A new sociological study of UCLA undergraduate students has been getting some play in the sceptical blogosphere. Since it relates to some previous blog posts I have written on the LoR I thought I would go through it. Basically, a UCLA organisation called the Spirituality in Higher Education Project (SHEP)1 surveyed the religious opinions of the first-year population on campus. They then followed up with another survey of juniors to identify opinions influenced by several years of higher eduction. The study in question (Scheitle, 2011) focuses on the students’ perception of the relationship between religion and science.
Students could choose between four options to describe their view on this relationship.
Conflict – I consider myself on the side of religion
Conflict – I consider myself on the side of science
Independence – they refer to different aspects of reality
Collaboration – each can be used to help support the other
Categories three and four were lumped together into a ‘non-conflict’ answer.
Of this sample 83% of the students were religious. Unsurprisingly then, this means that 86% of the respondents went with non-conflict (69%) or sided with religion (17%). That leaves 17% non-religious students, 14% of whom sided exclusively with science. Given the large proportion of Christians in the US and that most are not of the fundamental variety, meaning they will have their science and eat it too, this seems a fairly straight-forward result.
Interestingly by their junior year, 73% of those who had originally sided with religion had come to adopt a non-conflict or pro-science position. This shift perhaps reflects the secularising effect of education. However, 47% of those who had originally picked science had also shifted their position. Not as large of a percentage of those who changed from a pro-religion stand-point but a substantial proportion of students. Even when the researcher looked into the data for only science students, the moderating effect of education was still present. Apparently, learning more about science decreased the view that science and religion were in conflict.
What I would have liked to be able to look at is the detailed data for both the independence and collaboration viewpoints instead of having them lumped together in a single category. If it’s correct that more education promotes a more secular viewpoint I would expect to see the ‘independence’ category increase. Whereas if education was actually supporting religion, I would expect to see a growth in the number of students picking ‘collaboration’. With the data in their current form, it’s impossible to make such judgements.
SHEP is funded by the Templeton foundation; any true sceptics will now hum the Jaws theme.
Scheitle, C. P. (2011) U.S. College Students’ Perception of Religion and Science: Conflict, Collaboration, or Independence? A Research Note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 175-186.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
June 01, 2011
September 21, 2010
Pope in fallacy
A recent speech by the current Pope, in Britain, where he links atheism and Nazism has caused some controversy in the blogosphere and in our own forums. The Pope spoke of “a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society” and went on to express concerns over “aggressive forms of secularism”. This is such a common trope in debates that I wanted to take an entire blog post to explain what I see as the gaping flaw in this form of argument. What I want to discuss is the way atheism and theism should be properly related to religion and ideology and why it is incorrect to set up atheism as the counter-position to religion.
Atheism, at its most inclusive, describes anyone who has no belief in gods. From even this basic understanding, it is remarkably difficult to see how atheism could be expected to produce any action from an individual atheist. There is no causal line from the absence of a single belief to any other belief or action, be it good or bad. Even explicit atheism (the denial of gods) does not imply any further belief or action. If we say this for atheism, in order to be consistent, we must also say this for theism. Theism (the belief in gods), as a single belief, does not entail any other beliefs or actions by the individual theist. A theist may believe in the philosopher’s god, a non-interventionist god, Allah, the trinity, or a whole pantheon of pagan gods. But even these basic beliefs about the nature of gods are additional to the initial claim of theism, not derived from it. Taking the example of the Thirty Years war, the Pope would have us blame theism for the conflict. However, given both sides of the conflict were theists this conclusion makes little sense. The true dividing factor was the different religions, Catholicism and Protestantism, which each side maintained. My contention is that while atheism and theism are blameless in the great atrocities of history, ideology and religion should be held to account.
Ideologies and religions are not single beliefs but whole belief systems and as such can serve as powerful motivators for individuals. While each belief in the system may not be cause for action, the combination of various beliefs produces stimulus for the individual. A single belief in the existence of Hell does little to motivate a person unless further beliefs such as the nature of sin, the possibility of salvation, and a divine overseer are part of the overall belief system. Nazi Ideology, to take the Pope’s example, is a powerfully motivating belief system. What gave the Nazi party its appeal in post WWI Germany was its staunch conservatism and a resistance to the liberal direction of the Wiemar republic. The Nazi’s were anti-communistic, anti-atheist, anti-homosexual, anti-immigrant, and anti-semetic. While not necessary a Christian movement, the Nazi party endorsed Christianity and, in turn, received support from the more conservative Catholic and Lutheran churches. The Catholic church even assisted in tracking down those of Jewish descent by opening its records on marriages and births to the Nazi party. While there were Christians who opposed Nazism the record of Christianity in Germany is one of acquiescence and support rather opposition or resistance.
