Michael Faulkner

Down is the New Up. The Wrongs of Robert Wright.

2010-07-04T06:28:00.000-07:00

A response to Robert Wright’s Op-Ed in the New York Times:The Myth of Modern Jihad

http://nyti.ms/ckYgm2

This is yet another in a series of confused and naive Op-Eds on Islam from author Robert Wright. The contents of which are not entirely unexpected (see here religion and in particular here on Islam.) One gets the sense then that everything in Wright’s moral universe is all the opposite of what we think it is: everything is back to front; down is the new up, and black is actually white. Everything would be just fine in the world, Wright seems to think, if we all said to ourselves: “we have met the enemy and he is us

Wright, who wrote this article (The myth of modern Jihad) after reviewing the testimony of one Faisal Shahzad: an naturalised American citizen who failed to explode a bomb in Times square on May 1, 2010. Faisal, speaking in his elocution in Court this week stated that he sees no moral difference between himself and American soldiers or between military personnel and civilian bystanders in a city thousands of miles away from any battle. Rather, in his own words “they are all the same.” Presumably then, every man, woman and child who happens to hold an American or British passport is to his eyes, an open target to any Muslim, anywhere in the world. It is often said that racists and bigots discriminate. However, as Christopher Hitchens points out it is rather a failure to discriminate, to see people as individuals not as the collective swarm of ones feverish imagination. Shahzad, has relegated everyone - all non-Muslims to one monolithic enemy - the infidel, and as such they are without moral concern. Nevermind the fact that the targets of his bomb were of no direct threat to him, his family or any Muslim. Many of them no doubt, actually don’t support the war in Afghanistan, many of them we could expect are quite critical of their own governments. None of this matters however - for they are all Americans and to Shahzad and every fanatic - they are all the same, everyone deserves to be punished by bombs, packed into public places, with the intention of killing and maiming as many infidels as possible.

Shahzad was unrepentant (see the above hyperlink for his full testimony) and explicated his reasons ad nauseum. I find it fascinating, as well as disturbing that Shahzad, an American citizen, who, by his own testimony, was helped by America in his efforts to achieve a university degree, would choose to throw away his life for a conflict thousands of miles away, that except for the fact that he is a Muslim, he has no direct connection with. Despite his articulate explication; I would reserve a cautious scepticism that we may ever know precisely why he did what he did - I will venture some possibilities below; nonetheless, what we can say with almost total certainty, that if Shahzad had not happened to be brought up Muslim in the first place, he would not be spending the rest of his adult life in jail. Imagine, if he were Christian, Buddhist or even Jewish - the probability that he would run off to a foreign country to fight a war or try to blow up a bomb in a city is downright slim. Do American Zen Buddhists blow themselves up in Chinese restaurants in San Francisco over Tibet? No. Do Christians go and fight the Chinese government’s state repression of their co-religionists? No. Why then, is Islam different?

Wright meanwhile, has fallen for Shahzad’s propaganda, hook line and sinker. On the possibility that Shahzad may simply be grandstanding and attempting to appeal to the disagreements and divisions within the West over the War on Terror. It is after all, a basic strategy in conflict - divide and conquer and how does one do that - by sowing doubt, confusion and division within the enemy camp. Wright however, briefly considers this possibility, then sagely rejects it:

Should we really take this testimony seriously? It does, after all, have an air of self-dramatizing grandstanding. Then again, terrorism is a self-dramatizing, grandstanding business, and there’s no reason to think this particular piece of theater isn’t true to Shahzad’s interior monologue.

No reason? How about the fact that every major media outlet would broadcast his view; this furthermore, was his fifteen minutes - his chance to somehow justify the act by which he threw away the rest of his life. Further, did it not cross Wright’s mind that rather than being a noble defender of Muslims against the infidel, Shahzad was simply out to make a name for himself? Or, he simply enjoyed the idea of playing a solider - a mujahid? This idea is not implausible. Muslim scholar Reza Aslan in his book How to Win a Cosmic War thinks that young Muslim men become warriors for Jihad the same way middle class western children join the peace corps, or Amnesty International. Incidentally, Martin Amis suggested as much a number of years ago, that Jihad is the most attractive and seductive idea of this generation - it’s a licence to kill, it’s a mission from God, one that transforms bored young men into giants - both literally and figuratively (as Hamas propaganda grotesquely presents them.) Finally I suspect that Shahzad is telling him, and countless other left-wing writers just waiting to lap up any confirmation of their preferred narrative - whatever the source; even if it is someone who belongs to a irredentist cult of death. (See the Al Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim, which shows that Al Qaeda are quite savvy in their propaganda against America by citing for instance left-wing books like Rogue State by William Blum.)

Wright then goes on to accuses Daniel Pipes of cognitive dissonance, but perhaps it is himself who needs to look in the mirror. Just consider this fallacious piece of reasoning:

“My point is just that, if you take Shahzad at his word, there’s more cause for hope than if Pipes were right, and Shahzad’s testimony were evidence that Jihadists are bent on world conquest.”

