Following on Lord Hylton’s comments, I have noticed that the provisions in the Equality Bill are making many reasonable and decent people very unhappy. They feel that their faith, and provision of services by its adherents to the members of their community and to the wider world are under threat. Why is this? Listening to the debate on the Equality Bill, and reading the letters from members of the public to peers asking for their religious organisations to be respected, I had a thought.
It seems to me that human rights/equality has developed all the trappings of an organised religion or belief. It has its organisations ready to develop and enforce it; there are high priests who explain the words of the holy book to the rest of us; there are sacred cities to which pilgrims travel. More seriously, the proponents of human rights/equality at all costs have become as intolerant of dissent as were the religious leaders 400 years ago. This is the absolute truth, they say, we have now reached the ultimate belief. Everyone must sign up and proselytise; non conformity no longer leads to the stake but it is certainly crushed.
It behoves us all to accept some disagreements about how to behave and how to teach the young. I believe that the human rights legislators should show some magnanimity and not fear opposition. The philosophy that underlies human rights, and the decent impulses that support it grew out of religion and if the established religions cannot hand on their teaching as they would like to, there is a risk that a generation will grow up who cannot understand why human rights are as important as they are.
As a Christian I feel that the issues of Equality and Diversity have been taken to the ultimate degree of minutia with interference in the very lives and thoughts of everyone.
The Thought Police are alive and active in the country, making many people uncomfortable about even expressing a Christian or Religious view point.
The noise made by the National Secular Society, Athiests and Humanists is attempting to drown out the voice of God and any freedom to hold a religious belief.
If we wish to have a truly equal society, than the right to freedom of choice and freedom of speech, need to be protected, not ring fenced with legislation which can make inadvertent criminals of anyone.
We are in danger of becoming a police state and this government which came in with such promises has not fulfilled any of them, it has made the position much worse.
Legislation is needed to protect human rights, but not to the extent where it disregards the freedom of individual conscience.
“attempting to drown out the voice of God “
Ah, if only. I’m afraid we’re still shouting to be heard over the apparently-Godly. It’s nice that you feel so frightened, though. Kind of reinforces our suspicions about the inherent fragility of the belief systems of the faithful, still tenuously grasped to and relying on state intervention to defend them at all costs from the frightful rudeness of an Oxford University professor and a bunch of people on the internet.
Buggady-boo! Here comes the horrible atheist conspiracy! Whatever will the poor, put-upon Catholic Church do with only its vast global power base and unbelievable stores of wealth to defend itself? Heaven itself prevail, that we should never have to face that horror.
I’m not having this.
Describing something as a religion just because people promote the idea makes pretty much anything a religion, although I doubt you were making a serious point there, it is a nonsense I don’t like to see.
The religious have the freedom to believe in their ideals, whatever I might think of them, but they do not get to enforce them, that ofen takes away the freedoms of others, and that we cannot have.
Nor, Baroness, did ‘decent impulses’ come from religions. The C of E is still trying to fight an internal battle with its own reformers promoting the impulses of yesteryear.
“It seems to me that human rights/equality has developed all the trappings of an organised religion or belief.”
The one word that the noble baroness did not mention is the UNIVERSALITY of Human rights law.
Religion is based as often as not, on empire, whereas enforcement of human rights
law is based on the post-imperial globalism of the USA.
It may be that which makes it seem like a religion. I don’t accept it.
The EU, of which we are a part, is second string to globalist (or anti-globalist) wisdom.
I just hope that, for the future, Muslim countries of Central Asia for example, will be able to accept and enforce fully the Human rights convention in the way that we already have done.
It may compel them to re-examine some of their deeply held beliefs before they do,
but to suggest that Human rights is anywhere a religion of itself is an exaggeration, possibly to make a point.
It can not be said that the anti-globalist*
is also anti-Human rights; he is not.
Nor can it be said that the Arch capitalists
of the USA are anti-human rights; they are not. The USA was the first signatory of the convention.
Having spent a little time on the ‘Rightsology’, some of them effect me PERSONALLY and I am glad that they are there.
*Anti-globalist, anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, homestead loving philosophers….. are these the people who most value Human Rights Law, and is it therefore a religion of Atheism?
No because once the falsely held ideologies
of Capitalism above have been shed, the true foundation of the HOME and SELF SUFFICIENCY is found, and that is also the foundation of good faith.
For those who shed everything but do not succeed in finding their homestead, the anti-WTO protestors, then Human Rights law and radical left thought may well take on the appearance of a Religion.
With the Homestead, whether in Portugal, or Australia, or West Virginia,or Brazil, and however poor, then true faiths surely have their way.
Human Rights is just a UN Convention which provides Law which is thought to be Universal. Religion is a different matter.
Please get the stake ready.
I have watched 4 daughters grow, they are 9 to 32. Girls play with dolls and form social connections, boys play with cars and form allegiances for power (there are exceptions I know). You cannot legislate it any different, there is a natural way of things.
I know I am a feminist`s nightmare, they don`t like me and that`s their choice but that does not make me a woman hater. I love them as much as I do not understand them. My girls and my wife would not like me any other way, I am a Father,a provider and protector. That is my natural job and as much as you say society made me that way, it hasn`t. Go back centuries before tv, media etc., and it was the same. My wife did not marry me because she had to, we are a partnership and we work. The differences make it work.
Am I the big bad male chauvinist the feminist`s think ? I don`t win the arguments most of the time, I`m misled into thinking lot`s of things were my idea when they infact were not. I do not throw my more physical weight around, I treat all my family with respect else they would not be here. Yes there are times I take my place as head of the house and insist it`s my way but not without consultation and expanation. Isn`t that like Government, someone has to be in charge and accept responsibility. Those occassions are rare though…unless the skirt really is that short and the worry would be too much for me (that is a joke really I do not win with that one either).
If I prefer the company of a man should I not be able to get it ? Surely that is a human right ? If I want a night out with the boys ? If I want my Priest to be a man ?
How much of my life do these people wish to control ? Are they going so far left it is actually right ? Will they next be telling people who they can or cannot marry ?
My children, my girls want their men to be men much to my disdain at times with a few. This is not because I made them but from free will because it is natural.
The Houses of Parliament may have more men than women but this doesn`t mean at anytime they didn`t have an influence, we all live and work together and influence each other.
The Holy Mother is above what we men can ever be, women are above what we are. We cannot bring life, nurture and love the way women do but we do our best to protect and love them. In our efforts, we are just mere men, sometimes our attempts to protect,we may put up boundaries women feel they want to cross but it doesn`t mean we`re wrong in our reasoning or that we`re bad. We act within our nature to protect that which is precious and less physically able than us.
Legislating our social and religious interactions will not work. What next weekly injections to lower testosterone in all males ?
If you wish to become a Black Widow please do but don`t ask me around for dinner, I know what is on the menu.
Flying the flag of freedom is good, forcing divorce and disunity, which is what is happening, will destroy society.