Taking the historical record of Christianity in Hitler’s Germany and applying the Pope’s recent “reasoning” we should conclude that theism is to blame for Nazism. Note that this would not only include the denominations of Christianity that supported Hitler but also those who objected to Nazism. It would also include Muslim and Hindu theists who had nothing to do with the atrocities. The Pope’s “logic” would also have us blaming the Jewish theists who were aggressively persecuted by the Nazi regime! This conclusion is rightly considered ludicrous as it lacks all subtlety by failing to distinguish between those guilty of the crime and those victimised by it. This is the gaping flaw I wanted to identify. It is not theism or atheism that is to blame for Nazi Germany but primarily the ideology of Nazism and secondarily the religions of Catholicism and Lutheranism.
What we all should realise is it religions and ideologies that are to blame in these historical atrocities not individual beliefs. In the case of the Soviet Union it was a type of Marxism, not atheism, which was the problem. During the Thirty Years war it was types of Christianity which were the problem, not theism. In Hitler’s Germany it was a type of political movement and on 9/11 it was a type of Islam. In no way is either atheism or theism to blame for these devastating events. One final point, I think we atheists contribute to this misperception by setting up atheism in opposition to religion – this is a mistake. Theism is the opposite of atheism and we should make this point clear in all our communication on the subject. We should also reserve our criticism of the historical record for the ideologies and religions that are at fault, and not try to extend this critique to cover all types of theism.
Atheism, at its most inclusive, describes anyone who has no belief in gods. From even this basic understanding, it is remarkably difficult to see how atheism could be expected to produce any action from an individual atheist. There is no causal line from the absence of a single belief to any other belief or action, be it good or bad. Even explicit atheism (the denial of gods) does not imply any further belief or action. If we say this for atheism, in order to be consistent, we must also say this for theism. Theism (the belief in gods), as a single belief, does not entail any other beliefs or actions by the individual theist. A theist may believe in the philosopher’s god, a non-interventionist god, Allah, the trinity, or a whole pantheon of pagan gods. But even these basic beliefs about the nature of gods are additional to the initial claim of theism, not derived from it. Taking the example of the Thirty Years war, the Pope would have us blame theism for the conflict. However, given both sides of the conflict were theists this conclusion makes little sense. The true dividing factor was the different religions, Catholicism and Protestantism, which each side maintained. My contention is that while atheism and theism are blameless in the great atrocities of history, ideology and religion should be held to account.
Ideologies and religions are not single beliefs but whole belief systems and as such can serve as powerful motivators for individuals. While each belief in the system may not be cause for action, the combination of various beliefs produces stimulus for the individual. A single belief in the existence of Hell does little to motivate a person unless further beliefs such as the nature of sin, the possibility of salvation, and a divine overseer are part of the overall belief system. Nazi Ideology, to take the Pope’s example, is a powerfully motivating belief system. What gave the Nazi party its appeal in post WWI Germany was its staunch conservatism and a resistance to the liberal direction of the Wiemar republic. The Nazi’s were anti-communistic, anti-atheist, anti-homosexual, anti-immigrant, and anti-semetic. While not necessary a Christian movement, the Nazi party endorsed Christianity and, in turn, received support from the more conservative Catholic and Lutheran churches. The Catholic church even assisted in tracking down those of Jewish descent by opening its records on marriages and births to the Nazi party. While there were Christians who opposed Nazism the record of Christianity in Germany is one of acquiescence and support rather opposition or resistance.
Taking the historical record of Christianity in Hitler’s Germany and applying the Pope’s recent “reasoning” we should conclude that theism is to blame for Nazism. Note that this would not only include the denominations of Christianity that supported Hitler but also those who objected to Nazism. It would also include Muslim and Hindu theists who had nothing to do with the atrocities. The Pope’s “logic” would also have us blaming the Jewish theists who were aggressively persecuted by the Nazi regime! This conclusion is rightly considered ludicrous as it lacks all subtlety by failing to distinguish between those guilty of the crime and those victimised by it. This is the gaping flaw I wanted to identify. It is not theism or atheism that is to blame for Nazi Germany but primarily the ideology of Nazism and secondarily the religions of Catholicism and Lutheranism.
