more.”

This post is part of a series written by members, friends and Distinguished Supporters of the British Humanist Association about their own “humanist heroes”.

You can find out more at www.humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanist-tradition/heroes

Dabir Tehrani is an Honorary Professor of Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. He worked 50 years in oil industry, 25 years in Iran, and retired in 2007. He is a member of  the British Humanist Association, American Humanist Association, the Humanist Society of Scotland, European Humanist Federation and the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). He is on the Management Committee of the United Nations Association – Scotland.

‘Locked-in’ syndrome man demands right to die

A 54-year-old engineering executive who suffered a massive stroke and lives “locked-in”, able only to move his head and eyes, today [Monday] launched a legal attempt to allow his wife to kill him.

Tony Nicklinson wants the director of public prosecutions to give guidance on whether the Crown would press murder charges against his wife if she administered a lethal injection. The case could reach the supreme court in a landmark attempt to have the law on murder changed to allow for “consensual killing”.

Nicklinson is not terminally ill and is not in pain, but he has said he expects to “dribble his way into old age” and is “fed up” with his life. In a statement placed before the court, he says he wishes he had died when he suffered a stroke while on business in Athens in 2005.

The former rugby player used to work in the United Arab Emirates and travelled across the Middle East and far east before he fell ill but is now fed liquidised food twice a day and almost never leaves his home in Wiltshire. He has stopped talking to most people as it is so frustrating to communicate using an alphabet board.

“I need help in almost every aspect of my life,” he said in a statement sent to the court today”I cannot scratch if I itch, I cannot pick my nose if it is blocked and I can only eat if I am fed like a baby – only I won’t grow out of it, unlike the baby. I have no privacy or dignity left. I am washed, dressed and put to bed by carers who are, after all, still strangers.

“I am fed up with my life and don’t want to spend the next 20 years or so like this. Am I grateful that the Athens doctors saved my life? No, I am not. If I had my time again, and knew then what I know now, I would not have called the ambulance but let nature take its course.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/19/locked-in-syndrome-die-dpp

The BHA campaigns for the legalisation of assisted dying for the terminally ill.

Number of schools wanting Academy status is far lower than advertised

Michael Gove, the education secretary, faced renewed attacks today when it emerged that only 153 schools had applied to become academies – despite his claims that more than 1,000 had done so.

Gove had said that the scale of demand from schools to escape town hall control required the government to rush legislation through parliament before this week’s summer recess.

It now seems likely that no new academies will be formed in time for the autumn term as a result of the scheme.

The shadow education secretary, Ed Balls, accused Gove of “railroading” the legislation through parliament, and demanded that he explain why he “misleadingly claimed that more than 1,000 schools had applied”. Balls, a contender for the Labour leadership, added: “It seems to me that the real reason for the rush was to avoid proper scrutiny for a deeply flawed piece of legislation.”

Continues: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/29/michael-gove-academies-schools-claims

Gove half-heartedly backs “atheist schools” – but do atheists want them?

The Government is ready to back the creation of atheist schools as part of its series of reforms, the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said yesterday.

He told MPs: “It wouldn’t be my choice of school but the whole point of our education reforms is that they are, in the broad sense of the word, small ‘l’ liberal. They exist to provide that greater degree of choice.”

His comments, made to MPs on the all-party Commons Education Select Committee, come after a group of mothers urged Professor Richard Dawkins, a self-avowed atheist and author of The God Delusion, if he would help to set up an atheist “free” school. Professor Dawkins replied: “I like the idea very much – although I would prefer to call it a free-thinking school. I would never want to indoctrinate children in atheism, any more than in religion. Instead, children should be taught to ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded.”

The call for an atheist school comes in the wake of fears that the Government’s plans could pave the way for more religious groups to run state schools. Between 35 and 40 of the 150 expressions of interest in the scheme are faith-based.