I am not nor ever will be equal to Baroness Deech, Murphy or D`souza or even good ole Harriet. The society we have lived in, pre equality, has allowed their rise far above where I find myself and that is good. Yes they worked for it and I didn`t, it was a personal choice, one of freedom of being able to. My wife is where she is because of choice.
If you wish to become a lady Priest there is nothing on Gods Earth that will stop you starting your own Diety but please don`t mess with mine because you cannot get your own way.
We`re all different, listen to Annie Lennox “Sweet Dreams”. It takes all sorts and I`m glad. Vive la Difference.
“I know I am a feminist`s nightmare”
The uneducated patriarch, convinced he knows it all? Yup, pretty much.
“Girls play with dolls and form social connections, boys play with cars and form allegiances for power (there are exceptions I know). You cannot legislate it any different, there is a natural way of things.”
See, there’s tells in there that show chinks in even your emphatically reasoned faith. Are the “exceptions” natural too, or unnatural? Even taking your statements as the true descriptions of the way of things — I believe there are key omissions which I will discuss slightly later — you neglect and misrepresent the nature and intent of equality legislation.
If you are correct, what if I’m an exception? What if I’m a woman who plays with cars and forms power structures, or a man who enjoys the soothing caress of silk underwear and despises conflict? What if I’m gay? The problem with saying that boys grunting and girls crying is “natural” is that it sets up me — in my guise as avatar of all the exceptions — as unnatural.
Now, that’s one problem, and it’s a cause of social discrimination (and of worse, but we’ll get there later). Equality legislation is not designed to change the behaviour of men who like men and women who like embroidery. If you are genuinely the kind of man who likes cars and guns, you keep rocking that gender-normative stereotype and nobody’s going to legislate that you have to watch Sex in the City. What equality legislation says is that you can’t enforce your way of being onto those people who ended up as exceptions. If I’m gay, or a butch lady, or a feminine man, then you, sir, must suck up your natural revulsion and keep it in private, because the law — quite rightly — recognises that absent some alternative mechanism to childbirth to produce us we are natural too, and are thus granted the same rights and freedoms to get jobs, not get beaten up, and watch musical theatre productions as the rest of you.
Nothing in the laws force you to watch or enjoy the works of Stephen Sondheim. They just protect my rights to do so unmolested, uninterrupted, and without it prejudicing my chances of obtaining employment, credit or property.
The thing is, when this happens, it breaks a feedback loop. Turns out, when the policing of gender norms is weakened, there are a lot more women who like cars and management roles and a lot more men who like lavendar bubble baths. The positioning of a particular kind of gender stereotype as the “natural” way of things becomes more weakened, the more we allow for people’s real natural inclinations to be expressed. Nature is much less restrictive than we have been led to believe, and that there’s a broader range of expression available from “nature” than that which is allowed by our social conditioning.
When it comes to toys, infants go off parental reactions more than anything. You would be surprised, I’m sure, to learn just how smart children are at picking up the subconscious cues of their parents – and boys are particularly sensitive, perhaps because fathers are often particularly expressive about such things. Children learn from an early age what is acceptable and what isn’t, and while it is not that there is no difference in means and averages across the genders, there is significantly more variation within the physical gender sets than between them, and a huge amount of overlap.
The trouble is, these revelatory truths are saying more than just “gender expression is learned.” It challenges the social heirarchy and a whole swathe of common knowledge as it relates to what men and women can and can’t do in society. Particularly men, which is why fathers are more expressive in showing disapproval when boys play with dolls than when girls play with trucks (although it is a close run thing), who stand to lose out a lot more if it’s shown that their advantage in the traditional gender roles is a social convention rather than a biological necessity. Which begins to undermine other social hierarchical networks — religions, for example — which have hitched their wagons to the natural order of things and the preference for “masculine” virtue.
Undermining entrenched power bases always takes time, of course. Quite often, we have to wait for people whose minds are so fixed that they cannot be changed by any amount of evidence to simply die, which is a macabre but well established method of getting rid of outmoded social norms. So, they’ll be around a while yet. But I’d be wary about hitching your credibility so securely to the wagon of “common knowledge” and the protection of bigotry. You can only get away with “that’s how their generation was brought up” as an excuse for retrograde behaviour for so long.
Uneducated ? Why yes, I never said different unlike some who obviously know all.
I suggest you read up your psychology a little though. I maybe lacking in my knowledge of Quantum Physics but then that`s not abnormal for my class. Now as I stated you will continue the attacks as long as I am here, it`s not your fault, honestly, so I`ll go now.
” However, it is becoming less and less likely that “gender socialization” is the reason why boys and girls prefer different toys, and more and more likely that there are some genetic, hormonal, and other biological reasons for the observed sex differences in toy preference”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/why-do-boys-and-girls-prefer-different-toys
I thought you may have known more, your underlying problem would indicate a need of understanding of the subject.
My knowledge of psychological research, while not “all”, certainly doesn’t simply rest on the laurels of two studies quoted in a pop psych article, and with good reason. Alexander and Hines study (pdf) is by no means the definitive work that gender essentialists in the media would have us believe.
For example, from the study (pp.10):
“We also suggest that children’s toy preferences reflect innate object preferences that are elaborated in typical human development by subsequent gender socialization. We found
differences between male and female vervet monkeys that resemble the well-established
differences in the toy preferences of boys and girls, consistent with the proposed existence of innate object preferences. However, although female vervets preferred ‘‘feminine’’ toys over ‘‘masculine’’ toys, male vervets did not appear to prefer ‘‘masculine’’ toys over ‘‘feminine’’ toys. This difference between male vervets and boys may indicate that toy preferences in boys are directed by gender socialization to a larger degree than are toy preferences in girls. “ (emphases mine)
The trouble with science reporting in the media — and an editorial column going by the name “The Scientific Fundamentalist” is very definitely subject to this, whether it’s in in Psych Today or not — is that simplification to make a “provocative” or “controversial” point can often miss out the caveats implicit in the scientific study. Alexander and Hines is certainly an interesting starting point for those who are interested in the biological basis for gendered differences (certainly nobody I know suggests that biology has zero impact on gender expression), but even they don’t claim it to be the be all and end all. And so far, no commentator I have found, nor to my knowledge Alexander or Hines themeselves, have come up with an explanation of why a cooking pot should be considered “gendered” in a primate species that does not cook. That, to me, is a tremendously interesting question off the back of Hines and Alexander which has produced a spate of post-hoc theorising but no real cognitive research so far.
There’s also a misrepresentation by omission of the “opposing” side in that article. Developmental psychologists do not believe that socialisation affects gender expression because they happened to think that sounded nice and equal. There is a voluminous mountain of research supporting that claim. See, for example, the work of L R Brody, this study by E Kane, and this intriguing study on maternal impact on pain expression.