What we all should realise is it religions and ideologies that are to blame in these historical atrocities not individual beliefs. In the case of the Soviet Union it was a type of Marxism, not atheism, which was the problem. During the Thirty Years war it was types of Christianity which were the problem, not theism. In Hitler’s Germany it was a type of political movement and on 9/11 it was a type of Islam. In no way is either atheism or theism to blame for these devastating events. One final point, I think we atheists contribute to this misperception by setting up atheism in opposition to religion – this is a mistake. Theism is the opposite of atheism and we should make this point clear in all our communication on the subject. We should also reserve our criticism of the historical record for the ideologies and religions that are at fault, and not try to extend this critique to cover all types of theism.
June 03, 2010
Jesus, Interupted
In Jesus, Interrupted Bart Ehrman lays bare many contradictions in the New Testament and explains why they exist. Although many people are familiar with the stories that make up the Bible, a historical perspective of the text is one only found in academia. Ehrman presents an understanding of the Bible based on the historical-critical method. This view of the Bible is accepted by a wide variety of scholars and taught in seminaries yet it is not communicated to Christian communities or the public at large.
The starting point for Jesus, Interrupted is for Ehrman to highlight some of the key contradictions found in the New Testament. He then uses the discrepant accounts to tell us something interesting about the motivations and beliefs of the various authors. For example, the birth of Jesus is only described in two of the Gospels – Luke and Matthew but the accounts diverge. Luke has the more familiar story; Mary and Joseph are living in Nazareth when Mary finds herself pregnant. Before she gives birth a census is ordered and every man has to return to his ancestor’s town - Bethlehem for Joseph. They can’t find a place to stay and Jesus ends up being born in a stable. Later, the new family returns to Nazareth where Jesus grows up. Matthew has a different take; Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem where Jesus is born. Visiting wise men that followed a star from the East come to see the new King of the Jews. King Herod then orders a mass slaughter of all infant boys but Joseph is forewarned and flees with Mary and Jesus to Egypt. After Herod has died they return but this time to live in Nazareth where Jesus is raised. Apart from the historical difficulties (there was no such census or infanticide), both accounts are clearly contradictory. They also tell their virgin birth story for different reasons, the Gospel of Matthew is trying to fulfill prophecy while the Gospel of Luke is trying to emphasise that Jesus is the son of God.
After explaining several more significant contradictions between the New Testament writers Ehrman then details the different viewpoints that each author had and their varying approaches to the Christian faith. Paul, writing first, emphasises that salvation is through belief in the resurrection of Jesus not works. Paul goes so far as to say that those following the Jewish laws may be putting themselves at risk by believing in alternate paths to God. Paul believes that the apocalypse will soon occur and everyone should be on the side of Jesus if they want to be rewarded by God. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus preaches an imminent apocalypse where God’s kingdom will come to Earth and overthrow all evil. Jesus is not divine but is the ‘Son of Man’ who will play an important role in the Utopian theocracy. Jesus dies to pay for everyone’s sins and to bring God to the masses. In the Gospel of Luke the emphasis of Jesus’ death is not on atonement but on innocence. Jesus, the literal son of God (not Man), is completely innocent and his unwarranted execution is symbolic of all human sin. The only way to God is to repent for your sins, not by paying for them by sacrifice, but by asking God for forgiveness. This is a judgment against the Jewish system of worship. In contrast, the Gospel of Matthew argues that Christians must follow all the Jewish laws if they want to be accepted by God. This gospel contains the story of the goats and sheep where the righteous but unbelieving sheep are allowed into heaven whereas the believing goats are barred from entering (sorry, couldn’t help myself). Matthew is also terribly keen to use prophecy to show Jesus had been sent by God. In this Gospel Jesus refuses to do miracles which might offer proof of his divine nature. The last Gospel written is John’s and by this time it was clear that the ‘immanent apocalypse’ predicted by Jesus was not going to occur. The interpretation given in this Gospel is that Jesus was a pre-existing divine being, ‘the word made flesh’. There is no virgin birth or baptism; instead Jesus does miracles to prove he is God (signs, so-called). His message is not that the Kingdom of God is coming to Earth, but that we must get to the Kingdom by being ‘born from above’. If we accept God and are ‘born again’ we will get to heaven after death. As can be seen the narratives in the New Testament vary widely in their messages. Ehrman does a great job of explaining all the contradictions between the different accounts and the reasons why the authors thought the way they did.