Mr Gove, whose two children attend primary faith schools, said he “recognised that there are some people who explicitly do not want their children educated in a faith-based setting”. He added: “If Professor Dawkins wants to set up a school, we would be very interested to look at an application.”

Faith groups wanting to take advantage of the scheme must pledge that they would keep only 50 per cent of their places open to admission on grounds of faith. However, Mr Gove said he doubted whether it would work the other way round. “I don’t think we will have children saying in assembly, ‘Our Father, which art not in heaven.’”

Neither the British Humanist Association (BHA) nor the National Secular Society support the idea of an atheist school.

Continues: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/gove-welcomes-atheist-schools-2037990.html

And a little flashback…

As the British Humanist Association have been pointing out, a worrying aspect of the coalition government’s proposal to extend the role of academies in the schools system is that it is likely that many of the new schools will be faith schools, with greater freedom to set their own curricula than existing, non-academy faith schools.

That’s the downside, but new academies don’t necessarily have to be faith schools – the idea is that any ambitious and well-meaning group of people can start a school and shape its ethos. So how about a humanist school? Taking part in an online chat about faith schools on the Mumsnet website yesterday, Richard Dawkins responded enthusiastically when a participant suggested he should set up a secular, or atheist, school. Now it’s worth pointing out, given how Dawkins’s comments tend to be twisted in the news (remember how him saying he thinks the Pope should face legal action of child abuse cover-ups became him saying he wanted to personally arrest Benedict XVI?), that he isn’t at present planning to set up a school, and it’s also worth noting that he stressed he wouldn’t want it to be an “atheist” school so much as a “freethinking” school.

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2010/06/dawkins-likes-idea-of-atheist-free.html?showComment=1278694692188

Prayers for the Dead

I found an entertaining article about prayer at, of all places, Slate.com today. You’ll get an instant sense of the piece when you read the title:

The author got off to a very bad start when she wrote,

Do Christians think praying can help a dead person get into heaven?

Not exactly. All Christians believe that only God can determine whether a person belongs in heaven or in hell.

BZZZZZZZ! The only belief I’ve ever found Christians agreeing about is that their god exists.* Some Christians hold the traditional Heaven-As-Bliss and Hell-As-Torment beliefs with which we’re familiar. Some Christians don’t believe in hell at all, although they hold out hope that, by hook or by crook, or god’s grace, they’ll end up in heaven. Other Christians believe that everyone will go to heaven. Other Christians believe that hell is a state of annihilation rather than a place. Given these varied beliefs about hell (and I’ve probably missed some), it’s silly to state that “all” Christians believe anything about it.

The author digs herself a deeper hole with this bit:

Entreaties on behalf of the deceased can’t sway God from what’s right, but post-mortem praying does have other uses. For one, Catholics, who unlike Protestants believe in purgatory, think prayer helps speed the transition from this celestial waiting room to heaven.* Furthermore, Christian doctrine teaches that all human beings, living and dead, are so closely connected that we can be described as “one body.” (Catholics refer to this idea as the “Communion of the Saints.” Protestant churches also subscribe to this concept, though in slightly varied form.) Under that logic, when a Christian prays for someone who has died, he is also praying for himself. He therefore brings himself closer to God and closer to salvation.

Apparently, if one is fortunate enough to be a dead Catholic, one’s sentence in purgatory can be reduced – not on account of one’s own good behavior – but because of the good behavior of the super-prayers whom one left behind. If one is unfortunate enough to be a dead Protestant, however, then it seems that one must serve one’s full purgatorial term before proceeding to Paradise. What I find hilarious, however, is the blunt statement that the real reason people pray for others is that they expect to derive some benefit from it for themselves – their own salvation.

How do Christians know whether a dearly beloved departed soul actually requires their prayers? How do they know whether Aunt Gladys is stuck in Purgatory for a period of time, or was whisked straight through the Pearly Gates of the Heavenly City? It seems like it would be a waste of time to pray for the soul of someone who has already arrived at the ultimate destination. That time would be better spent praying for those who need it – the poor sods stuck in Purgatory. If only one could know for sure who they are. Of course, if the real aim of prayers for the dead is to secure one’s own room in Heaven’s Hilton Hotel, then all of these prayers may be equally useful.