This is a unsound conclusion derived from a dubious premise whose chain of reasoning is wishful thinking. Wright’s hope is that if we accede to everything Muslim extremists demand then everything will be fine - or rather, it hopefully will. The two indubitable facts of the matter however, is that practically, acceding is impossible; secondly, and more importantly, morally we cannot. What would this demand amount to after all? Sharia law in Europe, America and anywhere else large numbers of Muslims happen to reside. Leave Afghanistan back into the hands of Taliban thugs and fanatics, a similar abandonment would have to befall the Iraqi people. Every single, US and allied troop or citizen would have to either vacate the (Dar al Islam) or become a Dhimmi (a second class citizen). Furthermore we would be obliged to forsake Israel to be swallowed up by the seething anger of Palestinians and for Jews to take their “rightful” place - under the lash of every Muslim bigot (as they have done under Islam for much of history - see Bat Ye’ Or’s book The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam and Bernard Lewis’s The Jews of Islam)

Wright, I am sure counts himself as a impeccable liberal and tolerant person. A believer in dialogue, understanding and compromise. These are liberal traits, and they are noble ones, traits which, nonetheless, flower as fruits of education and civilization. While I count myself as a liberal, I am also aware, painfully, but undeniably so, that there are countless who would burn the earth to cinders in order to purge the world of any deviation from orthodoxy. Consider then, the second example of Wright’s naivety:

Now on to the second cause for hope: Pipes’s confusion itself. For these purposes, it doesn’t matter whether Shahzad was telling the truth, because Pipes certainly thinks he was. Pipes applauds Shahzad’s “forthright statement of purpose,” adding, “However abhorrent, this tirade does have the virtue of truthfulness.

So then why doesn’t it bother Pipes that Shahzad’s depiction of Islamic holy war as defensive counter-attack is the opposite of the depiction Pipes has peddled for years? How can he possibly hail Shahzad’s comments as confirming his world view?”

Wright is arguing that Shahzad is fighting for a defensive reason - and by extension would not have happened if America had not invaded. Again, this only follows if one accepts Shahzad; and why should we? Furthermore, it is simply undeniable that Jihad is inextricably concerned with conquest; that it is both a defensive and offensive notion. Wright disagrees. By way of evidence he provides a hypertext to a chapter in his book (Evolution of God) which amounts to a whitewash of Islamic colonialism and conquest. He cites a single sura, and mentions that it has the virtue of a get out clause, thus supposedly diminishing the external image of unmitigated militancy in Islam. This is what he wrote in his book:

Here again, useful guidance could be found in scripture so long as you looked hard enough. The Koranic verse that comes closest to calling for jihad on a global scale also has a crucial loophole. It begins, “Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden,” but then ends, “until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.” In the end, money would substitute for theological fidelity.

http://evolutionofgod.net/historicaljihad/

Wright has not looked hard enough or rather has tried hard not to look too hard. His slurring over the concept of Dihmmi -(servitude) - paying the Jizya (a poll tax for unbelievers) as not being all that bad (read on from the link) or done for pragmatic reasons is also suspect. Though to be fair to Wright, what counted most for early Muslims was not theological sophistication or spirituality but success - success in battle and accumulation of booty There are numerous passages in the Koran, and voluminous in the Hadith that call for war, that, can easily be used to support offensive Jihad.. Here is but a flavour:

“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them” 9.5-6

“Those who believe fight in the cause of god” 4.76

“It is a grave sin for a Muslim to shirk the battle against the unbelievers, those who do will roast in hell.” 2.245

“Allah loves those who fight for His cause in ranks as firm as a mighty edifice.” 61.1

These are all from the Koran itself, which is, remember, the perfect and immutable word of the creator of the universe. This fact, once accepted by any mind, renders any liberal theological gerrymandering incoherent and dishonest. Consider now, as only a flavour, what the Hadith says:

“He who dies without having taken part in a campaign dies in a kind of unbelief “

“A day and a night fighting on the frontier is better than a month of fasting and prayer”

“Jihad is your duty under any ruler, be he godly or wicked”

Consequently as a result of this militancy virtually every major Muslim thinker from Ibn Taimiya to Ibn Khaldun to Sayyid Qutub has echoed and expounded this notion of Jihad. See for example A Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad for a definitive, scholarly account. Islam, subsequently, has the honour or dishonour of being the first great civilisation (with the possible exception of China) that can claim to be the first truly colonialist and imperial power. Its geographical extension, cultural and religious penetration of less successful religions and cultures dwarfs the imperialism of ancient Rome, 19th century England or 21st century America. (see the chapter Arab Imperialism, Islamic Colonialism in Ibn Warraq’s book Why I’m not a Muslim)

While it is true that nearly all Muslims are not violent there is simply no question of Islam’s doctrinal, philosophical and historical infatuation with violence. Nevertheless, Wright does not appear to directly deny this. He seems to be saying that it is a purely defensive notion - one perhaps distorted and abused. While the Koran seems to indicate that Jihad is a merit for those who fight for the expansion of the faith, it is however incumbent upon all Muslims to defend Islam once it has been attacked. Defensive of Islam however, can be construed so elastically that there is little to stop one who wishes to justify violence.

Given this therefore, and the historical weight of orthodox exegesis of Jihad; the Koran’s evident comfort with violence and apocalyptic imagery; and of course, Muhammad’s warlike example; killing innocent civilians - which are of no direct threat to any Muslim - yes, innocent civilians - let us not euphemise the matter - is, within Islam, simply a non issue.