The most interesting chapter for me was the one on the historical Jesus; Ehrman starts off by talking about the sources. The Gospels are the best sources as there are multiple accounts of the same story, unfortunately they were written by neither eyewitnesses, nor contemporaries (35 – 65 years after Jesus’ death). They are also wildly inconsistent, not independent, and not averse to making up stories (e.g., the virgin narrative). Paul never met Jesus and claimed only to see him in a vision, his writings also vary with the Gospel accounts significantly. When we look outside the New Testament we find that Jesus appeared to be completely insignificant in his time. In the century after his death Ehrman finds two compelling sources that mention Jesus. One is a Roman source from 115CE where Tacitus explains that the troublesome Christians take their name from “Christus” and the other is the Jewish historian Josephus who in 90CE wrote a passage about Jesus and the Christian movement that occurred after his crucifixion. After considering all this Erhman thinks that we can build a realistic picture of the historical Jesus. Jesus was most likely a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who preached the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God and the removal of all evil. Upon arriving in Jerusalem with a small band of followers he annoyed the local Jewish authorities (possibly causing a ruckus at the temple and/or blasphemy) and was handed over to the Roman authorities for execution. I found Ehrmen to be compelling enough of these points to be convinced of this part of his case. He does stretch it a bit further getting into some details about what Jesus probably taught, but given that I’d just read the previous chapters about how the Gospel authors were using the story of Jesus to make their own theological points this part of the book rings a bit hollow.
Overall, a fascinating read into the history of the New Testament. Unfortunately, Ehrman is not the best writer so I give it 8/10.
The starting point for Jesus, Interrupted is for Ehrman to highlight some of the key contradictions found in the New Testament. He then uses the discrepant accounts to tell us something interesting about the motivations and beliefs of the various authors. For example, the birth of Jesus is only described in two of the Gospels – Luke and Matthew but the accounts diverge. Luke has the more familiar story; Mary and Joseph are living in Nazareth when Mary finds herself pregnant. Before she gives birth a census is ordered and every man has to return to his ancestor’s town - Bethlehem for Joseph. They can’t find a place to stay and Jesus ends up being born in a stable. Later, the new family returns to Nazareth where Jesus grows up. Matthew has a different take; Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem where Jesus is born. Visiting wise men that followed a star from the East come to see the new King of the Jews. King Herod then orders a mass slaughter of all infant boys but Joseph is forewarned and flees with Mary and Jesus to Egypt. After Herod has died they return but this time to live in Nazareth where Jesus is raised. Apart from the historical difficulties (there was no such census or infanticide), both accounts are clearly contradictory. They also tell their virgin birth story for different reasons, the Gospel of Matthew is trying to fulfill prophecy while the Gospel of Luke is trying to emphasise that Jesus is the son of God.
After explaining several more significant contradictions between the New Testament writers Ehrman then details the different viewpoints that each author had and their varying approaches to the Christian faith. Paul, writing first, emphasises that salvation is through belief in the resurrection of Jesus not works. Paul goes so far as to say that those following the Jewish laws may be putting themselves at risk by believing in alternate paths to God. Paul believes that the apocalypse will soon occur and everyone should be on the side of Jesus if they want to be rewarded by God. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus preaches an imminent apocalypse where God’s kingdom will come to Earth and overthrow all evil. Jesus is not divine but is the ‘Son of Man’ who will play an important role in the Utopian theocracy. Jesus dies to pay for everyone’s sins and to bring God to the masses. In the Gospel of Luke the emphasis of Jesus’ death is not on atonement but on innocence. Jesus, the literal son of God (not Man), is completely innocent and his unwarranted execution is symbolic of all human sin. The only way to God is to repent for your sins, not by paying for them by sacrifice, but by asking God for forgiveness. This is a judgment against the Jewish system of worship. In contrast, the Gospel of Matthew argues that Christians must follow all the Jewish laws if they want to be accepted by God. This gospel contains the story of the goats and sheep where the righteous but unbelieving sheep are allowed into heaven whereas the believing goats are barred from entering (sorry, couldn’t help myself). Matthew is also terribly keen to use prophecy to show Jesus had been sent by God. In this Gospel Jesus refuses to do miracles which might offer proof of his divine nature. The last Gospel written is John’s and by this time it was clear that the ‘immanent apocalypse’ predicted by Jesus was not going to occur. The interpretation given in this Gospel is that Jesus was a pre-existing divine being, ‘the word made flesh’. There is no virgin birth or baptism; instead Jesus does miracles to prove he is God (signs, so-called). His message is not that the Kingdom of God is coming to Earth, but that we must get to the Kingdom by being ‘born from above’. If we accept God and are ‘born again’ we will get to heaven after death. As can be seen the narratives in the New Testament vary widely in their messages. Ehrman does a great job of explaining all the contradictions between the different accounts and the reasons why the authors thought the way they did.
