If Jim Al-Khalili is an accomodationist, then so am I

In an interview for the Rationalist Association Jim Al-Khalili, the new president of the British Humanist Association, admitted to being an accomodationist. To some people this is just plain common-sense but to others it is the worst crime an atheist can commit. Well I’m with him on this one and here’s why….

The BHA says on its web-site that “We work on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical lives on the basis of reason and humanity. We promote Humanism, a secular state, and equal treatment of everyone regardless of religion or belief.” 

Take out the words “non-religious” and “Humanism” and read it again. “We work on behalf of people who seek to live ethical lives on the basis of reason and humanity. We promote a secular state, and equal treatment of everyone regardless of religion or belief.” Almost all the religious people I know would support that sentiment.

I’m not pretending that that all religious people would. There are those who think morality can only come from their god, but equally, there are those who assert that rationality can only come from atheism and atheists.

There are large numbers of religious people who are opposed to, for example, the current government’s austerity agenda. Some will feel that their conviction that this is wrong is based on their religion. I’m sure there are also a lot of atheists (me for instance) who feel the same way. Our conviction is obviously not based on religion, but we should not kid ourselves that it is entirely rational either. Most convictions and beliefs are more deeply rooted in upbringing and experience than in rational analysis.

But what we do with our beliefs, how we examine and re-examine them, question them, sometimes change them, and how we try to persuade others to share them, that is where rationality comes to the fore. And it does so for religious people too. The ones who say “It’s right because it’s in the Bible” are in the minority (despite their large numbers on BBCs Big Questions). And that majority, the non-dogmatic on both side should be natural allies.

That this is understood by most religious people is demonstrated by the very existence of organisations like Ekklesia, and British Muslims for Secular Democracy , and the coalition which formed recently to campaign for ‘Insulting’ to be dropped from section 5 of the Public Order Act. This quote from Barack Obama illustrates what I mean.

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all”

I think there is a tendency for some parts of some religions to become more dogmatic, reactionary, and fundamentalist. This may be a reaction to a perceived threat from declining numbers and increased secularism. This trend means many religious people who might be considered liberal and progressive are left opposing the dogma of their own churches. The reaction of many Christians to the C of E’s positions on equal marriage and women bishops is an obvious example.

I would like these people to see their common purpose with Humanism. And I would like Humanists to see their common purpose with them. This doesn’t mean compromising beliefs on either side. If we are debating the existence of God then we can vigorously (and hopefully politely) argue, but if we are discussing, say, equal marriage then I think we can agree that our religious beliefs, or the lack of them, are irrelevant.

I would love it if we started to hear people describe themselves as “Christian Humanists” or “Humanist Muslims”.

So, lets leave the stridency to the fundies, and embrace Jim’s fluffy, friendly, and welcoming humanism.

PS – I know I used the “S” word at the end there, but this is not a criticism of Richard Dawkins. I think he’s doing a great job and is actually very polite.

An Open letter to Baroness Sayeeda Warsi

Dear Baroness Warsi,

The report of your speech in today’s Independent worried me so much I felt I had to write to you to explain why.

First, let me say that I completely condemn attacks on Muslims, as I would condemn attacks on any group of people based on any aspect of their identity, race, sexuality, or indeed religion. I think however that the narrative of Muslim victim-hood your speech seems to support is very much part of the problem rather than part of any possible solution. I am very aware that I am reacting to report of a speech which cites unpublished research so the scope for misunderstanding is huge and I would very much like to reach full text of your speech and the details of the research. Assuming, however, that the report in the Independent is basically accurate, I would like to make some comments.

The article says “a majority of the country now believes that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation” and later “just 23 per cent of a representative sample questioned said that Islam was not a threat to Western civilisation.”  Notice that both of these quotes say that people consider Islam to be a threat. It appears not to be a criticism of Muslims, and certainly not British Muslims, It is a criticism of the religion of Islam. This is a very different thing. I would personally be very critical of Roman Catholicism, but I wouldn’t dream of attacking Catholics, either physically or indeed verbally.

So, if the research is true, why do people have such worries about Islam? Is it, as you say, based on an ”unfounded” mistrust of Muslims? I think not. If you look around the world today there is plenty of evidence that makes a fear of Islamism perfectly rational. Much of modern terrorism is conducted in the name of Islam, including specifically, the shooting of Malala Yousafzai in Pakistan, and of course the 7/7 bombings themselves.

You may say that these actions are not representative of, or supported by, the majority of British Muslims, and of course you are right, but there is also reasearch to show that they are not universally condemned by British Muslims either. People also see ordinary people supporting Sharia law, which many people would say is definitely incompatible with the ”British way of life”.