This last point is important. For Wright, appears to be in the fog of moral bewilderment rendering him incapable of making basic moral distinctions. His tone and reporting of Shahzad, suggests that he sees no significant moral difference between American and British troops; soldiers who wear identifiable uniforms and conduct operations against militants - not women and children; who seek to minimize civilian casualties as best possible, though there are of course mistakes. When mistakes occur however, there are inquests, hearings and apologies. Does any of the above, which can be effortlessly expanded, apply to likes of Bin Laden, Zarqawi (remember him?) Muhammad Atta or Faisal Shahzad? No. These men are not even in the same moral universe.

No doubt, there are good arguments against the war in Afghanistan; the conduct of that war, or the need for its continuation. It is however a disgrace, that Wright legitimises Faisal Shahzad and his toxic ideology. While it is true that these wars have contributed to Muslim anger and resentment it should be pointed out that until 9/11 most Americas were not remotely aware of Bin Laden, Jihad or even the history and tenets of Islam. It is only after 9/11 -after America was attacked (and not for the first time) with the subsequent US and Western (re)-action that any credence can be given to America waging war on Islam. Justifiably, there is plenty of people in the world who could be angry at America and the West. There are plenty of starving and disposed, which we are either indirectly responsible for or are obligated to help. Little of this appears to apply to Islam. It suffered far less consequences of European colonialism compared to Africa or South America. America meanwhile has participated and supported four armed conflicts in the last thirty years in defence of Muslim people; have furthermore contributed millions in oversees aid and has tirelessly attempted to broker peace in Palestine; don’t forget meanwhile, the millions of Muslim immigrants that were and still are being welcomed in Western countries.

Bin Laden, we should remember was a multi-millionaire, he could have lived a life of luxury on the French Riviera, or could have spent his endowment peacefully helping Palestinians with food and medical supplies - or any other charitably endeavours. But no, Bin Laden and countless other men who often possess great intelligence, university educations and with no sign of mental distress or personal malaise - choose to live in caves, fight in wars thousands of miles away or detonate themselves in trains, planes and western nightclubs.

Many - political scientists and sociologists, from journalists to politicians to religious moderates will all attempt to resist the obvious yet “reductionist” conclusion - the common denominator that is a set of beliefs laid down in the 7th century and subsequently fossilised into the minds of millions. Beliefs - about the sanctity of violence - the metaphysics of martyrdom and the glory of the Caliphate. As the chapter in Malise Ruthven’s book Islam in the World Shows (see the chapter Spiritual Renewal pp-261) Islamic history is not only littered with Jihads but with individuals and groups who oppose any form of modernity and attempt to restore, usually with violence and intimidation, Islam to its purity. This is not therefore, a 20th century phenomenon. We are only “aware” of it because we are not only more self-aware of our beliefs but of our neighbours. There is, consequently, always going to be a significant group of men ready to do violence for faith - so long as Islamic ideas are held in good stead. It is therefore a totally circular and morally incompetent argument to mount, as Wright does, that the cause of terrorism is the resistance to it:

But as a practical matter, taking any of these issues off the table weakens the jihadist recruiting pitch. (Different potential recruits, after all, are sensitive to different issues.) And if we could take the Afghanistan war off the table, that would be a big one.For now my main point is that war-on-terror hawks need to confront the downsides, rather than act as if establishing the role of “jihadi intent” or “jihadist ideology” somehow ends the debate. They need to seriously ask whether the policies they favor have, while killing terrorists abroad, created terrorists both abroad and — more disturbingly — at home.

It’s a temptation we all have to fight. Maybe if we fought it as hard as we fight other enemies, we’d have fewer of them. (on our tendency to think even in terms of enemies in the first place.)

This is his last word, and it is about us and our mistakes. Not only is the thinking that there is some (some?) incompatibility between Western liberalism and Islam in principal mistaken but that the fact that we even conceive of thinking about differences between people and between ideas, and that there may be significant moral differences between them - no - this kind of thinking is itself “the problem”.

The sad fact is that there are differences between beliefs and between people. These beliefs, in fact, turn out to be a matter of life and death. Wright, who seems incapable of either believing or conceiving of beliefs and intentions, so radically different from his own, does not appear to be at all worried (then again, why should he, given that he sees no differences.) - subsequently all will end well - just like the end of Communism - which conservatives “demonised” and thumped their chests over. Why did they do this? If we believe Wright - its all down to human cognitive bias and our tendencies to demonise the “other”. If its rooted in evolution, its reasonable to ask, is it not, that emotions like fear, and thoughts of suspicion - did not serve some utility and perhaps, still do?

Just so stories aside, we should remember that there was plenty of reasons to worry about Communism, which Wright in the article slurs over; additionally we may laugh now at the “domino theory” of Communist expansion but that is only from the safety of posterity. Finally, Wright’s analogy between the fall of communism as a solution to Islam is embarrassingly superficial - Wright seems to imply that some day in the future - Muslims will spontaneously wake up and shatter the walls of fundamentalism. A moment of brief historical reflection, however, will reveal that compared to the tensions and conflicts between Christianity, the West and Islam, the less than a century spat between Liberalism and Communism - was nothing but a historical footnote. What is desperately needed here is some clear thinking as opposed to wishful thinking if we to understand and resolve the problem with Islam. Wright however, sadly displays much of the latter without showing a correspondent ability for the former.

What is a philosopher?