Further, even were we to take a single study of eighty non-human primates and extrapolate as if everything in it were the gospel truth about homo sapiens sapoens, disregarding decades of developmental research on human beings entirely, nothing in it supports the strict gender essentialist view you espouse. Even among that small monkey population an observed statistical preference for certain kinds of toy did not equate to an outright bifurcation along gender lines. The distribution of preferences among genders was non-identical, but this represents merely an increased likelihood rather than absolute rule. Any given male vervet monkey in that study had a lower but significantly non-zero chance of interacting with the stereotypically “feminine” toys. This is important when it comes to interpreting hard and fast rules about gendered differences. Further, absolutely nothing in that study addresses your more insidious gendered claims that girls “form social connections” and that boys “form allegiances for power”. Aside from the inherent looseness of the definitions (is there no unequal power distribution in female socialisation? Are “allegiances for power” not also “social connections”?), there is no hypothesised connection stated between that and expressed toy preference, and the Alexander and Hines study makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of any observations of interactions of the monkeys with each other, only with the toys.
Finally, I can only say that if you perceive this as an attack, it’s only because you’re unused to the concept of a critique.
OK so
“insidious gendered claims”
Is not an attack ! I wonder which part of the multiverse you`re from ?
No, it’s not. Or at least it’s not unless you’re personally attached to the theory.
Insidious is a valid term for what happens with this kind of argument. Some results which match people’s cognitive biases are hitched onto much broader claims and used to add a veneer of respectability where none is deserved. It’s exactly what you did. “Boys play with trucks and form allegiances for power.” Your “proof” was a study which related to the first part of that, albeit in a weaker form in the original study than after it had gone through the media translation machine. Nonetheless, you felt no reservation about attaching the follow up to it is as a free rider, like an earmark to subsidise cheese production attached to a US Federal Defense Bill.
Thus a tiny piece of scientific information becomes a set of substantive claims about gender essentialism used to justify legislation which perpetuates discrimination. What word other than insidious captures that level of creeping unjustified certainty? I don’t see it as a positive thing.
Perhaps you should stop taking your adopted role as the Voice Of The Common Man here so personally. You’re conveniently voicing a number of arguments which are by no means unique to your good self, nor staggering in their originality. The responses, likewise, are not original nor personal, they’re aimed at the platonic ideal of Carl H, who is a vocal and powerful lobby group in our electorate.
I will start by stating the fact that McDuff is far more elequent than I but being able to put a persuasive argument does not make it right. Many people throughout history have been able to do so and many fools have followed.I am not so good with English that I never put a wrong word or express myself wrongly, forgive my imperfections, McDuff won`t. But let`s stick to debate.
More monkey business:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
We know that there are marked differences in genders not caused through socialization. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia can cause them, there are also numerous Gender disorders. By stating the existence of these we maintain that there are natural differences. There are of course socialized differences too, I know a few lesbians that have become so because of abuse or other interactions.
McDuff`s attempt to state that your gender does not make you different flies in the face of science, no matter how elequently he puts it.
Getting back to the original matter. If I own a pub that is frequented by dockers or maybe the BNP and I make a reasonable living, might I not be putting that at risk by employing a barman who is, gay, black etc.? It may well go against my principle NOT to employ him but in thinking of the best interest of the business I would not.
In business as in politics and life we have an image to convey for success, talk of legislating equality in certain cases may not be in keeping with that. Would the public accept a Danny La Rue figure as PM, would the World ? Hypothetically it shouldn`t make a difference. Hypothetically it shouldn`t make a difference if a Lord turned up in jeans and T shirt but it does. We have many rules that stop certain people from having certain careers not just gender differences, how far should we go.
We all discriminate, it doesn`t just apply to gender I believe there have been experiments regards Courts where Jury`s were believed to discriminate because of the way a person looks.
McDuff seems to insinuate I have a belief that women are below me, this is untrue. I have stated before there are many women above me and equality does not exist. We live in a world where a pecking order must exist else evolution would not occur. My argument that there are jobs for boys and jobs for girls will remain, physically we are different and science proves that fact not the other way around.
Regards McDuffs view that because you may not be the norm, in that you are gay or transexual or whatever that I would treat you differently, yes I would. In so much as I adjust the way I treat all people, I am not a machine. I see your weaknesses or strengths and try to adjust accordingly but not in a bad way.
Should gay`s or other be allowed to work in Religions ? I think that`s best left to the Religion. Should Dr Frank N Furter be Prime Minister ? Should my wife be allowed three storeys high to fix the roof ? She`s quite able by the way, it`s just if I fall the kids don`t lose as much and she`s more precious than me. Plus the fact I am physically more able in that concern..the way nature intended, not that there aren`t some women of equal physique but that`s not the norm.
——————————————
Going back to Quantum physics which I`ll admit I wasn`t taught at school and do not have the time or inclination to study in any great depth. Mcduff again picks the weak part of my argument and avoids the rest, as any good debater will do. I unfortunately do not have the armoury he does but that isn`t to say he`s right.
He states quite rightly that I can give no theory of posits of mechanism of selection and adaption of an evolved God. Of course I cannot science isn`t good enough yet. Of course it also is not good enough to fill in the gaps of his theory of evolution on Earth.
Again he picked up on my lack of knowledge and attempted to beat me over the head for my lack of education on a few points but avoided such things as Anthropic Principle and The Goldilocks Enigma. Both of which point to a Creator being a plausible or at least equal explanation of life and the Universe. The actual odds of this all happening randomly are less believable than a creators existence.
—————————————-
As far as Mcduffs claims that he doesn`t attack, this is poppycock.
Stating publicly that I am an “uneducated Patriach” who knows all and then adding later that my views were insiduous is without doubt an attack on my person. If it is mere critique as he states it would appear that I would not fall into his view of equality. This is one of the failings of equality law…If we have to force it upon people it isn`t ever going to be equal, you are just subjecting people to your obviously unequal opinions.
”I will start by stating the fact that McDuff is far more elequent than I but being able to put a persuasive argument does not make it right.”
Is this a restatement of the old argument “quit usin’ them fancy words, boy, they don’t impress me none?” Juxtapositions of this against your objections to “uneducated” are made and noted.
“McDuff`s attempt to state that your gender does not make you different flies in the face of science, no matter how elequently he puts it.”
To reiterate, you’re misunderstanding on a basic level what my problems with your claims are. If I had ever claimed once that men and women were physiologically equal in every aspect then you would be making the correct counter-argument. I have not and would not make that claim. What I am saying is:
The physiological differences in behaviour due to gender are much narrower than the essentialist conception of a binary-gender species;
These differences are exaggerated by socialisation;
That even with biological and socialisation pressures taken into consideration and saying that men and women are at this moment different in behaviour, that the amount of overlap across the different gender populations still means that the various “therefores” you draw, of “jobs for the boys” etc are flawed. If, to pick a hypothetical, it is the case that 70% of the male population and 55% of the female population are physiologically adept at role X, it makes no sense to claim that “women can’t do role X.” However, the level of statistical variance we deal with can often be a lot smaller than that;
That even so the arguments can be further muddied because we as a society are set up to reward gender-normative roles (aggressive men, nurturing women etc) and suffer from a lot of this kind of thing, which means that “jobs for the boys” aren’t even necessarily the kind of things that traditional masculine types are good at, they’re just the kind of thing they’ve traditionally done and we’ve post-hoc rationalised that they must be better suited to it.
