God-shaped hole

There’s a piece on the New York Times website today in which Scott Atran, “an anthropologist at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, with joint appointments at the University of Michigan and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York”, puts forward a version of the God-shaped hole argument – the idea that human beings are “wired” to believe in the supernatural.

The work done by Atran is fascinating, especially the “African magic box” experiments, but I think he takes his findings a step too far.

“Why do we cross our fingers during turbulence, even the most atheistic among us?” asked Atran when we spoke at his Upper West Side pied-à-terre in January.

I don’t. In fact I quite enjoy turbulence, especially if it’s a long flight. For what it’s worth, I’m not superstitious: I don’t cross my fingers, I don’t mind the number 13, I don’t touch wood, I walk under ladders and on cracks, etc. I’d also quite happily put my hands in Atran’s magic box. I rather suspect I’m not alone in this.

This isn’t to deny that there’s a general tendency towards beliefs in the supernatural in some form. However, it’s far from as strong as some people seem to think. Most superstitious behaviour is probably a result of upbringing – it’s always difficult to shake off the beliefs you were brought up with, and they often remain, lurking, at the back of your mind – and the, understandable, desire to somehow influence events beyond our control.

I’d bet that Atran had a far more ”religious” upbringing than I did – the opening paragraph of the piece seems to confirm that. Which might explain why it appears to be a lot harder for him to shake off superstitious beliefs than for me.

Atran says he faces an emotional and intellectual struggle to live without God in a nonatheist world, and he suspects that is where his little superstitions come from, his passing thought about crossing his fingers during turbulence or knocking on wood just in case.

For him, atheism is counter-intuitive because he was raised to see the world in a completely different manner. For me, it’s the opposite way round: I find theism to be counter-intuitive and I’m far more comfortable with the atheistic, naturalist view of life.

That the God-shaped hole is more an environmental than biological issue would also seems to be confirmed by the changing attitudes towards religion in the UK, as shown in this Telegraph article. Atran, presenting himself as a typical case, argues that his superstitious side will probably become stronger as he becomes increasingly aware of his impending demise. However, an increasing number of people seem to be heading in the opposite direction.

Love the sinner, hate the sin?

In Internet and other debates a distinction is often drawn between attacking a person’s ideas and attacking the person themselves. The first is seen as healthy, objective criticism, while the second is merely an ad hominem attack designed to rouse tempers rather than provoke discussion.

But can the distinction be so easily made? Can we draw a line between a person and the ideas they hold? I don’t think we can.

Consider the following: “It’s not you I’m calling hideous, just the clothes you wear!” Or, closer to home for a lot of us here: “I didn’t insult you, I just called your blog a mess of infantile, badly-written drivel!”

Both would be perceived as attacks on us by association: I choose the clothes I wear, I write my blog, etc. The same can be said for more ideological matters: Can we really separate criticising a religion from criticising those who believe in it?

Our ideas often have an emotional investment simply because they are our ideas. They reflect who we are and our ability to think. Suggesting that someone’s political views are misguided, for example, is inevitably to suggest that they themselves stupid enough to hold such views.

If we were purely rational beings, selecting ideas purely on a cost-benefit type basis, then we’d have no trouble adopting or abandoning them in light of new information. But we’re often more emotional/instinctive beings. The ability to rationally determine which political/economic system is best for 60 million odd fellow-citizens living in an increasingly connected world is beyond most of us, so we rely on gut-instinct and the emotional impact of certain events to guide us in what’s hopefully the right direction: a simple distrust of government, or experience of poverty can have more influence over our political thinking then the works of Smith, Marx, Keynes and Milton combined a lot of the time. Rational arguments are then drawn up after the fact to support our own beliefs and attack those which are different.

Human beings crave certainty: we like to think that our ideas are correct and that the life we’ve chosen is the right one. To this end, we wrap ideas and concepts around us like a protective cloak. To have someone start pulling on a loose thread can be an uncomfortable experience.

Respect, not race

With the British National Party grabbing a few headlines at the moment, I thought that I'd offer my own take on the issue of nationality and citizenship as my first WoS post of 2007.