2010-07-03T10:46:00.000-07:00

You would think that we could not define a philosopher before defining the subject itself. This I think, is mistaken, for one can be a philosopher about anything, thus I explain everything and nothing. Yet, paradoxically, many claim, not least philosophers themselves that they have no special subject - that they are parasitic upon others - science, history or law for example. Nonetheless, the kinds of questions that are asked, and answers that are provided - are very different to the answers and concerns of the parent subjects studied. Philosophers of science are not scientists (though many are), they are not engaging in science. So what do they do?

Therein lies the clue. Philosophy, I would assert is an activity, an attitude and a method of inquiry. It inquires into the thinking of thinking. So, where science studies objects (animals, chemicals, particles for instance) and seeks to understand how they work or what they do, Philosophers meanwhile think about how scientists think about such objects of inquiry and the assumptions implicit therein and the theories which follow from such inquiry. Subsequently philosophers attempt to determine the validity and soundness of such inquiries. To put it succinctly, philosophy is the questioning of assumptions - the assumptions that others -scientists, historians and theologians function by. Historically, or at least since Descartes, the goal of philosophy seemed to strive for indubitable foundations for the sciences and all knowledge. A perhaps more modern aim is to provide a coherent explanation and justification of our thinking and beliefs. They may suggest therefore, that philosophers are merely engaged in micro trivia, who simply fret about little problems that are of little concern to anyone. This of course overstates the issue -why therefore has philosophy been one of the oldest of intellectual subjects - if not the oldest. One that still grips all minds on some level and engages serious thinkers aswell.

Subsequently, others may take a more heroic view, arguing that while in many ways they do rely on other disciplines for input, philosophy does offer substantive truths, and that they do have a particular subject - truth or the overall nature of reality. Traditionally, philosophers were seen with asking three questions:

1. What is true?

2. What is good?

3. What is beauty?

The third question seems somewhat effete now, we could replace it with:

3. How do we know what is true and good?

This question (3) has more of an epistemological flavour to it. While the first two questions should be seeded to other subjects, philosophers should still rightly ask how do they know that, what justifies that. This sounds negative, an attitude that many associate with modern analytic philosophy -that its teaches people “only” to be “bullshit detectors”. Now, when we ask how do they know such and such or is such and such justified - what we are asking for is a rationally coherent answer. This is believe is the answer: philosophy seeks to know truth and the good by rational means, means that any rational or objective person would assent to.

This suggest two things: firstly, that philosophers do have a subject - rationality and applying rationality to other disciplines; secondly this would suggest that the fruits of philosophic investigation can affect the epistemic practice and ontological status of other subjects. While it is true, that philosophy does not provide us with ground level facts the way other subjects do, it nonetheless can potentially bracket them, systematise and harmonise them into a rational coherent order or indeed otherwise. Philosophy can draw a line through or place question marks beside the ontological claims of science, history and religion. Many thinkers of these subject at times have tended to react negatively at this conclusion, their superficial dismissal of the subject will not do: to dismiss philosophy by say scientific positivism or religious fideism is itself to make covert philosophic claims and are inherently self-defeating. While this is true, it does not of course extend to the specific metaphysical doctrines of say realism or idealism.

What does it all mean? This could be the perennial motto of philosophy. To take two examples one from the philosophy of science the second from the philosophy of religion. Much debate in the philosophy of science, focuses on how we should understand and interpret the scientific endeavour. On what terrain this dispute settles on will affect how we bracket the facts, theories and methods that comprise the sciences. An instrumentalist view, sees science as good for making predictions about things in the world, that it is an indispensable incubator of technology. Posits such as electrons, quarks or neutrinos are simply useful fictions to explain the phenomena. A cousin to this would be to take a constructivist view: the theories we have are empirically adequate, objectively arrived at but only supposing certain background criteria and assumptions which may have more to do with our cognitive capacitates endowed by evolution than with any “real” correspondence with reality. Another view, a kind of realism may state that our theories are indeed corrigible and contingent, but they are the best theories, that purport to describe real phenomena in the world. Furthermore, to state that our scientific theories are useful fictions or construction needs to be seen as a first order claim, and as such may not be a accurate account of the endeavour - which may in fact be incoherent. However we ought to think about this, it does not seem likely that we could science itself to answer such questions (though of course they play a role). The overall structure and coherent account of the endeavour and of the ontological status and epistemic practice of science will have to come from philosophers.

The second example is to consider a long running dispute in philosophy of religion. In essence it boils down to this: does the fact of evolution disprove or undermine a belief in god. Many religious people claim yes, as do many atheists. Some state no, and quite a few atheist say no either. A philosopher would explore the issue by examining the beliefs of the different parties, exploring the implications of these beliefs and highlighting the conflicts and contradictions of these beliefs when conjoined. However, there are different beliefs (some of which may be more central or important than others) that can be modified or rejected, all resulting in different conclusions - or different epistemic maps of the ontological terrain. This however, is not relativism, for these conclusions themselves are going to have be scrutinised and many may hold unwelcome implications and tensions that may force revision or abandonment. A Christian may accept evolution but only at the cost of making difficult revisions to their religious beliefs. Likewise a Christian may reject evolution, and a lot of science and rational thinking to boot, or may simply reject evolution but a coherent explanation for doing so but one that is so convoluted and implausible that signals to others an embarrassment. In such situations like this one a philosopher is like an economist telling us what capital we have, what is needed for basic running of our business. He then lays out the options for cutting (what beliefs demand revision or abandonment)and the attendant consequences that follow such "cutting and harmonizing".