This article is a wide-reaching meta-analysis and makes a number of the points I’ve made here in more detail. The point is, though, setting up a straw man of “there’s no difference in gender” and then knocking it down with some studies of different primates fundamentally fails to address the problematic way in which you allow that evidence to stand as a proxy for proof of everything you believe about the way we deal with gender in all human societies and ours in particular.
This isn’t “eloquence”, it’s called having an opinion just a touch more sophisticated and complex than a halfbrick to the face.
———
“Getting back to the original matter. If I own a pub that is frequented by dockers or maybe the BNP and I make a reasonable living, might I not be putting that at risk by employing a barman who is, gay, black etc.? It may well go against my principle NOT to employ him but in thinking of the best interest of the business I would not.”
See this is one of those really interesting bits of apolegia for discrimination that gets a lot of traction because it sounds so suspiciously reasonable. But the reasonableness of this statement is a whisper-thin lacquer of unexamined prejudice. Underlying it is the assumption that the only people with money are white racists. Otherwise one would make the reasonable assumption that if you stuck to your principles — malleable as they are — that the BNP members would leave and be replaced by all the blacks and gay people with money who haven’t wanted to frequent your pub because it was full of violent racists. Wouldn’t you? There’s also the issue of how you came into the possession of a BNP pub while apparently not being racist. Perhaps you’d started off believing that not all “dockers”, which I presume is a stand in for white working class males, are racist only to be disabused and discover that, actually, every single docker is not only a straight, white male but also a racist. Because gay men can’t be dockers, apparently, because they’re too busy listening to show tunes or serving in the military. And there’s no such thing as a black working class man who might work on the docks. Or that those who aren’t black or gay would stop drinking beer if it was served to them by a dark-skinned queer, which seems to me to be the most ludicrous assumption of all. None of these assumptions or the others I haven’t mentioned bear up well to scrutiny, and without them your conclusion that your hands are tied by the bitter economics of the situation seems rather flimsy, seeming rather like a fig leaf to cover an ugly truth.
And it’s that reason that equality laws matter. Because people insist that they’re not racist but everyone else is, their hands are tied. So it’s a worthwhile use of the law to say “stop being a fool” to people who believe that employing someone who isn’t straight, white and correctly gendered for the role will mean the end of their business.
———————
As far as attacks go, take whatever you will from the comments. If you stroll into a thread and proudly mansplain that you’re a “feminist’s nightmare” I would have thought you’d appreciate a feminist agreeing with you. You are a nightmare for feminists, but it’s not because you’re right, it’s because you’re common. Common sense, common knowledge, common assumptions, and a common mistaking of “it’s always been this way” for “therefore there’s nothing to worry your pretty little head about”.
You also seem to be under the mistaken impression — albeit one quite often shared by a particular kind of pearl-clutching white male taken to having attacks of the vapours — that support for legal equality on the basis of race, gender and sexuality also extends to treating every pearl of wisdom that drops from every mouth as being precious unto Jesus’ sight or something, even if said pearls turn into hoary old cliches when you shine a bit of daylight on them. I’ve said before, if you’re going to quack, I’m going to call you a duck. If you’re going to lambast us with your opinion and base it on an obviously superficial and pop-sci knowledge of the research on gender development and expression, I’m going to point out that uneducated patriarchs have been saying that kind of thing for millennia now, while changing the texts they read from every so often according to the fashion, and it’s nothing if not tedious. My use of “insidious” I already explained once, and you’re welcome to address the points about free-riding conclusions if you wish to dispute my usage. Until then, however, I think I’ll stick with it.
————————
“Mcduff again picks the weak part of my argument and avoids the rest, as any good debater will do.”
No, I picked apart the central flaw in your argument. Yes, also the weak point, but shouldn’t that ring some kind of alarm bells in your own head? Without a mechanism of selection or adaption, there is no theory. What you have there is just waffly quasi sci-fi fluff that amounts to “there might be a god of some kind, mightn’t there?” And the only reasonable answer I can offer to that is, “yes, there might be, so what?” Just as small samples of monkeys behaving in suspiciously gendered ways doesn’t imply that women can’t lift bricks or audit a shipping manifest, so a hypothetical sci-fi deity’s potential existence doesn’t imply in any sense that said deity would have even the slightest knowledge of our existence, let alone that it would construct a system of morality for our particular species of primates that concerned itself with whether one male romantically fondled another male’s testicles. We can “assume for the sake of argument” all the way to wherever we like, but frankly I don’t know why the superficial pebble-dashing of tabloid physics is in any sense necessary to whatever point it is you think you’re making.
“There might be a god, mightn’t there” is just as valid if you don’t pull some half-understood words out and drop them into a post with a smug thud. What about the anthropic principle? Which anthropic principle are you on about, anyway – there’s more than one. As with everything else you drop in, it’s basically meaningless because “you can’t prove it didn’t happen like this” is a specious argument. You might as well just make the assertions you wish to make without tying yourself in knots attempting to shoehorn quasi-scientific rationales in where they don’t belong to try and give your opinions the sheen of objectivity.
Baroness Deech, I owe you an apology.
From some of your earlier posts I’d formed the view that I didn’t rate your power to argue as highly as some of the other noble lords. Then I heard you on Radio 4’s PM programme and had to admit that, not for the first time in my life, I had ‘underestimated the power of a woman’. [Although it probably will not be the last..].
Your thoughful post raises a wider issue. It is very difficult to express dissent today on a number of topics, or to try and see things in ‘shades of grey’, or probability.
Climate change is another topic. Science and morality are often not about absolute certainty. I agree that this often leads to conflict since religion [especially Abrahamic or monotheistic ones] do rely on one not being able to ‘pick and choose’ one’s beliefs and vary them with time.
But by the same token, political correctness, whilst being helpful in reducing use of hateful language does often give the impression that the ‘laws’ have been received on ‘tablets of stone’ and there does not need to be any argument or explanation or justification behind it.
Richard Dawkins’s advocacy for evolution is powerful, but in trying to ascribe total certainty to the topic, I don’t think he is being helpful to science in general, which is a journey of discovery, replacing draft hypotheses with theories and so forth.
This leads to the ludicrous arguments we see now where despite there being strong consensus for ‘doing something’ about carbon emissions, there is a huge backlash because of some errors in the science. That is a very regrettable situation, but if we wait for a time when ‘the science is settled’ with absolute certainty, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Do please post again soon Baroness Deech – we do really enjoy reading them, even when old codgers like me get really grumpy with you because of a disagreement in opinion.
Lady Deech: I wonder if you have noticed the seeming creation in technocrat/quangocrat speak of this strange new word ‘humanrightsanddemocracy’. This seems particular, but not exclusively, prevalent in the field of international development. Not for them the old and somewhat mutually exclusive (in their purest forms) meanings but now some homogenised mot de jour that has a whiff of newspeak. I find it particular interesting the way human rights has seemingly transformed from an ultimate defence and protection to something more like a weapon to be used against opposing views.