After assuring her readers that the prayers of all believers carry equal weight with god, the author warns that “even a selfless, saintly pope can’t persuade God to let a sinner out of hell.” Well, god damn. That sucks. Unless…if the Universalists are right, no one has anything to worry about.

The author continues digging her hole (she must have dug nearly to China by now) by adding Mormon beliefs to the mix:

Mormons teach that prayer can’t move God to change his mind about a dead person, but they endorse one very controversial post-mortem tactic. Living Mormons who have already been baptized can undergo the procedure again on behalf of someone who was not baptized into the Mormon religion during his lifetime. This practice does not automatically get a person into paradise, but it’s considered a prerequisite.

Prayer – which, it must be admitted, is a pretty passive activity – doesn’t prompt god to change his mind. But, voluntarily undergoing the rigors of surrogate baptism – a more active activity than prayer – may persuade him to release a sinner from Hell and, a bonus for god, perhaps piss off Satan too. Is there a limit to the number of surrogate baptisms one can undergo? Perhaps someone who desperately needs a job right now can consider becoming a professional baptism surrogate. It may be a good enough gig to tie one over until the economy improves.

Seemingly having nowhere else to go from this point, the author concludes her piece with a reference to some scientific prayer studies. Well, she mentions several, but only discusses one:

Christians, of course, don’t limit their prayers to the deceased—they also pray for the sick, and several recent studies have tested whether this practice contributes to recovery. The answer appears to be no. As part of a study published in the American Heart Journal in 2006, researchers asked Christian congregations to pray for two groups of cardiac patients—the first group knew the Christians were praying on their behalf, and the second thought they might be. As a control, researchers told a third group that Christians might pray for them, but the Christians did not do so. Mortality rates were comparable across the three groups, but the unprayed-for group experienced the fewest complications.

These studies have been the subject of much debate around the Internet. If anyone wants to plunge into those waters again, be my guest. I haven’t read any of the studies myself, so I can’t comment on their methodologies or conclusions. To be honest, though, I’m not particularly interested in them anyway; discussing the purported effects of prayers offered to deities whose existence has yet to be determined is as pointless as, well, praying.

* UPDATE: A reader over at Reddit.com pointed out that there are some Christians who don’t believe in god; they call themselves Christian Atheists. Learn something new every day…

the chaplain


Filed under: atheism, rationalism, religion

UK Gov.t says Atheists can Run Publicly Funded Schools, but not "Extremist Groups"

Copson, AndrewUnited Kingdom

'Extremist groups' will not be allowed to run 'Free Schools', Britain's minister for education says, but atheists could. The Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove MP, was speaking yesterday, July 28, about government plans to encourage "Free Schools"—schools that are funded by the government but run by non-governmental organizations, such as religious groups, universities, businesses, or groups of parents. Free Schools will be given significant freedom to create their own curriculums.

read more

Gove on atheist free schools - missing the point?

Speaking before the education select committee yesterday, education secretary Michael Gove suggested he would welcome the opening of atheist free schools under the new Academies Act. Referring to Richard Dawkins' remarks during a recent web chat with users of the website Mumsnet, in which he responded to a suggestion that atheists use the new legislation to set up schools by saying he liked the idea of a free-thinking school, Gove told the committee:
"One of the most striking things that I read recently was a thought from Richard Dawkins that he might want to take advantage of our education legislation to open a new school, which was set up on an explicitly atheist basis.

"It wouldn't be my choice of school, but the whole point about our education reforms is that they are, in the broad sense of the word, small 'l', liberal, that they exist to provide that greater degree of choice."
He later told reporters "If Professor Dawkins wants to set up a school we would be very interested to look at an application."