So, as these examples show philosophy can affect, first order disciplines and beliefs but it does so at much higher level. It does so mainly in the application of rational thought. So I would contend that philosophy is largely a matter of method, technique and application of concepts and rules. In true philosophic spirit however, these tools and methods themselves are disputed and critiqued by more basic and fundamental concepts. This endeavour is called the philosophy of philosophy.

Philosophy to summarise does thus:

1. To criticize: ideas, theories and practices, conceptual confusions and logical mistakes. In particular there is a focus on three areas: logical consistency, evidential superiority and practical efficacy.

2. To clarify: redefine questions, pose new ones, reject old ones. Draw distinctions, suggest meaning and significance.

3. Coherence: to provide systematic coherence and explanation. To achieve consistency, coherence and rational order.

4. Collaborative To learn from and engage with scientists, historians, psychologists and sociologists and all other intellectuals.

“ One might, in fact, define philosophy as the rational systematization of our thoughts, on basic issues - of the “basic principles” of our understanding of the world and our place in it. We become involved in philosophy in our endeavour to make systemic sense of the extra philosophical “fact” - when we try to answer those big question by systematizing what we think we know about the world, pushing our “knowledge” to its ultimate conclusions and combining items usually kept in convenient separation. Philosophy polices our thought, as it were, as the agent for maintaining law and order in our cognitive endeavours.” - Nicholas Rescher

To know less and less about more and more.

2010-07-02T02:02:00.000-07:00

The alternative title of this post was going to be what have your changed your mind about and why? However, within the last year I would have to confess that I have not changed by mind in any great or profound way. This does mean that there has been no enlargement or evolution of what I think or why I think it. No. In fact, it has been a great year. Before going to university, I spent a good deal of time reading and thinking, it was slight in comparison however to what was to come. This is not to say that I found what I was studying large or taxing - most of the time I was off doing my own thing and had great fun doing so.

I think the correct assessment of this year is what could be called the Socratic definition of intelligence: that the mark of an educated man is to know the extent of his own ignorance, to know that is: less and less about more and more. Taking in the new five story library at Queens, with its thousands of books on philosophy, history and politics, one simultaneously feels unnerved at how little reading and understanding one possesses - while wishing to read to correct this limitation with all the hours that god sends. An example I fondly remember, was when I pulled Thomas Nagel’s The Last Word from the shelf. I sat down intending only to scan the book. However, so impressed and inspired by Nagel’s thought and elegance in writing that I sat in the chair for the next three hours and finished the book, even re-reading sections of it again to fully capture the message.

The lucky irony, is while this year I fully and deeply fell for the questions and problems of philosophy, it was not at first to be so. The degree that I had originally chosen to do was International Studies - similar to Politics (Political Science) with only a more internationalist flavour. Last summer however, after reading and re-reading Russell’s History of Western Philosophy and Durant’s Story of Philosophy, the subject was something of an itch that could not be scratched. The problem was further compounded by reading Julian Baggini’s introductory aids to the subject (which I thoroughly recommend) - The Philosophers Toolkit and The Ethics Toolkit. These books, while designed to explain the conceptual tools, methods and arguments a philosopher uses, and as such might be considered dry and uninteresting - to me, on the contrary - it is rather the quest for precision, clarity and exactness that this book purports to help instil in the beginner that makes me value philosophy so.

Subsequently then, a week before term began I switched to a joint honours between politics and philosophy. By Christmas, my desire to pursue philosophy near full time was almost complete. By the years end I had decided to change my degree: major in philosophy and a minor in politics. The minor subjects of politics can be made up by studying political theory, so I still remain within the bounds of philosophy generally. Thus, I was lucky to have changed when I did, for it made all the difference between fully engaging in what I was doing instead of slowly losing the will to live. Indeed, as luck would have it, I more or less did (in subject material terms) a major/minor instead of a joint this year anyway. I have only had to do two full blown political science courses (instead of say three). One subject included in the politics course - Perspectives on Politics was political philosophy. This module, I enjoyed the most. It was charismatically taught by the lecturer - which always helps; the module was put together in a coherent and systematic fashion, unlike unfortunately, some others.

As you would expect the module introduced the key disputes within the subject. However, one in particular gripped me. It was the dispute namely between what can be called communitarian and liberal theories of justice. Though in fact, this does not really do justice (as it were) to the issue, as it is a debate that crosses over several interdisciplinary lines, never mind several distinct and overlapping areas in moral and political philosophy - not to mention the metaphysics of identity.

Initially, my first reaction to communitarian thought was one of indifference and dislike. I saw it as an apologists work for authoritarianism and obscurantism. However, I knew that this attitude was unjustified without careful consideration of the argument. So I pressed ahead and read twice Alistair Macintyre’s After Justice. Though I disagree much with what he thinks, I came to believe that something had been missed from debates within moral philosophy about the role of character, virtue and dispositions. Though I should stress, that this interest was stimulated by moral psychologists as much as by philosophers. The modern Liberal view - encapsulated by John Rawls is not necessarily opposed to communitarian thought in fact there are many points of agreement. The real disagreement is between what could be considered the extremes of libertarian thinking both the left and the right. Much of the year I spent thinking about a rapprochement between the two positions.