The most interesting chapter for me was the one on the historical Jesus; Ehrman starts off by talking about the sources. The Gospels are the best sources as there are multiple accounts of the same story, unfortunately they were written by neither eyewitnesses, nor contemporaries (35 – 65 years after Jesus’ death). They are also wildly inconsistent, not independent, and not averse to making up stories (e.g., the virgin narrative). Paul never met Jesus and claimed only to see him in a vision, his writings also vary with the Gospel accounts significantly. When we look outside the New Testament we find that Jesus appeared to be completely insignificant in his time. In the century after his death Ehrman finds two compelling sources that mention Jesus. One is a Roman source from 115CE where Tacitus explains that the troublesome Christians take their name from “Christus” and the other is the Jewish historian Josephus who in 90CE wrote a passage about Jesus and the Christian movement that occurred after his crucifixion. After considering all this Erhman thinks that we can build a realistic picture of the historical Jesus. Jesus was most likely a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who preached the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God and the removal of all evil. Upon arriving in Jerusalem with a small band of followers he annoyed the local Jewish authorities (possibly causing a ruckus at the temple and/or blasphemy) and was handed over to the Roman authorities for execution. I found Ehrmen to be compelling enough of these points to be convinced of this part of his case. He does stretch it a bit further getting into some details about what Jesus probably taught, but given that I’d just read the previous chapters about how the Gospel authors were using the story of Jesus to make their own theological points this part of the book rings a bit hollow.
Overall, a fascinating read into the history of the New Testament. Unfortunately, Ehrman is not the best writer so I give it 8/10.
May 27, 2010
Ulster Museum to Promote Creationism?
Nelson McCausland, culture minister for Norhtern Ireland has asked Ulster Museum to put up displays on Creationism. Creationism is the Biblical based view that the Earth was created October 23rd, 4004 BCE. It is anti-science in the extreme and not something a museum ought to be promoting. Guardian covers the story.
May 24, 2010
The failure of prayer
Five heart attacks since they started praying? God certainly has a morbid sense of humour. Faith healing and alternative medicine don't work and just lead to more deaths. This is a tragedy just waiting to happen.
May 09, 2010
Separatist sect and schooling
The New Zealand Herald has investigated further into the practices of schooling by the Exclusive Brethren. This church is a separatist sect who receive government money to teach their children a very narrow curriculum. After banning King Lear, the NZ Herald has also revealed that missing or blacked out from Exclusive Brethren textbooks are central components of a well rounded education including evolution and human sexuality.
The NZ government should not be funding these stultifying centres of religious indoctrination.
The NZ government should not be funding these stultifying centres of religious indoctrination.
May 07, 2010
Free speech in the UK?
Not if the topic is religion.
In this first case, Harry Taylor (59) left leaflets satirising aspects of the Christian and Islamic religions at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. For leaving these cartoons in a public place, Mr Taylor was convicted of causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm, or distress. Mr Taylor has been convicted on similar charges in the past and is being treated for depression.
The second case involves a Christian preacher, Dale McAlpine (42) who was arrested after allegedly speaking out against sins listed in the Bible - including homosexuality. Mr McAlpine also faces a charge of causing harassment, alarm, or distress.
While the majority of Christians or atheist probably would not support the actions of either Mr Taylor or Mr McAlpine, the overuse of the public order act in Britain is something both sides of the theological debate can agree on. If we want to have these discussions then it is important that even the most extreme speech is protected. Dropping leaflet or holding an impromptu sermon hardly seem like matters that should involve the police.
In this first case, Harry Taylor (59) left leaflets satirising aspects of the Christian and Islamic religions at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. For leaving these cartoons in a public place, Mr Taylor was convicted of causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm, or distress. Mr Taylor has been convicted on similar charges in the past and is being treated for depression.
The second case involves a Christian preacher, Dale McAlpine (42) who was arrested after allegedly speaking out against sins listed in the Bible - including homosexuality. Mr McAlpine also faces a charge of causing harassment, alarm, or distress.