If these worrying aspects of Islamism were loudly, publicly and unequivocably, condemned by Imams and other prominent Muslims that might help but often when these worries are voiced the reaction is an accusation of “Islamophobia”.

The whole idea of Islamophobia contributes to the narrative of Muslim victim-hood which, I believe makes young Muslims feel even more cut-off from the rest of society. There is no doubt that some Muslims are the victims of prejudice and verbal and physical attacks, but the numbers are not, comparatively, large. You mention that “50 to 60 per cent of religious hate crimes were now perpetrated against Muslims“. this is true but you do not mention that religious hate-crime forms only 4% of all hate-crime. Religious hate-crimes against Muslims are out numbered by hate-crimes against gay people and disabled people and there are 20x as many hate-crimes of racism.

The truth is that, appalling as religious bigotry and persecution are, Muslims are actually safer, and more free in Britain than they would be in most other countries and much more free than they would be in almost any “Muslim” country.

Part of the problem may be that the scripture of all the Abrahamic religions is full of what we would now call extremism. this makes it hard for religious “moderates” to wholeheartedly condemn “extremists” because the extremists can quote scriptural support for their actions, if moderates condemn them they have to admit that some parts of their scripture are not “perfect”. One you do this it is hard to then quote scripture to support your more moderate laudable aims. I think it would help if religious leaders could say that behaviour that is clearly wrong does not become right just because you can find a bit of scripture that says it is.

I hope you can read this in the spirit in which it is written. The figures quoted at the beginning of the report are indeed worrying and I think we would both like to see them change. I worry however that they will only be worsened by cries of Islamophobia. The power to change these attitudes is in the hands of Muslims themselves.

I would be delighted to hear your views on this, and as I said earlier, I would like to see the full text of your speech and the research to which you refer.

Regards

Dave Watts

thinker@secondthoughtfortheday.co.uk

I have posted this email on my blog here and list below links to some of the sources I refer to.

• The original article in the Independent
• Home office Hate-crime page (with statistics)
• My previous post about Hate-Crime
• 4ThoughtTV What does Sharia law have to offer Britain?
• Opinion Poll re: Muslims and Sharia Law
• The Islamic Sharia Council
• The Muslim Council of Great Britain
• The Council of Ex-Muslims

Is my atheism a falsifiable hypothesis? or just a belief, like religious faith

I was watching BBC The Big Questions last sunday and the single topic was “Should religions now accept evolution”. It was an interesting discussion and some of the creationists demonstrated their inability to understand the meaning of evidence, as they usually do. At one point though, one of them asked what evidence would make a scientist admit that evolution was wrong. The well known response ”A fossil rabbit in the pre-Cambrian”, usually attributed to J.B.S. Haldane was the reply. It is a perfectly good reply, which confirms that evolution, unlike creationism, is a scientific, falsifiable, hypothesis.

This got me thinking.

I would like to think that my atheism is also a falsifiable hypothesis and not, as religious people often assert, just another faith position, but is it really? Atheism can be a passive lack of belief in an unproven hypothesis that there is a God, but I have to be honest my atheism is a bit stronger than that. I would have to describe it more as an active belief that there is no God. I think this is OK but if it is not to be an irrational, faith-based belief it has to be falsifiable.

So what “evidence” might convince me that my hypothesis is incorrect, and there is a God?

Firstly lets look at what many believers claim as evidence:

1. The Bible – I can immediately discard this. The only reason you would find the bible convincing would be that you have already decided it must be true. The fact that it says in a book that God exists, and Jesus was resurrected, and Lazarus rose from the dead proves nothing if you don’t already believe in God. To an atheist, it’s like claiming that Voldemort must exist because he features in the Harry Potter books.
2. Modern day miracles like visions of the virgin Mary – Some people find these very convincing, but again, I think this shows a misunderstanding of what science regards as evidence. An eye-witness account might carry considerable weight in a court of law, but science regards it as an anecdote, possibly useful as a guide to what should be studied, but not evidence in itself.
3. Medical miracle cures – Again some people find these very convincing but if you understand anything about spontaneous remission, the placebo effect, and, again, the unreliability of eye-witness accounts it is not very convincing. If a healer turns up who can make an amputated limb grow back I’ll have a rethink but they are pretty thin on the ground.
4. Philosophical arguments that God must exist – One often used philosophical argument is called the Ontological Argument click the link and see what you think. I don’t intend to say anything about these, every one I have seen is frankly laughable. They can usually be altered slightly to “prove” that Unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.  I actually quite enjoy a philosophical argument, but it is not a substitute for evidence. Or as Shane McKee put it in his excellent blog Show me the sausages

OK that’s enough of that I’m sure religious people will think of lots more, but they haven’t come up with any I have found convincing yet. Some religious people at this point will say (and in discussions some have said) “there is no evidence you will find convincing – your atheism is your faith that you can’t give it up”. Well they are wrong, there are things that I might find convincing – here are a few.