While I think that Rawls basic paradigm of distributive justice is sound, it builds a foundation upon which many questions remain, which could be asked and answered by number of different systems of thought - some of which might not be considered liberal. There is however some evidence to suggest that in terms of wellbeing and human flourishing - the communitarians may be right. This however needs to be cashed out in ways that avoid the standard criticisms that could dog it - its potential illiberalness, its insularity and obfuscation. I hope to develop some of my views on this over the summer in order to deliver a talk next year, as I happened to become vice president of Queens Philosophy Society. So I should say a few words about that.

The society intends to do a number of things, not least interviews with the staff modelled on the interviews that Bryan Magee undertook with several key contemporary philosophers concerning the greats. We also plan to do a medieval style dispute, which I think will be enormous fun, along with conferences and other things. The good thing about this is that it allows for the opportunity to meet people and argue and develop and refine ones views - something which is a necessary factor to this subject.

A lot of philosophy in my first semester was taken up by continental thought. It is this style of philosophy next to the Greeks that people probably most associate (negatively) philosophy with. This style of thought was well described by one lecturer (quoting Ricœur) that it was the “philosophy of suspicion”. We looked at Nietzsche and the Existentialists, a little Hegel and some Marx - thankfully no Freud (he was cancelled).

While I have to admit that I expected to intensely dislike this, it was not all bad, Nietzsche in particular, while I do not agree with him, he is worthy of study and refutation - he is one of those philosophers who will always be a challenge. As for the rest, some of what thinkers like Nietzsche, Sartre and Foucault thought - are, surprising interesting, I think however that it has been said better, earlier and with less pretence and obfuscation.

The subject of ethics has only really be considered in the last few months. Namely in the way of practical ethics (the subject and the book by Peter Singer). Much of this, I have to confess is a straightforward refutation of (which Singer himself admits) religious dogma that had been preserved into a secular context by the help of Kant and some other unthinking human prejudices. Much of my interest in ethics either stems from thinking about political problems or engaging with the information flowing from the mind and life sciences, much of contemporary philosophical ethics in comparison seems vapid, though I suspect this will change.

A far greater interest and itch that I developed was over epistemology. I have always been interested in procedures, methods and what counts as evidence. So, it was to be expected that I would find the subject interesting. Again ironically, or perhaps because of this I have tried to explore epistemology in ways that are socially relevant. My term for this - everyday epistemology is concerned with rational rules of belief acceptance. How to assess, judge, accept or reject sources and the reliable rules and methods which govern this, all in the field of religion, politics and ethics. Three subjects that generate great conflict and division. Much of which I believe, as Russell said - require clarity and coolness and clear thinking.

Early on I seemed to gravitate away from the concerns of traditional epistemology which perhaps have been characterised nearly all epistemologists since Descartes. I did not find the Cartesian project interesting, nor much of the work of Ayer or Russell. Popper has some very interesting things to say but is more engaged with philosophy of science (a topic I have tried to steer clear from this year) but, I became almost by accident very much interested in the ideas of one Nicholas Rescher. A prolific American philosopher (over nearly a hundred books) a truly systematic thinker (pragmatic idealism) and someone who has seems to have thought about everything and in in the process has built up a truly comprehensive system of rational inquiry and thought.

The ideas of Quine and one of his students (Penelope Maddy Second Philosophy) were and still are being absorbed and thought about. This, together with Rescher is an epistemology that is rational and objective; empiricist and practical; confident and realist while still fallible - willing to role up the sleeves as it were and get down to work. It is this truly pragmatic character - an epistemology friendly to science and interested in real problems -not the airy, abstract and effete worries of the problems of scepticism that trouble so many. Though, one must ask - how much of this is a temperamental thing rather than philosophic?

Then, finally, we come to religion. That subject that has engaged me these last three years, and whose study and consideration lead me to university in the first place. Well on one level, it was its swan song -its philosophic one anyway. Well, what do you expect when you read David Hume?

Hume who the spoof philosophical lexicon has as meaning: “To commit to the flames, bury, or otherwise destroy a philosophical position, as in "That theory was humed in the 1920s."

Hume the great infidel has probably mounted the most severest assault on the intellectual foundations of religion. While I was quite familiar (from other writers) about his arguments against design and miracles, I found when reading him directly that many ideas I had about the subjects (criticising the design argument) that I thought original - no chance - Hume had it down first. However, what was most striking this year surprising was his argument from evil. This argument, which I have long considered a theological problem and thus not especially interesting, was in the hands of Hume to prove devastating to the theistic project.

The further irony, a happy one, was that I had the good fortune to have as tutor not only a deeply religious observer but a deeply serious philosopher. A fine example that you should never judge by appearances. My first impression - a lazy metaller PHD student - turned out to be something quite different. Indefatigable in argument, prodigious in output, almost preternaturally self-assured and seems to have read and considered everything from early Christian history to German philosophy (in German) as comfortable talking about Russell’s Principia Mathmatica to Chomsky’s assault on the behaviourist language thesis, to questions about the idea that non-human animals do not have natural languages. The long hours of dispute and conversation provided ample proof of Hitchens’ notion that one of the conditions of light is heat - that argument and disagreement are necessarily for progress and insight. But I have an insight of my own, in order to learn, you should learn not only learn from people you disagree with but spend as much time as possible with them. The great thing about having a tutor like that is that your own ignorance and inconsistency is quickly exposed. You quickly learn two vital things - know what you going to say and why before you say it; secondly, admit to owning up to things you know nothing about.