A binary division is being deliberately created in which you either agree with their definition of ‘humanrightsanddemocracy’ or you are opposed to human rights and democracy.
😡
As an atheist I’m not really best placed to defend the church, which itself was guilty when it held political sway of many abuses, but I can say that in general freedom of speech and conscience seems more honoured in the abstract theory than in practice of parliament or the courts.
The only possible connection with religion of the Human rights convention/law is the determination of the far left, the anti-capitalist organisations who campaign at the WTO meetings, without much success, since at recent meetings they have only been to demonstrate in a town/city not connected with
it.
A number of the Rights are rights within the family,and in the home, and they are valuable to all people on earth;
to do with faith and religion but not religion or faith of itself.
Is the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning a religion, faith or enlightenment? Probability is mathematically proven faith. Religious faith is a blind acceptance of a life beyond death whilst enlightenment is something we all seek to assist us with the latter two. But we all know what you mean. Don’t we?
“Religious faith is a blind acceptance of a life beyond death”
That`s not true of all faiths Senex.
Atheism
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
I do have a belief by the way but not in organised religion. My belief stems from my own interpretation of the word God …but this isn`t the place.
Even an Atheist has to acknowledge that their water must go somewhere when they die. All water becomes part of something living at one point or another. So for an Atheist to deny an afterlife is for them to deny the laws of probability? I didn’t say an afterlife had to be sentient in the way that we experience it.
Atheism isn’t a religion. Atheism can be a core principle of some religions — most mainstream Chinese strains of Buddhism, for example — but if “atheism” were a religion then “theism” likewise would be, which would put Sikhs in the pot with Catholics as being part of a single religion, and that is plainly a pure nonsense.
Incidentally, the fact that you don’t understand quantum physics doesn’t mean that it’s magic. In fact, see point four of Chad Orzell’s four things everyone should know about quantum physics for specifics on that. Argument from personal incredulity is a well known fallacy, often employed by creationists and other people incapable of acknowledging that there may be more to the sum total of human knowledge than that which exists inside their own heads.
Rest assured, the big bang is no more a “magical” component of an atheist faith than chemical bonding. You may not understand the principles by which electrons and photos interact at the nanometre scale, but you reap the benefits of Moores law. You may not understand relativity and gravitational time dilation, but you get satellite TV and GPS for your car. You may not understand wavlet encoding, but you can still watch a digitally shot film like Avatar. And you may not understand how the Big Bang happened, but you can still listen to it by tuning your FM radio into an empty frequency and turning the volume up.
Scientific observations may be staggering, mystifying and awe-inspiring, but they’re still observations, grounded in measurable reality. If people want to construct religious rituals about them, it’s up to them of course.
The Human Rights movement is far from being like an organised religion. For a start, it doesn’t teach belief in a supernatural being. Also, its overriding aim is to balance the rights of all citizens, rather than to favour any particular group – protecting everyone’s views and preferences, rather than dictating a set of their own. Religious groups are only interested in pushing their own view, often to the detriment of others.
It’s true that many of the values we hold dear in a country such as the UK have origins in Christianity. Values such as not committing murder, stealing, and being kind to others. However, those are not the issues we are taking about here. The issue is intolerance towards others who are different, on the irrational basis of a vague interpretation of centuries-old manuscripts.
In the 21st century, western world, most people are now sufficiently well-educated to understand that they should be tolerant towards other people (and, indeed, to respect the rule of law). There’s no need to scare them into behaving by literally striking the fear of God into them.
Unfortunately, the only thing that religions teach these days that could not be taught any other way is intolerance. At their most extreme, a small number of religious figures preach hatred, while a larger minority teach intolerance towards groups such as homosexuals. Yet even within particular religions, no-one agrees which types of behaviour is acceptable. For example, most Muslims deplore the terrorism carried out in the religion’s name, and many Christian groups and churches are fully supportive of gay people. That makes me think that the views of people with a religion are no different from those of people with no religion. Within a religion, a diverse range of opinions will be held: personal views formed by a whole range of factors. Therefore, “religious views” are no more valid than any other. We have to have some way both to protect everyone’s views, and also protect people from discrimination. While Human Rights legislation may not be perfect (and is certainly abused on occasions) it does provide a sensible framework for striking a balance between everyone’s interests.
The Palestinian terror organization which specializes in robbing people’s online bank accounts can scarcely have anything to do with
human rights, and everything to do with human wrongs.
Yet the prime example of loss of rights is precisely the people of Palestine?
Unlike the Communist bank robbers of the early 20thC financing their political organization with armed robbery, the Palestinians do have a religious axe to grind, whereas the Marxist/communist/Trots
only had an Anti-religious one.
Sincerity beats irrationality.
Let`s even this God is just a story up a little.
We all believe in evolution, yes? ok.
Let`s say there was a massive amount of energy floating around in the big nothingness. Over billions of years this energy may have evolved, it may have become a conscious thing. Brains are simple electrical circuits. Science is now at the point where there is theory of God, what shape or form that God takes is not for me to say though I have my own belief.
You are prepared to accept evolution theory where single cell/fish/mammal/monkey to man but are you stating without doubt it could NOT happen in any other way?
If that energy did evolve s/he couldn`t have gone to Homebase for the bits for creation of the Universe. All God had was energy..him/herself so all things were/are God so therefore onmnipresent and omnipowerful.
Now is this theory/belief so far from your theory of evolution ?
Open minds please, no bigots.
What do you mean by “energy”?
Evolution is about complex patterns reproducing themselves and altering over successive generations. The human brain doesn’t think because of a fundamental property of electricity, it thinks because it is complex.
Now, I have no fundamental problem with some “God” being an emergent property of a universe-wide pattern of energy, somehow conscious and intelligent, albeit in a way distinctly inhuman. For a start, it would be a lot slower than ours, since such a “god” would still be limited by the observed laws of physics and the speed of light. If “neurons” were hundreds of light years apart, thought would take cosmically long periods of time. And if “god” was vast but still sub-universe in scale — say the hypothetical emergent intelligence of the Crab Nebula — then it might well be an intelligence vast and powerful enough to be a God by our standards but it wouldn’t be the God of popular imagination, and it certainly wouldn’t be the creator of the universe.
If you’re talking about pre-big bang emergence of a deistic intelligence, then we’re in the realms of theoretical metaphysics so dim and hazy as to change the terms of the question. Throwing conventional conceptions of space and time to the wind and allowing for an evolutionary process of selection to somehow take place on a pre-quantum level, I suspect it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that an intelligence could have existed and caused the Big Bang for its own purposes, but that really feels like pointless intellectual beard stroking. Even if we, contra Occams Razor, allow for such an entity, it doesn’t appear to add anything to our understanding of the universe, since it’s not required. It also stretches beyond mere conjecture into plain fantasy when you try and imply a connection between a hypothetical pre-physics intelligence (which wouldn’t be made of “energy” as you suggest, because there was no such thing as energy before the big bang – at least, not as we understand it) to the various incarnations and conceptions of “God” that we’ve had on this planet. The best you can reasonably get and still stay tethered to some form of objective reality is probably Deism, but Deism itself is notable for really being a way to acknowledge the existence of God and then discard it as irrelevant.