As many commentators have pointed out, the Academies Act is likely to lead to an increase in the number of schools controlled by religious organisations. With this in mind, it would appear Gove was hoping to placate critics of the legislation by effectively saying, don't worry, religious groups are going to set up schools, but you can too if you like.

But isn't Gove missing the point? When I blogged about this following Dawkins' Mumsnet chat, I tried to get a sense of what readers thought of setting up free schools in the name of non-religious philosophies, such as "atheist", "humanist" or "freethinking" (you can see reader comments here, and the results of our poll here). Opinions varied, of course, but the overall impression was one of opposition. Humanists and secularists don't, on the whole, seem to favour taking advantage of the coalition's reforms in this way. While some think it might be time to take an "if you can't beat them..." approach, many feel doing so would represent an inadvertent endorsement of a system humanists and secularists have spent years opposing.

I think this is where I stand too – we already have a situation where, in many cases, the children of Catholic parents go to Catholic schools, the children of Church of England parents to to Church of England Schools, the children of Muslim parents go to Muslim schools, and so on. The answer, from an atheist perspective, is not to add to the problem by sending the children of atheist parents to atheist schools. We currently have an education system that encourages segregation along religious lines, and we should be campaigning for this to be replaced by a system that encourages integration. This view is summed up well by the BHA's chief executive Andrew Copson, in his response to Gove's comments yesterday:
"The BHA campaigns for totally inclusive schools for children of all faiths and none. In our view, many inclusive community schools are already more or less humanist in their ethos and values. If compulsory collective worship was ended and RE became universally objective, fair and balanced, community schools would indeed be humanist in all but name, open and accommodating to all."
I'm looking to cover this in the next issue of the magazine, so reader comments would be greatly appreciated. Where do you stand on this issue? Do you welcome Gove's comments? Should atheists now look to use the provisions of the Academies Act? Or should we oppose the idea of any school set up in the name of a particular religion or philosophy?

Gove's pledge on 'extremist' schools must be backed by statutory powers, cautions BHA

'Extremist groups' will not be allowed to run free schools, the Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove MP has said today. The BHA has welcomed his assurance, but cautioned that further detail is needed.

Michael Gove told MPs on the cross-party Commons education committee: ‘There are concerns about inappropriate faith groups using this legislation to push their own agenda, but we have been working on the regulations to ensure that we don't have any extremist groups taking over schools.’ The Secretary of State additionally assured the committee that there would be no creationism taught as part of a school's science curriculum.

Gove also told MPs that he ‘recognised that there are some people who explicitly do not want their children educated in a faith-based setting’ and encouraged atheists to start their own schools.

BHA chief executive Andrew Copson said:

‘We are pleased that the Secretary of State has finally responded to some of the concerns that humanist MPs and peers have raised throughout the Academies Act’s passage through Parliament. We welcome his assurances in relation to the dangers of the influence of fundamentalist religious groups in our school system.’

‘However, there is nothing in the Academies Act itself that will prevent children being exposed to religious indoctrination, nor to stop any particular group from applying to run a state-funded free school. We want to see the government introduce robust safeguards, such as legislative change and statutory guidance, to support today’s assurances.’

Commenting on the question of “atheist free schools”, Mr Copson continued:

‘The BHA campaigns for totally inclusive schools for children of all faiths and none. In our view, many inclusive community schools are already more or less humanist in their ethos and values. If compulsory collective worship was ended and RE became universally objective, fair and balanced, community schools would indeed be humanist in all but name, open and accommodating to all.’

Scientology is “stupid” council tweeter on Newsnight

Via New Humanist:

Following on from yesterday’s story about the Cardiff councillor facing disciplinary action for referring to Scientology as “stupid” on Twitter, here’s the man himself, John Dixon, appearing on Newsnight last night (video via Index on Censorship). Good to see this worrying case getting some wider publicity beyond all the web action it has generated.