As of now, I am taking a break from philosophy (kind of) looking at Islamic history, the brain, and philosophy of history as well as history in general. I will have a few months of reading, and summer indulgences before starting my second year, where I hope to redouble my efforts in politics and philosophy. While acknowledging that people have their own project and passions many of which are more worthy of respect than mine - I can agree with Aristotle that the good life (for me) is the philosophic life, the life of reflection and inquiry.

Strange Cases.

2010-06-30T09:17:00.000-07:00

Within a day of each other I have seen two very silly and misinformed pieces: one an essay from Slate’s Ron Rosenbaum the other from Guardian blogger Andrew Brown.

I will begin with Brown first. I struggle to see why the guardian lets him write anything, not least religion, atheism or science, for anything the man seems to write is nothing but tendentious tosh bordering on slander. For those of you who are interested this was the blog I posted when he severely misrepresented Sam Harris and his position on Torture. As such we should not take him seriously on anything again:

http://theyoungcontrarian.blogspot.com/2009/08/strange-quote-mining-case-of-andrew.html

He appears to be back at it, this time on another attack on Richard Dawkins.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/jun/29/richard-dawkins-atheism-schools

Here is a question that Brown quotes from a website, a mother asking Dawkins for his view:

"What would you say to parents of children who attend quite orthodox state-funded schools who are very anxious that their child be educated within that context? I am thinking specifically of the ortho-Jewish schools around my way (north London). I know for a fact a lot of these parents cannot countenance the idea of their child being educated within a non-Jewish school. What do you think they should do?"

To which he responded

"That's a good point. I believe this is putting parental rights above children's rights.”

To this Brown has this to say:

“It is impossible to read this as meaning anything but that children have a right to be educated as Richard Dawkins thinks fit, but not as their parents do. He alluded several times in the threat to the sufferings of atheist parents forced to send their children to faith schools:”

Furthermore:

“But apparently this doesn't apply if your principles are religious ones, because then your children have a right to be educated as atheists.”

It hard to read to this and not see how wayward Brown’s thinking is. I’m starting to believe that Brown has nothing but inexplicable animosity toward Dawkins and the “new Atheists”. Brown portrays Dawkins as the grand inquisitor, a ogre wishing to snatch children away from their parents and brainwash them into science and clear thinking. Is Brown not aware that Dawkins actually advocates teaching religion. Teaching it however, in way that best allows children to make up their own minds. Now as Brown rightly points out critical thinking (something he should learn about) does take time and may only be able to be learned by older children. This however does not mean that 1. Children and young as six can understand the multitude of religions both present and past, the fact that what religion people happen to belong to is contingent upon geography and accidents of birth. 2. They can understand the basic tenets and incompatibility between them.

Later on as children are older, they can approach religion critically, in a secular school, they are more likely to be in contact with pupils who hold a plurality of views, thus providing a environment for criticism and debate. Furthermore, lets imagine how such a class may be structured. Dan Dennett, Dawkins’s ally has stated something like lets teach all religions, their history, good and bad; their doctrines, the criticisms made against them and the defence of them. He states that if people teach their children this, then they should be able to teach them whatever they want.

Hardly a dogmatic absurd proposal?

Brown then goes on to talk about Dawkins starting with the Axiom that religion has no evidence for god. Eh? Is this not the same man who spent the first half of the God Delusion criticizing the arguments for God’s existence?

Brown here makes a very basic error. An Axiom is something that is either self-evident or absurd to deny - a belief or proposition that cannot itself be proved. Dawkins does not hold this position, rather he operates on a presumption that there is (no good) evidence for the existence of god. This presumption is entirely warranted on his part as he wrote a rather large book on the subject, debated several theologians and religious scientists. Whatever you think of him, he has earned his views.

Ron Rosenbaum has written a essay so fallacious one consider that it must be some kind of hoax. However, when one here that he recently been to a Templeton meeting one considers that he may off been obliged to something nasty about atheists if not something nice about religion. This nonsense just requires a straightforward case of fisking.

http://www.slate.com/id/2258484

1. “It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.”

Firstly, Atheism - or the “new atheists” do not proclaim certainty in the denial of god or indeed the gods of Olympus. Name me one who does? If anyone does and I had any money I would give them every cent I had.

The second issue here, is that he himself takes up would could be construed as a dogmatic position. Similar to the scepticism seen in Sextus Empiricus. The problem here is that this form of radical scepticism is likely, if undefended, to be just as dogmatic as the positions he attempts to criticise unlike the radical Sceptics who did know a thing or two about arguments.

Thirdly. There are two kinds of agnosticism, that he neglects to mention. Permanent agnosticism in Principle( PAP). Or Temporary Agnosticism in Principle TAP. The second position is entirely reasonable, one that any inquirer should hold at the start of inquiry “I don’t know what to think as there is quite a bit of disagreement in this area - come back in a year and ill give you my view”.

The first position PAP. Is actually giving what can be called a no argument argument. Here he is (apparently) claiming that there is no argument, that could settle the issue either way, so therefore we must be agnostics. This position seems incoherent on its face with the assertion that he is a radical sceptic (does he doubt gravity as well?) furthermore this is a rather strong and extraordinary argument that needs a good deal of support? So, where is his evidence for such a claim?