Coming from a pretty multicultural city, I’ve worked alongside people from across the world, some of whom I’ve considered good friends. Most of the time, when either bitching about work or sharing a drink, their ethnicity or their reasons for coming to Britain simply hasn’t struck me as important – a brief topic of conversation, at best.

In a desperate attempt to make my English degree mean something, I like to put this down to my love of reading. Bear with me. On my bookshelves sit cherished works by the likes of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Anton Chekhov, Franz Kafka, and various other writers from a diverse range of backgrounds. If I’ve learnt only one thing from this esteemed collection of writers (and that’s quite possible) it’s that the character of a person is far more interesting and important than where they come from. Things like nationality or ethnicity don’t define someone, but their outlook on life can.

In his excellent essay on identity, ‘Citizens of the World’, K. Anthony Appiah tells us that one of the last pieces of advice his father left him was that, wherever he lived, he should try to leave it “better than you found it”. A perfect motto for the internationalist outlook. That’s what’s important to me: If someone respects their fellow citizens then, regardless of where they came from, I’m more than happy to live alongside them.

Christianophobia

When cartoons depicting Islam in an unfavourable light were published by a Danish newspaper there were calls for censorship, bomb threats, death threats and Danish embassies set on fire - as far as I recall, there was little response from the non-Muslim Danish public.

However, when a small Christian congregation tries to get a few squatters evicted from their building there's a 1000-strong protest involving clashes with the police.

Intelligent Teaching

New Labour’s attitude towards the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design has always been a bit slippery, while they never come out in actual support of these so-called alternatives to the theory of evolution they don’t seem that eager to stand in their way either. So it comes as little surprise that they’re doing nothing to prevent the use of information packs provided by ID advocates Truth in Science in science classes.

Both the parliamentary science and technology select committee and Department for Education and Skills have declared the packs inappropriate and unscientific, but they’ve found some support with Education Secretary Alan Johnson and some teachers. They claim that teaching ‘alternatives’ to evolution is the best and most scientific way to go. And on the face of it that’s a fairly credible stance.

The problem with teaching Intelligent Design though is that it’s 10% bad science and 90% bad metaphysics. The only aspect of it that has any real claim to being scientific is the concept of Irreducible Complexity, an idea dismissed by the majority of the scientific community and the subject of not one peer-reviewed paper or article. When held up to the harsh light of day it represents about as credible a challenge to evolutionary theory as breatharianism, and as such it seems quite pointless taking up valuable teaching time to deal with it.

This isn’t to say that Darwinism should be regarded as a ‘sacred cow’. Science at GCSE level should be aimed at teaching students basic scientific principles within the context of mainstream scientific opinion. Emphasising the speculative nature of science and letting children know that a number of important theories are disputed by some is essential for them to really grasp the way science works. But teaching theories accepted only by a minority of people is a waste of time and resources, and should ideally be left for higher education. Even then it shouldn’t rely on information packs from biased organisations.

Britain needs a Bill of Rights

In her speech to the Royal United Services Institute, Margaret Beckett (the British Foreign Secretary) has joined her New Labour colleagues in calling upon British Muslims to lead the fight against Islamic extremism. The speech followed the well worn path of: “We know most Muslims despise these extremists, but it would be nice if they could actually tell us when they hear about a terrorist plot.” Most notably, she’s called upon them to spread the good word about life in Britain when they travel abroad to Islamic countries. Presumably in the hope that some deranged Islamist will abandon his plan to attack Britain after hearing from his brother’s friend’s aunt that really we’re not so bad.

When it comes to the Muslim community, New Labour is really trying to have its cake and eat it: repeatedly stating that we’re all in this together, then singling out Muslims as a special case. Muslims must do more to tackle extremism, we’re told. So does that mean the rest of us can carry on as we are? Yes, one of the biggest threats we face is from Muslim extremists, but there are better ways of getting the message across. Less divisive ways.

It’s the responsibility of everyone to deal with extremists - be they political, religious, or nationalists – including, as they’re part of British society, Muslims. Whether we like it or not, we are all in this together. It’s not just Muslims who come into contact with extremists, and it’s not just non-Muslims who are affected by their actions.