Continues: http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2010/07/councillor-in-trouble-for-calling.html

Policy on homeopathy is “mind-meltingly stupid”

The government has released its eagerly anticipated response to the Science and Technology Committee’s Evidence Check on Homeopathy and, incredibly, it’s even worse than I thought it would be. The verdict is “business as usual”, with the main recommendations of the committee ignored in a fog of confusion and double-think.

You get a sense of this confusion very early on, with lines like: “given the geographical, socioeconomic and cultural diversity in England, [policy on homeopathy] involves a whole range of considerations including, but not limited to, efficacy.” I actually have no idea what this means – do medicines work differently in Norfolk from the way they work in Hampshire? The report doesn’t elaborate.

Continues: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/27/choice-fetish-homeopathy-policy

Priest in the dog house for delivering Pooch-arist

Breed pictured - not actual dog
I've been to a few church services in my time (I know - I'll tender my resignation in the morning), and it's often (well, occasionally) occurred to me that delivering the Holy Communion, or Eucharist, or Sacrament of the Table, or Blessed Sacrament, or The Lord's Supper – you know, the bit where they have some cardboard-like bread and wine, which to Catholics actually the body and blood of Christ, but to Anglicans only represents said body and blood – must be a bit of a minefield.

Think about it – how is the poor priest supposed to know who's eligible to take it? As I understand it, you have to be confirmed, but it's hardly like they make you prove that you have been when you reach the altar. Yet a cursory Google search tells me that this isn't always necessary. The Catholic Church, apparently, is much stricter, but even then I'd be interested to know how they would go about halting any would-be sacramental imposters. Anglican churches, in my experience the Church of England, have always struck me as representing something of a free-for-all – even I've knocked back a couple of Eucharists, and I've been a godless heathen for pretty much as long as I can remember.

But there must be some rules, even in the Anglican church. What is the priest supposed to do if a new face comes forward to take communion? What if a known atheist steps up? Or a teenager suspected of being too young? And what if a dog tries to take the Eucharist? It's a serious question, because it's what Reverend Marguerite Rea of St Peter's Anglican Church, Toronto had to deal with recently, when one of her parishioners, Donald Keith, arrived at the altar with his beloved German Shepherd, Trapper. Her answer was to give Trapper his bread and wine, in what she says was a "simple church act of reaching out" to Keith during his first service at the church.

Unfortunately for the Reverend, however, others didn't agree. One parishioner complained to the archdiocese, and Rea has since had to apologise, with her area bishop, Patrick Yu, saying "I can see why people would be offended. I have never heard of it happening before. I think the reverend was overcome by what I consider a misguided gesture of welcoming."

As I said – a minefield.

(PS - I love how even the BBC report struggles to take this one seriously. "Canine controversy", "Bone of contention" – great stuff)

Britain’s Witch Children

Dispatches goes undercover in some African churches in the UK, where evangelical pastors perpetuate a strong belief in witchcraft. They preach that some people are possessed by evil spirits, and that these spirits bring bad luck into the lives of others.

The only way to rid the possessed from the witchcraft spell and lift their curse is to ‘deliver’ them: a kind of exorcism that can be very traumatic. Some pastors charge significant sums of money to perform these deliverances.

Read more and watch online: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-67/episode-1

Last night’s Dispatches programme on Channel 4 highlighted the harm caused to children in the UK, almost all of whom come from an African background, by church pastors who are apparently labelling them as witches or as in some way “possessed”. The Churches’ Child ProtectionAdvisory Service (CCPAS) condemns such behaviour wherever it exists and over the past few years has worked with statutory and other agencies to expose and deal with such abusive practices.

Where Dispatches has uncovered evidence of such abusive behaviour, we hope and expect that it would be passed on to the police immediately. This is so that it may be thoroughly investigated and proper protection be given to the children involved.

But viewers of the programme need to understand that, shocking as these instances undoubtedly are, huge progress have been made over the past few years in developing and implementing effective child protection policies in African churches in the UK.