1. If the digits of PI, interpreted as ASCII characters, spelled out the entire text of King James Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah or any other substantial sacred text.
2. If the genome of human beings, interpreted as ASCII characters, spelled out the entire text of King James Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah or any other substantial sacred text.
3. A verifiable example of an amputee re-growing a limb after praying for exactly that and no other medical or surgical intervention.
4. A fossilised rabbit in the pre-Cambrian – Actually this wouldn’t undermine atheism (many religious people think it would) but the theory of evolution would be looking a bit shaky

I think the question “what evidence might convince you that you are wrong?” is a facinating question which makes you think hard about you’re beliefs and opinions and I would be interested to here what you’re examples might be, whether you are a theist or an atheist. So comments please.

PS after writing this a thought occured to me.

Given that PI is an infinite, non recurring, decimal, does that mean that eventually it must spell out the bible? Or indeed any, and every, chosen book? Any mathematicians (or philosophers) know the answer to that one?

Self Regulation and Self Censorship

What with the Leveson report coming out this week the phrase “self regulation” has been bandied around rather a lot lately. I have read the executive summary of Leveson which runs to 48 pages. It is a bit more manageable than the 2000 pages of the full report and I really can’t see anything in it to justify some of the hysterical nonsense that we have heard from people who claim to be protecting speech. I think that whether or not there is a legal framework to back up press standards is, in the end, less important than what those standards are. Those which are mentioned in the report are basically Ok by me. I was especially glad to see the following.

The code must take into account the importance of freedom of speech, the interests of the public (including the public interest in detecting or exposing crime or serous impropriety, protecting public health and safety and preventing the public from being seriously misled) and the rights of individuals.

But that’s not really what I want to talk about. When people hear the phrase self regualtion they think about tribunals, apologies, and other stuff that happens after publication, but self-regulation also happens before publication.

There must have been a point when the journalist(s) who wrote, with no real evidence, that the mCcann’s had killed their own daughter and hidden the body, sat and thought “should I file this story?” This is what I call self-regulation. The journalist should have said no. Not because he might end up in court or at a tribunal but because it was a vicious, hurtful, story which did not serve the “public interest” and was almost certainly untrue. They should have self-regulated – but they didn’t.

The problem with this idea of self-regulation is that it is easily mistaken for something else, something which is the exact opposite, self censorship.

There must have been a point when the editor(s) at the BBC looked at the proposed drama documentary “The London Bombers” which appeared well researched, and was on an undeniably important subject. The reporters had secured the co-operation of the families of three of the four bombers, who had apparently agreed that the portrayal of their sons was accurate. The BBC however decided to drop the program. Officially the explanation was that the script was not up to scratch. The conclusions of the reporters however that the bombers were, as they themselves claimed, inspired by violent Islamism. This did not fit the PC narrative of the time. The reporters claim they were told the drama was dropped because it was ”Islamophobic”. The BBC shouldn’t have self-censored – but they did.

There have been hours of discussion lately about how the future of freedom of speech is threatened by regulation, self or otherwise. I’m not saying this isn’t important, it is, very important. But so is the gradual undermining of freedom of speec by self-censorship and it seems not to be discussed at all.

Some Links

• More about the London Bombers docudrama
• McCann Newspaper coverage
• Nick Cohen –  You Can’t Read This Book
• Bruce Bawer – Surrender

It’s time to change the definition of Religious Hate Crime

The governments Report Hate Crime site defines hate crime as

Crimes committed against someone because of their disability, gender-identity, race, religion or belief, or sexual orientation.

I am not entirely convinced by the whole idea of hate-crime. If someone is killed because they are, for instance, in the wrong gang or between an armed robber and his loot, they are just as dead as someone who is beaten up by racist thugs because they are Pakistani, or Jewish, and their family will be just as devastated. Why should their deaths be any less serious?

The government, in its wisdom, however thinks that religious hatred is what is called an aggravating feature and makes a crime more serious, and the perpetrators are deserving of a harsher punishment. For the sake of this discussion I will not question this logic. I will just try to extend it.

• Stephen Lawrence was a Black British teenager from Eltham, south east London, who was murdered in a racist attack while waiting for a bus on the evening of 22 April 1993. Witnesses said he was attacked by a gang of white youths chanting racist slogans.
• James Everley, James Smith, and Joshua Morris were all sentenced to three years at a young offenders institute after setting fire to the mosque in Wivelsfield Road, Haywards Heath.