The debate about extremism, and how best we can deal with it, is part of a much larger debate about citizenship: What does it mean to be a British citizen. While we’ve had numerous speeches about the British “way of life”, Ministers have continually ignored the most fundamental requirement of an inclusive and democratic society: a set of rights guaranteed to every citizen. Such a democratic ‘Bill of Rights’ (unlike the one we already possess) would firmly emphasise that those it applied to were full British citizens, and provide a means of addressing grievances, should anyone feel they’ve been treated unfairly or singled out.

While talk of citizenship remains abstract it remains too elusive. We need something concrete. Maybe then we’ll be in a position to argue over how best we can tackle those who mean us harm.

Defending your ideas

Okay, why is academic freedom important? Because in order to think, in order to exercise your freedom, you need to be educated – and in order for people to be educated they need to have the freedom to consider a very wide range of ideas, to have their own preconceptions questioned, and questioned vigorously. They have to learn how to tolerate ideas that are really abhorrent to them. They need to learn the difference between ideas and actions. They need to learn that people can have very different ideas, and they can debate them without coming to blows.

You know, in our world today, one way you can stop people from coming to blows about their conflicting ideas is by teaching them how to argue, and teaching them not to be afraid of argument. There’s an important difference between being embarrassed or feeling intellectually or emotionally wounded because you’re at the losing end of an argument, and actually being physically assaulted. I think it’s incredibly important for students to learn how to argue, and to learn how to appreciate and even enjoy argument.

Wendy Kaminer on academic freedom.

Saddam

It seems a little telling that the voices who complained about the timing of the Lancet report on the Iraqi deathcount have been fairly muted about the decision to announce the execution of Saddam Hussein so close to the US Mid-Term Elections. (The Times has a cartoon of the judge about to announce the verdict when Bush pops up, noose in hand, stating: "I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message").

The trial of Saddam Hussein was supposed to mark a fresh beginning for Iraq, a symbol ogf justice to help usher in a new era of democracy. Instead, it's seemed little better than the show trials held under the rule of the former dictator: the verdict decided on Day 1, followed by a pantomine of a trial for the cameras.

Iraqi blogger Riverbend is particularly scathing of the whole sorry mess:

When All Else Fails...
… Execute the dictator. It’s that simple. When American troops are being killed by the dozen, when the country you are occupying is threatening to break up into smaller countries, when you have militias and death squads roaming the streets and you’ve put a group of Mullahs in power- execute the dictator.

Everyone expected this verdict from the very first day of the trial. There was a brief interlude when, with the first judge, it was thought that it might actually be a coherent trial where Iraqis could hear explanations and see what happened. That was soon over with the prosecution’s first false witness. Events that followed were so ridiculous; it’s difficult to believe them even now.

The sound would suddenly disappear when the defense or one of the defendants got up to speak. We would hear the witnesses but no one could see them- hidden behind a curtain, their voices were changed. People who were supposed to have been dead in the Dujail incident were found to be very alive.

Judge after judge was brought in because the ones in court were seen as too fair. They didn’t instantly condemn the defendants (even if only for the sake of the media). The piece de resistance was the final judge they brought in. His reputation vies only that of Chalabi- a well-known thief and murderer who ran away to Iran to escape not political condemnation, but his father’s wrath after he stole from the restaurant his father ran.

So we all knew the outcome upfront (Maliki was on television 24 hours before the verdict telling people not to ‘rejoice too much’). I think what surprises me right now is the utter stupidity of the current Iraqi government. The timing is ridiculous- immediately before the congressional elections? How very convenient for Bush. Iraq, today, is at its very worst since the invasion and the beginning occupation. April 2003 is looking like a honeymoon month today. Is it really the time to execute Saddam?

A number of groups have rushed to condemn it as well.

Being British

Recent comments by a senior MP in Britain have stirred up a great deal of debate over Islamic dress, and with it has come a lot of talk about integration and Muslims becoming “more British”. But what exactly does that mean?

Over the past year or so the government has attempted to define (in order to encourage) a greater sense of “Britishness” amongst the population – yet, no matter how many lists of values and attributes they come up with, no real satisfactory definition of our national identity has been found. Too vague and it’s too weak to create a sense of community. Too specific and it proves too divisive, leaving out large sections of the country.