While the majority of Christians or atheist probably would not support the actions of either Mr Taylor or Mr McAlpine, the overuse of the public order act in Britain is something both sides of the theological debate can agree on. If we want to have these discussions then it is important that even the most extreme speech is protected. Dropping leaflet or holding an impromptu sermon hardly seem like matters that should involve the police.
May 05, 2010
Did atheism cause the atrocities of the 20th century?
An argument that often comes up in the religion debate is whether atheism can be responsible for the crimes committed by atheists. In response to the claims that Christianity lead to the inquisition, witch-hunts, the crusades, and slavery Christians regularly respond that atheism does not have a perfect record. If these crimes can be blamed on Christianity then surely the crimes of atheists such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot can be blamed on atheism.
There are multiple problems with this argument. The first is that it is fallacious, being both an argumentum ad consequentiam and a tu quoque response all in one. Although the atheist argument that Christianity leads to atrocities is also an argumentum ad consequentiam, I've only ever seen it brought up in response to the Christian claim that religion always results in positive outcomes. Even if the argument that atheism lead to the atrocities of the 20th century is true, we can still disregard it as an attempt to show atheism as a faulty position.
So, what is atheism and how could it motivate someone to commit a horrendous act? Atheism is the rejection of the claim that god exists. That's it. There is no dogma or ideology that logically flows from this position. Any other beliefs that an atheist has are separate from their atheism. An atheist could hold related ideas, such as secular humanism, but there is no direct line from atheism to any ideology. Indeed an atheist could be anti-clerical and hate everything about all religions, or they could be religious themselves as many Buddhist or Raelians are. But both positions are separate from their atheist. They is nothing implicit in atheism that could motivate anyone to action and so the argument on the evils of atheism fails here.
The next question to consider is whether religion is a motivating factor in behaviour. Perhaps the Crusades were not fought because of religion but because of some other ideology. This is clearly false. Many knights joined the Crusades specifically because the church offered them forgiveness from their sins and the Crusades themselves were fought to convert heathens to Christianity. Religion itself was the ideology and dogma that motivated people to action. Theism (the acceptance of god's existence) is the equivalent of atheism and cannot drive behaviour. However, add in a religious motivator like Christianity and the result can be great good or great evil.
What really motivated the communist and fascist dictators of the 20th century was an adherence to the ideology of their respective parties. The fascist dictators - Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler - were all closely intertwined with the Catholic church. Franco was a Catholic and made Catholicism the official religion of Spain. Both Mussolini and Hitler were probably atheists but used Catholicism to achieve their goals and motivate their followers. Both signed concordats with the Vatican and promoted their own piety in public. The fault here clearly lies with religion rather than atheism.
Turning to communism the picture is slightly different. Communist regimes are officially atheist but that does not mean their atrocities were committed because of their atheism (that would be to confuse correlation with causation). In the case of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot what drove their crimes was an adherence to the communist ideology. By far the biggest killer in each of their regimes was starvation due to the collectivisation of agricultural land - a direct result of communism. The second leading cause of death was murder of the property owning class in order that their property revert to the communist state. Finally, any dissenters or intellectuals were also killed as any opposition to the communist doctrine was seen as evil. At no point does atheism take a staring role in these human tragedies. Rather, a reliance and blind acceptance of communist ideology was to blame.
Any attempt to blame atheism for crimes committed by atheists necessary falls at the first step. Atheism is not and ideology, dogma, or even an -ism. It cannot inspire anyone to do anything, good or bad. Something extra must always be added. The same can be said for theism. Before theism becomes a problem, the dogma of a religion must be added. In the case of Hitler, a religious mix of Catholicism and paganism was what drove him to commit the holocaust. In the case of Stalin adherence to the ideology of communism led him to murder and starve his people. Atheism is guiltless.
There are multiple problems with this argument. The first is that it is fallacious, being both an argumentum ad consequentiam and a tu quoque response all in one. Although the atheist argument that Christianity leads to atrocities is also an argumentum ad consequentiam, I've only ever seen it brought up in response to the Christian claim that religion always results in positive outcomes. Even if the argument that atheism lead to the atrocities of the 20th century is true, we can still disregard it as an attempt to show atheism as a faulty position.