So, I guess, the ways in which it’s different from “my” theory of evolution are that it posits no mechanism of selection and adaption, and that any results produced would be irrelevant to all but the most abstract of theorists. It’s not an explanatory theory as much as a way of saying “yeah well have you thought about THIS, huh?” to atheists. And the answer is, yes, we have, what’s your point?
“because there was no such thing as energy before the big bang – at least, not as we understand it”
E=MC2 therefore MC2=E
Energy did indeed exist without which no big bang and no mass.
Carl, General Relativity is not expected to hold up in pre-big-bang scenarios. Please also note the “not as we understand it.” When you’re dealing with situations where time and space are the same thing and neither of them look anything like the time and space we are used to, it’s reasonable to suggest that concepts used to describe the mature universe as we observe it today may not be fully adequate. In any event, “energy” is possibly the most misused word in the history of all cod-scientificialising and woomongering, and while it’s nice to see you state that you are referring to an actual observable thing, it still leaves a gap where a hypothesis is supposed to sit. There’s a lot of energy in the sun, but I don’t see any reason to believe that it’s organised in a manner that is liable to produce intelligence.
Would you like to pose a mechanism for pattern selection over multiple generations resulting in intelligence in a pre-big bang scenario, based on your understanding of what “energy” looked like? Or perhaps to describe how a hypothetical pre-big bang intelligence later came to be known to us as some kind of creator-deity figure, and further which of the major world religions, if any, have correctly assessed the motivations of this intelligence, not to mention why we should care?
If you’ve got any proposed mechanism for coupling quantum physics with theology I’m sure there are many people who will find it fascinating. Just be careful that you don’t base it on a superficial misreading of either, because that’s been done before I’m afraid.
The supposition that an organised intelligence above our conception but still made out of observable properties such as “energy” would create an entire universe for the specific and sole purpose of ending up at the Pope seems rather too convenient to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States
The noble Baroness Deech is always in didactic mode, and I suspect the above post and header was no exception.
The US declaration of Independence was the first Human Rights document, according to this (obviously biassed!) wikipedia page.
In that sense, in signing the modern document UK has eaten humble pie. In that sense, did it mean that the USA created a religious document for the rest of the world to sign?
Quite a few world states signed it, first time round, in 1948(?)
I don’t think it did. Merely because the UK/US radical right objects to it does not mean that it is universally objectionable, or even religiously objectionable.
It is an evolving legal document, which may need to be refined further. The radical left seems to like it.
The philosophy that underlies human rights, and the decent impulses that support it grew out of religion
And religion was created ex nihilo as a means of passing down the universal morality dictated by God, right?
The moral and social strictures of religion grew out of our evolution as social primates. Herds, packs, tribes, whatever we are. The simple fact is that we have needed ways to enforce social norms. Privileging “religion” — and by that I suspect you mean specifically the Abrahamic desert monotheisms, as opposed to the pantheistic, polytheistic, atheistic or animist spiritualities which all have minority status in this country — as the “source” of human rights is entirely arbitrary, since religions themselves were sourced from somewhere more fundamental.
Of course, by pointing out that the Abrahamic monotheisms and their current petty obsessions with heteronormative sexuality are just phases in the evolution of social morality, it does strip them a little bit of the importance you’d like to give them. Specifically it invites the question, why should the mechanisms of enforcing the social norms of the past be privileged against the mechanisms of enforcing the social norms of the present?
Personally, I prefer secular laws and a lack of concern with what other people do with their genitals in private, so I feel much more comfortable knowing that such mechanisms take precedence over priests and prurient panty-sniffing. I suppose one could call that a “religious” belief in the most broad and general of terms…
dammit. didn’t close the italics after should!
@ McDuff
“quantum physics”
All things exist everywhere ? I am dead but I am also alive ?
Sounds like a religion all of it`s own doesn`t it.Well it kinda stretches my belief.
“would create an entire universe for the specific and sole purpose of ending up at the Pope”
I did not state that, I did however state I have my own beliefs not in line with any organised religion. Seeing as we`re straying ever further into theory, I will end with I have my beliefs, you yours. Each to his own.
Is that… supposed to be a summary of quantum physics? Because it’s not what the term means. At all. I mean, you’re aware that Schroedinger’s cat was a metaphor, right?
Richard Feynman wrote some very good books for the layman that explain what it does mean. Highly accessible and engaging, and they come with experimental proofs demonstrating that although the theoretical predictions are initially counter-intuitive they can be demonstrated and replicated easily. I recommend them, it’s a fascinating insight into the workings of the universe.
As far as “straying” into theory goes, might I point out that you started it by asking the question in the first place. If your final intention was always to end with a “well, all our beliefs are equally valid” cop out, I wonder if you really wanted a genuine answer now.
I don`t think you`re able to give an answer and me straying further, maybe the Anthropic principle or The Goldilocks Enigma, isn`t going to solve the riddle. A riddle that better men than us still cannot solve.
The fact is Quantum Physics does not negate a creator, in someways it helps to serve it IS one of a few probabilities, that include a multiverse.
So if we accept you would rather the multiverse version and I the Creator version then each of our beliefs are equally valid. If we also accept that they are theories or beliefs, I cannot give you an answer anymore than you me.
Now in terms of arguing with a sociopath, there is no answer there either. The best thing to do is the same as in the cat theory, turn your back then it doesn`t exist. Of course there is alway`s more quantum theory, that even something far away is affected by that which it has a link to.
I find it difficult to walk away, I know, but I must and soon. I would not like this blog to become the passion of your denigrating as others have. It`s a shame because you have a lot to offer but as your comments in the link below show a lack of diplomacy and understanding for fellow beings.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/01/07/homophobic-former-archbishop-speaks-out-on-immigration/
I can’t give you an answer because I don’t understand what question you’re asking. I understand what the buzzwords you are using mean, but I wonder if you do. It certainly doesn’t fill me with hope that your ideas about the evolution of a God-like being is based upon more than a superficial reading of both theology and physics.
Your specific claim was that God was, or could be, explained by applying evolutionary principles to “energy” either in the universe or outside of it. I don’t know what multiverses or the anthropic principle have to do with that. I feel more like you’re throwing various things you’ve heard at the wall to see what sticks, wheras, while this might be a sideline, I was at least curious to see whether you did have a mechanism for adaption and selection. So far though I’m not even fully convinced whether you’re arguing for God being an evolved, emergent consciousness of energy patterns within the universe or exterior to it.
Certainly, your arguments don’t seem to be promoting any positive understanding of what it is you believe, as much as explaining how you don’t understand this quantum malarkey and you feel that you’re entitled to your beliefs regardless of evidence or workable theoretical models. While I can’t dispute the subjective truth of that position, I must admit to remain at a loss as to what the question is that you suppose I am unable to answer.