Continues: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/27/religion-witches-africa-london-exorcism

Polly Toynbee challenges Ed Balls on his support for ‘faith’ schools

Ed Balls points out that ‘faith’ schools have been part of the system for a very long time. Polly Toynbee, journalist and President of the British Humanist Association, responds: “It doesn’t make it good and it doesn’t make it fair.”

See the video from about 10 minutes in: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2010/jul/26/labour-leadership-ed-balls

God is Outside

A comment over at Philly’s blog, You Made Me Say It, got me thinking. Now, thinking is not one of my better attributes (just ask CL and Gideon) but like Lewis Black, I have a hard time swallowing nonsense, because “I have thoughts“, and they get in the way of the usual religious swill swallowing. So there I am, thinking about his post, and some of the comments, and the question arises about god being outside time, space and logic. And it got me thinking more.  What does that mean, god is outside time, space and logic?

Exactly where IS he?

Let’s take the first concept, time. How can anything be outside time? Time is just a way of measuring the passage of, well, time. I know that sounds circular, but I can’t think of a better way to put it. To say god is outside time, is similar to the contention that he’s outside, say, linear measurements. For example, if he’s standing next to you, he’d be, what? Five foot eleven? Six-two? Ten feet tall? Whatever he is, he’s a definite height. His fingers are a definite length, his head a definite circumference, and his penis…well, we won’t go there. Measurements are ways of comparing one physical attribute to another (men do it with their… oh, wait, I already did that joke) so that we can define it spatially relative to another. It’s a great way of understanding concepts like height, weight, distance, etc. by comparing objects and distances to others that are actually known by the observer. It’s how we humans categorize and simplify knowledge.

Similarly, time is a measurement of activity and existence relative to other activities and existences, so we can compare them, and better place them in our storage banks of knowledge. For example, the Super Bowl was six months ago. Six months is the measure of the passage of time between when the Super Bowl was actually played, and this moment. But six months is just a mental construct, a useful tool for us to understand that time frame. It doesn’t exist other than in our brains, and as a measurement, it’s only useful relative to other measurements.

So how can god be outside that? We construct and measure the passage of time, and our measures of time – seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, etc – are based on the physical aspects of our particular solar system. The units of measurement elsewhere in the universe could and would be different.  However time is measured, either god is somewhere in reference to it, or he’s not. Of course, my position is that gods don’t exist, so perhaps theists and atheists are in agreement here. If god is nowhere (in a temporal sense) in relation to everything else, he’s simply nowhere, i.e. he doesn’t exist.

I can’t get my head around the theist concept of someone  or something being outside time. Does god flit around from the past to the future and back to the present?  How does he do that when the past is over and the future hasn’t happened yet? If he can, then in some sense, the past is not really past, because at least he can go there now, in the present. Same with the future. It destroys the definition of those terms to say he’s outside time, because “past”, “present” and “future” are again, mental constructs and concepts of time, something humans created to understand the passage of time.

Am I confusing you? I’m not done yet.

Space.  The final frontier. What is space? Here are two definitions, from among many, that fit the discussion:

  • The infinite extension of the three-dimensional region in which all matter exists.
  • The expanse in which the solar system, stars, and galaxies exist; the universe.

To some extent, and for my purposes, they really define the same thing. The entire area where all matter exists is the same thing as the universe. Essentially, where everything is. Let’s use that as our definition of space.  Now, if god is outside of where everything is, again, to some extent, theists and atheists are in agreement. If he isn’t where everything is, then, for all intents and purposes, he isn’t anywhere, i.e. he doesn’t exist. Space is not, by my definition, like a closed room, with god outside the room, knocking on the door so he can come in.  Space is everything.  If he’s outside of space, then there is an area out there that can be defined, and if it can be defined, it’s part of everything. If it’s part of everything, then god’s not outside, he’s inside. He can’t logically be outside everything and exist at the same time, which takes us to concept number 3.