So, what is atheism and how could it motivate someone to commit a horrendous act? Atheism is the rejection of the claim that god exists. That's it. There is no dogma or ideology that logically flows from this position. Any other beliefs that an atheist has are separate from their atheism. An atheist could hold related ideas, such as secular humanism, but there is no direct line from atheism to any ideology. Indeed an atheist could be anti-clerical and hate everything about all religions, or they could be religious themselves as many Buddhist or Raelians are. But both positions are separate from their atheist. They is nothing implicit in atheism that could motivate anyone to action and so the argument on the evils of atheism fails here.
The next question to consider is whether religion is a motivating factor in behaviour. Perhaps the Crusades were not fought because of religion but because of some other ideology. This is clearly false. Many knights joined the Crusades specifically because the church offered them forgiveness from their sins and the Crusades themselves were fought to convert heathens to Christianity. Religion itself was the ideology and dogma that motivated people to action. Theism (the acceptance of god's existence) is the equivalent of atheism and cannot drive behaviour. However, add in a religious motivator like Christianity and the result can be great good or great evil.
What really motivated the communist and fascist dictators of the 20th century was an adherence to the ideology of their respective parties. The fascist dictators - Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler - were all closely intertwined with the Catholic church. Franco was a Catholic and made Catholicism the official religion of Spain. Both Mussolini and Hitler were probably atheists but used Catholicism to achieve their goals and motivate their followers. Both signed concordats with the Vatican and promoted their own piety in public. The fault here clearly lies with religion rather than atheism.
Turning to communism the picture is slightly different. Communist regimes are officially atheist but that does not mean their atrocities were committed because of their atheism (that would be to confuse correlation with causation). In the case of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot what drove their crimes was an adherence to the communist ideology. By far the biggest killer in each of their regimes was starvation due to the collectivisation of agricultural land - a direct result of communism. The second leading cause of death was murder of the property owning class in order that their property revert to the communist state. Finally, any dissenters or intellectuals were also killed as any opposition to the communist doctrine was seen as evil. At no point does atheism take a staring role in these human tragedies. Rather, a reliance and blind acceptance of communist ideology was to blame.
Any attempt to blame atheism for crimes committed by atheists necessary falls at the first step. Atheism is not and ideology, dogma, or even an -ism. It cannot inspire anyone to do anything, good or bad. Something extra must always be added. The same can be said for theism. Before theism becomes a problem, the dogma of a religion must be added. In the case of Hitler, a religious mix of Catholicism and paganism was what drove him to commit the holocaust. In the case of Stalin adherence to the ideology of communism led him to murder and starve his people. Atheism is guiltless.
May 03, 2010
In defense of secular law
Recently, Evangelical guidance counselor Gary McFarlane lost his job due to his unwillingness to receive and council gay couples. The UK's anti-discrimination laws meant that his employer, Relate Avon, was able to terminated his employment with them. This part of the case is relatively straight forward, Mr McFarlane refused to perform his therapy services in a non-discriminatory manner and thus his termination was justified. However, Mr McFarlane appealed the dismissal on the grounds that his Christian beliefs meant that he had to discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples and that firing him for his beliefs was, itself, discriminatory.
Lord Justice Laws dismissed this argument in no uncertain terms saying that "The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens, and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic." The question facing Justice Laws was whether an exception should be made for a certain religious belief when secular law is supposed to be applied equally. In this case Justice Laws was correct that Relate Avon applied an identical standard to all its employees (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist) and that making an exception for Christianity would have itself been discriminatory against the other religious positions. After all, if the exception can be made for Christianity it ought to be made for Jews, Muslims, and atheists and then there would be no point to having the law in the first place. No religious belief, said the judge, can be protected under the law "however long its tradition, however rich its culture."
Justice Laws also dismissed as "mistaken" former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey's warning that so-called discrimination against Christians may result in attacks in Britain. Carey described the High Court ruling as "deeply worrying," heralding "a 'secular state' rather than a 'neutral' one." What Mr Carey doesn't understand is that a secular state is neutral on the matter of religion, by definition. Secularism is the compromise between the religious and non-religious and under secular law everyone is treated equally regardless of their beliefs.
Rubbing a little salt in the wound, Justice Laws added "religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." and that using the law to protect "a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified." Amen.
Lord Justice Laws dismissed this argument in no uncertain terms saying that "The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens, and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic." The question facing Justice Laws was whether an exception should be made for a certain religious belief when secular law is supposed to be applied equally. In this case Justice Laws was correct that Relate Avon applied an identical standard to all its employees (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist) and that making an exception for Christianity would have itself been discriminatory against the other religious positions. After all, if the exception can be made for Christianity it ought to be made for Jews, Muslims, and atheists and then there would be no point to having the law in the first place. No religious belief, said the judge, can be protected under the law "however long its tradition, however rich its culture."