(The theory of schroedinger’s cat, incidentally, doesn’t state that the cat doesn’t exist. It states that it exists in an indeterminate state until measured. Of course, as I said, it’s not actually about cats, but subatomic particles, and used to describe how at that level we can only talk about events in terms of probabilities – a photon may have a 4% chance of reflection off a pane of glass, but we cannot say which 4% reflect until measured)
There are, however, a number of questions I’ve asked about this little sideline question that have gone unanswered. For example, are you talking about energy within the universe, in which case E=MC^2 would hold, but so would the relativistic limit of the speed of light act as a limiting factor on any universe-wide network? Or are you talking about energy outside the universe, in which case, what basis do you have for applying general relativity?
Further, to keep going back to your initial question as to how your theory differs from my concept of evolution: evolution specifies a mechanism for mutation, adaption and selection. It is a change over generations of patterns. My question remains, what mechanism for adaption and selection do you propose that would apply for a complex pattern of “energy”, in or beyond this universe?
On this topic, I heard the interview with Sir Mota Singh on the Today programme where he appeared to suggest [though I stress is he no longer a judge] that Sikh schoolchildren should be allowed to carry the Kirpan [despite the ‘elf and safety people saying children should not carry any knives, ceremonial or otherwise, to school].
Again, one of those tricky ‘law vs religion’ debates. As I’ve mentioned before I think there should be some ‘wriggle room’ with the enforcement of legislation for personal faith. My example being the hardly ideal situation which arose with Catholic adoption agencies giving up after being unable to say they would comply with legislation to allow gay adoption. It didn’t help gay people [as the agencies closed down] and didn’t in any way change the beliefs of the Catholics.
So by that token I have some sympathy for the Sikhs here. They, like the Boy Scouts, are not responsible for years [decades ?] of poor discipline in school leading to a climate where ‘sharp objects’ have to be removed from all children. It is not as if they couldn’t get hold of a kitchen knife and do damage if the parenting and schooling process has failed to teach them between the right and wrong use for such implements.
And yet this does throw up in sharp relief the weakness in my argument that the law should not apply equally to all without any wriggle room. After all, whilst ‘slippery slope’ arguments are very poor, since one wouldn’t do anything if an excess of it might lead to harm, I should acknowledge that the ‘kirpan’ argument might lead all laws to be chipped away at by those seeking a ‘get-out’ based on religion.
After all, our country doesn’t have the problems faced by Uganda just because we allow people of faith to have a conscience. But I do acknowledge that it is difficult to argue with those people so opposed to the introduction of Sharia courts [sometimes for specious reasons, sometimes for valid reasons, but occasionally because they are prejudiced] when the ‘thousand mile walk’ to Saudi Arabia or Uganda might be composed of a number of little steps designed to allow everyone to feel able to practise their faith without feeling oppressed by the law.
Since Catholics are by no means the only people capable of operating an adoption agency, one might argue that the removal of the Church from the adoption agency “marketplace” opened up new opportunities for non-discriminatory agencies to thrive.
ACTUALLY, to all those how take exception to the idea that the Human Rights Ideology is a Religion, please note that it’s not simply like a Religion, but is a Religion. As McDuff said, but as most here disregard, Religions do not Require belief in the Supernatural to exist.
I think that, as with Faith, we have allowed the modern Debate on Religion, that really stems for the Neo-Atheist movement which itself is nothing but a revival of older Enlightenment ideals and beliefs, to colour our perceptions.
The reason I say this is because most here seem to want an easy explanation for what Religion is, a mean to demonise Religion as evil, a quick reason for why they personally aren’t Religious, and shouldn’t be considered as such, and of course an equally quick and simple, not to mention Sinister, reason for Religions existence.
Usually the Sinister reason for Religion to exist is that it was created to control the Masses, and McDuff used a varient of this by claiming Religion was created to Reinforce an older social Order. None of this is true according to Modern Research on Religion. I should know, I am not some uneducated fool but in University getting a Doctoral Degree in Psychology and my focus happens to be on Religious studies.
The truth is, Religion is the Fundamental understanding we have of our world. To those who think there is something more Fundamental than Religion that undergirds it, your wrong. While Religions certainly grow more complex based upon teachings and reflection, Religions are ultimately just Philosophical Models we use to understand the Fundamental nature of our existence. In this way, everyone is Actually Religious, and that includes people like Cuff, Troika, and Richard Dawkins, who advocate a systematic belief system, such as Secular Humanism, which in the end does have exactly the same traits as all other Religions, including Doctrines and Dogmas.
When Christians pray to God, for example, they aren’t Praying to an Abstract Religious Concept or some sort of Vague notion, but to a very real being that actually hears their prayers and form whom their brains respond to as if he is their. They even, while praying, activate the Same centres of their Brains that they would to people they speak to such as their Neighbours, a Bus Driver, or Co-worker. To those who Pray, God is as real as anyone else, and there is no Mystical otherworldly sense to it at all.
By the same token, when Christians hold to certain Moral views, its not base don Blind Faith, but on a thought process that tells them something is a sin because it actually brings real and tangible harm to themselves or society. Sins aren’t themselves Arbitrary, either but based at the very least on observation of the Real World.
Faith is not belief without evidence and Religious Faith is not some unenlightened blind allegiance that goes unquestioned by the believer that the fortunate Atheist avoids by thinking for himself, and such arrogant claims have gotten old. Especially when you consider that Modern Atheisms beliefs have a History you can easily track and didn’t emerge as individuals began to think r themselves and arrive at all their own Conclusions independently.
Take, for instance, Homosexuality. Many Atheists feel that Homosexuality is a natural, normal variation in Human Sexuality, and assume this is based solely on dispassionate Logic. Yet Atheist in the Soviet Union in Living Memory had outlawed Homosexuality, as had Communist China. Homosexuality was seen as a Mental illness and unhealthy by most Atheists throughout most of World history, including by Modern, Western Atheists in the 20th Century in both Europe and America. Modern Atheists have Embraced it more for Cultural Reasons than for actual independent thought on the subject or real research, and all based on the fact that they think they are suppose to embrace it due to what they think an Atheist is suppose to be.
Another example is the love affair with Reason and Logic, yet the conflation of those things solely with the beliefs they personally Hold to. Theists are classified as Irrational on the grounds that they are Theists, because the Atheist assumes only Atheism can be Logically defended, and has defined the Atheist Position as the only Logical one.
I’ve been around long enough to have seen some remarkably poorly thought out arguments for Atheism, including those in “The God Delusion”, and I know full well most arguments used regularly on the Internet by Atheists are horribly ill thought out, yet somehow they magically become “Logical” because they are an argument that supports the Correct decision.
And I’ve gone too long, so Ill finish the post in a bit.