Logic. This is another one I can’t get my head around, because logic is what my head does. It’s hard to be illogical about logic, but this argument does a good job of it. Logic is the mental process of reasoning, by abstraction and analysis, the form of propositions, such as “does god exist”. It is a rigorous, well defined body of rules and processes we use to test the truth of propositions. It’s how we arrive at conclusions relative to those propositions, and it is a process that we use because it works. It’s part and parcel of the scientific method, which would not be such a good tool for discovering truth unless it embodied logic.

To say that god is outside logic is to say that he is illogical , i.e. not logical. Of course, an atheist’s primary response when confronted with the god question is to show that the concept of god is illogical, so again, it would seem that theists and atheists agree. If god created logic (to the extent that something like a mental process can be “created”) and logic is used to derive truth, why would god be outside that same process, when it comes to proving the truth about the existence of god? Wouldn’t he have created logic so that it clearly and simply leads us to him, rather than away from him?

The entire argument that god is outside of human reality is just another admission, albeit unacknowledged by theists, that god doesn’t really exist, and the only way they can justify the sheer lack of evidence for him is to claim that he is outside of everything we know. It’s something that can’t be tested or proven, but it does allow them to hang on to that gossamer thread of possibility without ever having to let go.

Knock, knock

Who’s there?

God

Yea, right. Quit fuckin’ with me, Rudy.

add to del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg itreddit Stumble It!


Filed under: Apologetics, Atheism, Beliefs, Christianity, Critical thinking, delusion, Freethought, god, magic, Rationalism, Religion, Science, Theism, Theology Tagged: apologetics, Atheism, Beliefs, Faithfreeism, god, Intelligence, Religion, Skepticism, Theism

Has the west forgotten what civic virtue is? No, say humanists

BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson and Humanist Philosophers member Simon Blackburn debate Richard Harries on Encounter for ABC Radio National (Australia). The question posed by Wendy Barnaby is whether the West has lost its idea of civic virtue. It’s an interesting debate which gets to the heart of much of the tension between conservative and progressive visions of social morality today.

Andrew Copson: It’s not true that society has forgotten, that politicians have forgotten, that individual citizens have forgotten how to think about things in a moral way, how to think about things in a values-rich way. … You cannot sit through a debate, certainly in the Westminster Parliament, on any subject and not hear ethical questions being addressed-implicitly almost all the time, and explicitly more often than you think. So it isn’t true that some rampant commercialist, materialist, individualist, economy-centred secularism has shrivelled and wizened our public space down to some sort of valueless prune and that we need to pump it up with all the good juices again of old-time religion. It’s just not true. It’s not true that we need religion to revive public values, and in part one of the reasons that it’s not true is that there hasn’t been a decline in public values in the way that propagandists for a reintroduction of religion into public life like to claim.

You can listen and read a full transcript at: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2010/2951160.htm

Reengineering Human Nature: Dogmatism

The Problem: Human beings are stubborn creatures, set in our ways, resistant to changing our minds once we've made a decision. Religious groups publish creeds which they believe must be taken on faith and should be maintained against all contrary evidence - and they consider the ability to do that a virtue, rather than a [...]

The Economics of Salvation

Imagine two economic offers:

A
B
Wait 12 months and you get $150 Wait 13 months and you get $165

In the above choice, most people choose offer B.  Now, keep the same financial offer, but change the time offer:

A
B
You get $150 NOW Wait 1 month and you get $165

In this scenario most people switch their choice to offer A — they experience a sort of preference reversal.  That is because of the human cognitive habit of valuing future money less than present money.  (For more fun economic detail see Bias & Belief where they explore why this happens).