These are terrible crimes and I don’t doubt they were motivated by racism and religious hatred. But what about these …

• Goodluck Caubergs died the day after nurse Grace Adeleye carried out a circumcision on him without anaesthetic using only a pair of scissors, forceps and olive oil.
• At least three people in London with HIV have died after they stopped taking life saving drugs on the advice of their Evangelical Christian pastors.

I would suggest you can find many examples of your own. If we go outside the UK things get even worse.

• The shooting of Malala Yousafzai in Pakistan
• 11 year old Madeline Neumann, who died of an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes because her parents refused medical intervention and relied on prayer.

These, in my opinion, are terrible crimes which are motivated by religion. But in this case it is the religion of the perpetrator rather than the victim. But the people are still dead and they still died because of religion.

There is an asymetry in lesser crimes too. If I run a chemists and refuse to serve you because you are a catholic – that’s a crime. If you ask for the morning-after pill, I can refuse to serve you because I am a catholic.

I want to suggest that the definition of hate crime be changed by the insertion of just two little words:

Crimes committed against, or by, someone because of their disability, gender-identity, race, religion or belief, or sexual orientation.

Links

• Home Office Hate Crime Page  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/hate-crime/
• Government’s Strategy   http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/hate-crime-action-plan/action-plan?view=Binary
• Gov.UK Report Hate Crime Page  https://www.gov.uk/report-hate-crime
• CPS Hate Crime Fact Sheet  http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/hate_crime/
• Steven Lawrence Charitable Trust http://www.stephenlawrence.org.uk/
• Goodluck Caubergs case  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/26/baby-circumcision-court
• HIV and Evangelical Christian pastors. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14406818
• Stephen Lawrence case   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16348304
• Haywards Heath mosque fire.   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-16429338

Welcome to the new blog

Ok I have decided that my old blog software is just not up to the job for lots of reasons so I have set-up this new one on Word Press.

I will gradually migrate all the old stuff, but it could take a while, and it might take even longer to put in all the links.

If you want to see the old website, you can find it here

Atheist reflections on apples, genesis,and growing up

First published here on Skepticism-UK on 9th September

As I was watching the Paralympic opening ceremony, which was wonderful, the commentator told us that the giant apple alluded to Isaac Newton and the scientific enlightenment. My mind went back to my first year at secondary school (a very long time ago) and something else the apple represents, the forbidden fruit in Genesis.

I was not a very religious child. Like most kids then I was familiar with “Bible Stories” and never really thought about whether they were true or not, I just accepted them. At some point during my eleventh year though I decided that I should read the Bible seriously so I decided to start at the beginning, Genesis.

I didn’t get very far. I soon discovered that the creation story in Genesis I contradicts the creation story in Genesis II, but the bit that really fascinated me was the Garden of Eden story in Genesis III

It starts with the arrival of the Serpent. God has already told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of “the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” They are told that, if they do, “thou shalt surely die.” The Serpent contradicts God and says that they won’t die. He says “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

Well Eve decides to eat some, and also gives some to Adam. They don’t die, they become suddenly aware of their own sexuality, and cover themselves with fig leaves. God returns and is not best pleased. He banishes Adam and Eve from the garden saying “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.”Now this all puzzled me, if you look through Biblical Literalist eyes you are forced to draw some conclusions

1. God was lying and the Serpent was telling the truth
2. God is happy so long as man is innocent and ignorant (more a pet animal than a human)
3. Adam and Eve are banished as a punishment for acquiring wisdom and knowledge, and to prevent them from acquiring more. And threatening His power.
4. There may well be more than one God – “the man is become as one of us”

That was enough for me really.

I thought, at the time, that I had made an important discovery. Unfortunately my RE teacher disagreed and I became a victim of his favourite punishment, standing at the front of the class, arms outstretched, with a bible on each hand. You can probably guess what this punishment was called.

Looking back on this as I grew older I saw that the story is full of metaphor, but none of it is flattering to God, who comes out as an autocratic dictator. I also gradually realised that for some Religious people that’s fine.

They actually want an autocratic dictator for a God!

So I guess we are both happy, they get their dictator God and I find a proud metaphor for the enlightenment (or just for growing up) in the very heart of their holy book.

Two footnotes

1. I know this take on genesis is not original. It is fairly central to Philip Pullman’s Dark Materials trilogy for instance. When I was eleven though, I thought I was the only person who had noticed. The reaction of the RE teacher actually came as quite a shock.
2. I‘ve just re-noticed that when God banishes Eve he says “in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children”, alluding no doubt to the pain and danger of human childbirth. And why is childbirth so dangerous and painful? Because of our outsize brain – yet more divine punishment for being intelligent.

So here’s to Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. Come what may I’m on their side, and I think the people behind the Paralympic opening ceremony are too.