Justice Laws also dismissed as "mistaken" former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey's warning that so-called discrimination against Christians may result in attacks in Britain. Carey described the High Court ruling as "deeply worrying," heralding "a 'secular state' rather than a 'neutral' one." What Mr Carey doesn't understand is that a secular state is neutral on the matter of religion, by definition. Secularism is the compromise between the religious and non-religious and under secular law everyone is treated equally regardless of their beliefs.
Rubbing a little salt in the wound, Justice Laws added "religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." and that using the law to protect "a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified." Amen.
May 02, 2010
King Lear too risqué for Christian students
A Christian high-school in Kerikeri, New Zealand has sacked one of their teachers for providing her class with a copy of Shakespeare's King Lear. Suzette Martin was fired from the private Westmount School for teaching her Year 13 students the play. King Lear is commonly studied in New Zealand public schools in preparation for the NCEA English exam.
However, Westmount school is run by the Exclusive Brethren, a reclusive religious sect that pass for the local religious kooks in this country. This Christian organisation receives around $2.5 million from the government to run 15 schools nationwide, for about 1600 students. Ms Martin, who is a Christian herself, elected to fight the dismissal. Unfortunately, due to a clause in her contract that states she must clear teaching material with the school board, the school's decision to terminate her employment was upheld. As much as I dislike the situation, I have to agree that Ms Martin did violate the terms of her contract and her dismissal was perfectly legal.
The trustees of Westmount school only wanted to permit materials that “reflected Bible values” such as genocide, human sacrifice, and infinite torture but found the "embarrassing, corrupting and morally defiling" text of King Lear too risqué for their Christian students to handle. Ms Martin identified the words "whores" and "prostitutes" of particular concern to the trustees. These words appear multiple times in the Bible. In one of the more well known Biblical stories, a prostitute named Rahab helps Joshua's spies escape from the city of Jericho right before it is destroyed and its inhabitants slaughtered. As a result of her obedience, Rahab and her family were rewarded and blessed (Joshua 2:1; 6:17-25). If the school board was to apply their standards consistently, the Bible would be the first book banned from this Christian school.
The problem with this story is not the unfortunate firing of Ms Martin but that these schools receive government funding. Westmount school has a clear policy to censure great works of literature so that their students are not exposed to potentially corrupting ideas. Worse, another clause in teachers' contracts means that they are prevented from encouraging their students to attend university. If the school's goal is not to expose children to new ideas and encourage further study, then they are not engaging in education. The best outcome would be for these children to be placed in a proper schooling environment. Failing that, let's at least stop the public funding of religious indoctrination and censorship.
However, Westmount school is run by the Exclusive Brethren, a reclusive religious sect that pass for the local religious kooks in this country. This Christian organisation receives around $2.5 million from the government to run 15 schools nationwide, for about 1600 students. Ms Martin, who is a Christian herself, elected to fight the dismissal. Unfortunately, due to a clause in her contract that states she must clear teaching material with the school board, the school's decision to terminate her employment was upheld. As much as I dislike the situation, I have to agree that Ms Martin did violate the terms of her contract and her dismissal was perfectly legal.
The trustees of Westmount school only wanted to permit materials that “reflected Bible values” such as genocide, human sacrifice, and infinite torture but found the "embarrassing, corrupting and morally defiling" text of King Lear too risqué for their Christian students to handle. Ms Martin identified the words "whores" and "prostitutes" of particular concern to the trustees. These words appear multiple times in the Bible. In one of the more well known Biblical stories, a prostitute named Rahab helps Joshua's spies escape from the city of Jericho right before it is destroyed and its inhabitants slaughtered. As a result of her obedience, Rahab and her family were rewarded and blessed (Joshua 2:1; 6:17-25). If the school board was to apply their standards consistently, the Bible would be the first book banned from this Christian school.
The problem with this story is not the unfortunate firing of Ms Martin but that these schools receive government funding. Westmount school has a clear policy to censure great works of literature so that their students are not exposed to potentially corrupting ideas. Worse, another clause in teachers' contracts means that they are prevented from encouraging their students to attend university. If the school's goal is not to expose children to new ideas and encourage further study, then they are not engaging in education. The best outcome would be for these children to be placed in a proper schooling environment. Failing that, let's at least stop the public funding of religious indoctrination and censorship.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)