But now, let’s entertain if this same cognitive bias can happen for a religious commodity: Salvation. Imagine these two salvation offers:

A: Future Religion B: NOW Religion
Eternal life
Great glory described in after life
Suffering in this life
Eternal life
Little discussion of afterlife
Benefits in this life

What do you mean, "What comes next?" This is it. (HT: New Yorker)

Perhaps this is why most religions eventually offer some benefits in the here-and-now and not just in the future.  Because people value here-and-now benefits more than they they do extra frills in a future promised eternity.  Maybe I am pushing the logic but something seems right here.

The religious specialists in all religions try to fight the corruption of their faith into spiritual materialism, but it is often inevitable.  Eventually sects evolve which promise of a prosperous life on Earth as well as in the afterlife — promises of health, wealth, and success PLUS you go to heaven.  Who could turn down wonderful benefits in this life in exchange for a few extra jewels in your crown and preferred seating positions in God’s heavenly court but austerity in this life.  Who wants to live a long miserable life for a glorious future, when you can have the joys here plus a good-enough eternity?   I am guessing that is part of how prosperity gospels emerge.  Humans make the rules of theology — they are not revealed truths of gods, so it is not surprising that economic theory applies to theology.

As I wrote this, I thought of obvious exceptions.  Imagine people who would blow themselves up in this life to gain 72 virgins in the next life — indeed a much hyped-up future paradise.  Well, I think the prosperity gospel only works if people have some hope.  For those without hope,  the future is about the only thing that will sell because they can see with their own eyes that the present is hopeless.  This is why a good way to diffuse this sort of desperate fanaticism is to improve their future a bit and offer them hope when possible.


BHA contributes to children's rights review

The BHA has contributed to a major review of children’s rights in England.

Each year the Children's Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) produces its State of Children's Rights in England report, a detailed analysis of government progress in complying with the Convention on the Rights of the Child over the last year. CRAE called upon organisations working in the field of human rights to contribute information they felt relevant to establishing the extent of government progress on children's rights over the last year.

The BHA contributed an analysis of recent government guidance, policy initiatives and legal judgements related to three key areas: religious discrimination in 'faith schools', Sex and Relationships Education and Religious Education. The BHA found that, while progress has been made in the last year, these advances need to be reflected in statutory provisions. The BHA's contribution also warned that the coalition government's education reforms may significantly weaken the protection of children's rights.

BHA head of public affairs Naomi Phillips said:

'We work through our campaigns and with other organisations, including children's rights organisations and those directly representing young people, to secure robust legal protections for children’s rights not least in the field of education. There are a number of key human rights issues in education and we have concerns that some education reforms of the previous and present governments may in effect have a deleterious effect on children’s freedom of expression and belief. All organisations working to protect children's rights must be especially vigilant at this time of fundamental change in the school system.'

BHA: The campaign against 'faith Academies' goes on

The BHA has pledged to continue its campaign against the expansion of “faith Academies” following the granting of royal assent to the Academies Act.

Throughout the passage of the Bill the BHA worked closely with parliamentarians, particularly members of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group. The Group’s secretary Lady Massey tabled a number of amendments in the Lords, as did its vice chair Dr Julian Huppert MP in the Commons. These covered issues such as discrimination in admissions policies and the risk of extreme religious views being included in the new Academies’ curricula. Other MPs, including David Ward, Caroline Lucas and committed Catholic Tom Blenkinsop, also spoke out against ‘faith schools’ following extensive briefing by the BHA.

BHA head of public affairs Naomi Phillips commented:

‘The BHA has continually warned that the Academies Act will increase the power of religious groups in the English schools system but the government has largely ignored our concerns. We are dismayed that the Academies Act has passed into law with the bare minimum of parliamentary scrutiny, but there is still much we can do to fight the expansion of “faith Academies”.’

‘The Act contains the loosest of frameworks for how the new religious Academies will operate so we will seek to influence accompanying guidance to minimise their negative impact. We will scrutinise the curricula of new ‘faith Academies’ and raise awareness if it appears religious dogma, such as creationism, is threatening pupils’ rights to a balanced education. We will also support local campaigns against new religious Academies as they are proposed.’