WE are told that Atheism and Reason are linked and that anyone exercising Critical thinking and using Logic will invariably come to the conclusion of Atheism, when THE truth is, most of the Atheist adoration for Reason comes from the 1700’s and the Enlightenment. it’s not true to think that Reason inevitably leads to Atheism, nor that Atheism would naturally even incline itself to Rationalism. They are linked solely because of the writings of such men as Rousseau. In fact, most of the Charges against Religion are aimed solely at Christianity because of the same thing, because most of the arguments are just variations of those used in the Enlightenment which really only attacked Christianity as it was the Only Religion in existence at the time in Europe in any numbers.
Much of the Standard History, such as how Religion dominated the Middle Ages and turned them into the Dark Ages, is also the product of Propaganda told by the Enlightenment thinker sin order to justify their own overthrow of the Church and purge of the culture from Christian Influences. This is also why Modern Atheists have less qualms with Pagans, as the Enlightenment venerated Ancient Rome and Greece.
The thought processes of the Enlightenment underwent further development in the 19th Century, and eventually formed the basis for Secular Humanism. Still, you can trace the thoughts back to Various thinkers, and in the end back to the Enlightenment itself.
And it does have a fixed Value system and set of Doctrines it wishes to impose on Society.
It has also hijacked the word “Secular”.
The Legal term Secular once upon a time meant Neutral in regards to Theological Discussions, yet now it means that we must have a sort of imposed Atheism. No Expression can be made of Any Religion, and whilst in Public everyone has to act in accordance to a set of standards and beliefs derived from the Humanist Value system.
They just declare this “The Secular way” and pretend its not a Religiously derived set of beliefs itself, for we bar consideration that Secularism is itself a Religion because otherwise it becomes a self contradicting Hypocrisy. By denying it is a Religion, you can maintain the ruse that it’s not only a non-religious belief system, but THE Non-Religious belief system, and then force everyone to comply with it.
All in the name of Reason and tolerance.
But who defines what is Tolerant?
I made a badly written post on Free Speech back about 6 months ago because I was busy with University repost and such, but I mentioned an example another poster mentioned on Homophobia. He had though we should limit some hateful worlds, especially in regards to Homophobia. But who defines Homophobia? Is simply disagreeing that Homosexuality is a Natural, normal, and Healthy lifestyle Homophobic? If so, should we criminalize Churches for teaching this?
And what if Modern thinking is wrong? Certainly there is no Scientific evidence that people are Born Gay, and some people profess to have left Homosexuality and returned to Heterosexuality. Should we just accuse them of lying as has become standard practice because they don’t fit the accepted mould?
When does Tolerance extend also to those who disagree with the prevailing view of those in command of these movements?
On Lord Hy***‘s example, the Times Author Criticised a Church School for not hiring Militant Atheists. This is claimed to be an ac of Intolerance and discrimination, but The truth is, when people demand Militant Atheists be given teaching positions in Faith Schools, whose beliefs said Militant Atheists will openly attack in a class of impressionable Children, they aren’t really interested in Tolerance at all, but in Control. They want to impose onto others their own Religious beliefs and Values, they just say theirs aren’t Religious as to get by with it.
However, if a Secular School was founded by the likes of Richard Dawkins for the intent of Teaching a Secular Humanist perspective, and indoctrinating them into his Atheistic beliefs, and said School refused to Hire a Devout, Practicing Catholic who would Challenge those views on the grounds that Said Teacher would possibly undermine the Students adherence to Said Atheistic perspective, then I doubt the Times Columnist would take the side of Anti-Discrimination and would instead Favour the Schools right to protect the purity of its purpose. it’s a Double standard I’ve seen time and again.
The Truth of the matter is they just want to ensure society become s and Remains one dedicated to the principles of Secularism as they personally have defined it, and demand compliance form everyone else in regards to this. It is, in the end, just forcing others to go along with your Personal Religion, and imposing its teachings on them.
Its just not called Religion as to get by with it.
I am certainly pleased that the university at which you’re studying for your doctorate appreciates your non-typical approach to spacing and capitalisation, it makes your writing fun and zesty.
I would gently caution that, at least as regards homosexuality, your expertise in religion should not be taken as an expertise in biology. The fields of study do not, in my experience, commute.
And while I admire your enthusiasm, the coherence of your argument needs a little polish. It relies, I would suggest, a little too much on conflation of overtly atheist political systems with each other, and the assumption of universal bad faith on the part of this monolithic block you don’t really justify creating. Chinese Communism is not really equivalent to Soviet Communism, and it’s worth asking, for example, whether Marx is really 100% equivalent to Rousseau.
Your hypothetical persecution when a mythical “Times Author” refused to criticise a mythical school in a mythical column does, indeed, demonstrate a hypothetical complete hypocrisy which I am sure we are all eager to test as and when Dawkins gets round to setting up an “atheists only” school. But, while the hypothetical behaviour is damning, it’s worth at least wondering whether it has ever occurred on the other side; perhaps whether of not, say, a Christian writer has defended the behaviour of Christians or the Church while damning similar behaviour from members of other organisations? It’s something you might want to explore in your dissertation.
Finally, I would just like to provide a small correction. When I said that religions were a social control mechanism, it was not in the Marxist sense of opiating the masses, but in the sense that all social systems have a mechanism for the transmission and policing of shared values. Indeed, that’s one of the ways in which you know it’s a “society” rather than just a group of people who happen to be geographically grouped. Indeed, in many societies our arbitrary Western distinction between religious and secular belief – which as you rightly allude to is a product of enlightenment thinking – did not and continues to not hold. An interesting side-story to the political development of Japan Post-WWII, for example, tells of how they fully intended to adopt the American “separation of Church and State” value, they first had to work out which parts of their culture were which, since it was not something that it had occurred to them to consider those elements of their society separately. While our society is large and diverse, and multiple systems of value transmission operate side-by-side, there’s no denying even now that many subgroups of our society rely on religion as a mechanism for maintaining their own shared values, be that on the wrongness of homosexuality, the natural submissiveness of women, or the importance of selling one’s possessions and giving the money to the poor. There’s nothing conspiratorial about it. The Catholic Church, after all, has a system of rules to be obeyed and a complicated threat system of hell and purgatory upon death to enforce those rules. Judaism has a complicated system of Rabbinical law. The British State has laws and a judicial system. They’re all merely examples of social control systems, and there’s nothing eerie or unnatural about such things. Indeed, one could hardly keep a society together without them, and even if you tried to get rid of them they couldn’t: shared values and social policing are to groups of people what mushrooms are to a damp tree stump.
My only comment would be that, for the majority of Britons now, there seems to be a preference for a value system and enforcement mechanism more in line with an irreligious state than with a specific Church, and that perhaps we should question whether they should not be protected somewhat from a system that perpetuates a value system most of them don’t have any real time or use for in the 21st century. The majority of the British population that is either gay or female or both, for example, really has little use for traditional, and unfortunately often religious, hierarchical systems of social organisation based around tribal understandings of gender, and this does, I am afraid, put the state into conflict with some religious groups on occasion.
Other than that, though, an enjoyable set of comments! Do let us know how the doctorate goes, won’t you? I for one am eager to read your dissertation when you’re done.
Lord Hylton. sorry the spell check seems to have omitted it.