Part of the problem is that there often seem to be two separate concepts melded together…

1) Relationship with the state: obeying British law, using British services, voting in elections, standing for public office, etc.

2) Relationship with society: engaging in social affairs, sharing in cultural trends, etc.

It’s hard to see something like the veil as a real barrier to No 1. as extreme clothing doesn’t really affect your legal status. With one or two exceptions (passport photos for example) women can comply with the law, use public transport, and vote or stand for office while veiled.

This is the reason why the state has no business regulating something like clothing. (Unless it’s somehow dangerous to others).

However, it’s the second relationship which sees a number of problems arise.

The main reason for a lot of the unease about Muslims (and other minorities) is the perceived lack of a common frame of reference. No matter which part of the country a “native Brit” comes from, I have a fair idea of what their life is like, and what their views could be. This sense of understanding is lacking when it comes to “alien” cultures - which could explain the ease with which distrust and suspicion spring up. We’re constantly told that a clear barrier exists between the majority of this country’s Muslims and those committing terrorist atrocities in their name, but how many of us have a clear enough understanding of Islam and the Islamic world to judge that assertion properly? How many of us are in a position to judge whether the veil is oppressive or not?

(In the same way: does a lack of understanding of mainstream western culture feed the sense of a general war on Islam among Muslims?)

A sense of “solidarity” across the various religious/ethnic communities in Britain can only come through increased interaction – we need to learn more about them as they learn more about us. This has to be done in a genuine spirit of co-operation. Attempt by one group to force their ideas and values onto another will only increase the sense of separateness.

Europe needs to become more secular

[First of all: thank you to the establishers of this blog for allowing me to post material here - I think they have a great idea, and it deserves to be successful]

What with all the panic over events in North Korea and the Middle East, it’s sometimes easy to overlook the real need for action closer to home - for me, the UK. In light of current tensions, one of the most important issues is how the British, and other European states relate to the various beliefs and outlooks found among their increasingly diverse populations. The argument for increased secularisation, resisted by a number of religious groups, needs to be made, strongly and repeatedly.

It’s increasingly common to see secularism portrayed as anti-religious, with talk of “Secular Fundamentalists” intent on imposing their materialistic philosophy on the rest of the, God-fearing, country. However, it’s wrong to confuse secularism with atheism (or, more accurately, anti-theism), and it’s important to realise that establishing a secular state is in almost everyone’s best interest.

Secularism, in its most basic form, is simply the idea that the everyday business of the state should be conducted on atheistic (in the sense of lacking religion, not opposing it) grounds only – government should not dictate, fund or interfere with religious matters.

In a multi-faith nation, such as the UK, it’s impossible to see how the government can maintain any other position for long, as interfering in religious matters will inevitably involve discriminating against one minority or another. The British government is currently involved in a perilous plate-spinning act, trying to keep various faiths happy through state funding and (often) token representation in government business for self-proclaimed “community leaders”. This is leading to increasing tensions.

Separation of Church(es) and State is the only democratic way forward. We need to reduce religious figures to the position of ordinary private citizens, with no more voice than the rest of us. Religious organisations should be treated no different from secular groups. And funding for purely religious activities should cease.

Government-funded “faith schools” are the most prominent example of state interference in religious matters, and the best evidence against it. Segregated schooling, on whatever lines, will ultimately prove divisive and bad for social cohesion. Educating children from different backgrounds together is the best way to create the sense of an inclusive, united society which the government seems to desperately desire. They also breach the right to freedom of religion, with the government colluding in the imposition of beliefs onto children not yet old enough to make rational choices about their life. While parental (and community pressure) in religious matters will always exist, it’s another matter altogether when the state actively encourages it.

Religious groups which benefit from state support are also in a risky position in supporting it, as, should future governments take a less favourable view of their particular beliefs, they might find themselves being heavily discriminated against in favour of other faiths. The recent commotion about the veil clearly shows the danger of the government wading into these issues.

Secularisation should put all faiths on a level playing field, and put individual choice (the keystone of democracy) in religious matters at the forefront of the state’s involvement.