2. “I would not go so far as to argue that there's a "new agnosticism" on the rise. But I think it's time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. Indeed agnostics see atheism as "a theism"—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.”

If they do then it would appear that they deserve the title the “new idiots”. Again, another canard, where is the holy book, the profession of faith, the church to be attended every day (or every other day) where is this religion then?

3. Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)

I have disposed of the certainty and faith canard? Can he name a single scientist who claims, for absolute certainty that they know all the answers to the mysteries of the universe? While it is true that there are some scientist who do think we can, in the future will be able to answer most of our questions, none of them appear to offer certainty in their answers. However, many scientists and secular philosophers believe there are many answers we will never get, that gaps in our knowledge is something we will all have to live with. Hardly an orthodoxy then.

4. Atheists have no evidence—and certainly no proof!—that science will ever solve the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Just because other difficult-seeming problems have been solved does not mean all difficult problems will always be solved. And so atheists really exist on the same superstitious plane as Aquinas.

This is a mistake a school boy would not even make. He is conflating Atheism and science, and certain answers given by scientists to this question as representing some kind of atheist orthodoxy.

5. In fact, I challenge any atheist, New or old, to send me their answer to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I can't wait for the evasions to pour forth. Or even the evidence that this question ever could be answered by science and logic.

PZ Meyers has given answers to what scientist think of this question. I suspect the question itself is incoherent. Well here is what I think: why does there have to be anything in the first place? Why not nothing rather than something? Any framing of the question will never lead a priori to the self-evident conclusion that there is a god, with a plan and a purpose.

Will you can read the rest for yourself - air headed nonsense - all of it. If I ever met this man I would ask him if he is agnostics about Zeus or about Witchcraft or about Creationism

Best

Mike.

The moral bankruptcy of religion

2010-06-29T11:52:00.000-07:00

One of my very first posts on this blog involved the odious and equally idiotic Iris Robinson: former member of the fundamentalist and fundamentally noxious Democratic Unionist Party. I wrote about her views on homosexuality - arguing that, while being perfectly compatible with scripture there were other biblical recommendations she might have liked to mention - slavery for one, killing heretics another, or even - alas - the punishment for adultery - yep death again. In fairness, we could acquit her of bigotry only on the conviction of idiocy. Developments in the time since, however, force me to revise this assessment: not only is Iris guilty of moral midgetry but also of breathtaking moral hypocrisy.

Her “sin” was to seduce and sleep with a teenager; a boy, old enough to be her grandson. Now, I would contend that this tryst is not especially interesting, nor indeed, seriously wrong. Though the affair would have received similar attention had it happened to any politician or public figure; it was, however, her earlier actions - as a votary of God’s good works that made this revelation something of a schadenfreude moment. While her affair was a straightforward case of hypocrisy, from what I gather, she was fucking him around the same time as she was calling homosexuality “vile” “immoral” and in need of medical intervention. When the story broke, it was Iris however who needed the psychiatrist; though if one were not overly cynical, one would think that all that was needed was “forgiveness” and the grace of god.

What is more dubious, and more important is the possibility that Iris had manipulated the young man in order to obtain money for her own private purposes. This would elevate the affair and Iris Robinson from a woman brought down by earthly passion, to more sinister case of sexual predation for financial gain. Not only has Iris suffered the political consequences - psychological ones as well, her husband, Peter Robinson, has been made to feel the electoral lash as well for he too has some questions to answer over possible financial malfeasance. It seems no surprise to learn meanwhile, that the people of Northern Ireland have dubbed them: “Swish family Robinson”.

The lessons from this are obvious when we regard religion: it does not make people better, but in invariably makes them worse; in this case - quick to persecute, fulminate and pontificate, while ignoring the large specks in their own discriminating, deluded and woefully myopic Iris. That religion, in order to avoid embarrassingly displays of emptiness, shrillness and hypocrisy should shun politics and public life and tend its own garden - that is, it should preach and practice in quiet.

Even this last thought may need to be revised - that we should aim to shunt religion off into some quiet corner when we come to consider what is surely one of the greatest scandals in history. A scandal - one intensified in the last year - a disgrace, institutionalised and subsequently covered up by a religious organisation; occurring not just in one country or even one continent - but a truly worldwide phenomenon - a grizzly testament to religion’s claim and indeed - proof of its boastful universality. I am of course, speaking of the Catholic child rape scandal.

While it should not be necessary to point out that nothing in the Church’s teaching or its doctrines could ever justify such actions (the same alas cannot be claimed for another monotheism which I’m coming to shortly), it is impossible however to deny that this decades long racket of paedophilia and corruption is a direct consequence of the Church’s cleaving to power; its enforced secrecy; its belief that it is a law onto itself. Even the current Pope - Herr Ratzinger, has himself been implicated in the cover up of Priests guilty of abuse. The reason seems, to be nothing so “gross” or material - so human and man made as the need to protect its earthly power and prestige, to prevent the disfiguring of good name of the Church, to maintain its craven desire to survive at any cost - and of course - not to give ammunition to its enemies: the “Jews and atheists”.

The Church’s record on human rights - or if you like - its record breaking success in promotion and propagation of human suffering - forces upon us the conclusion, that there is no other organisation, religion or institution whose sole purpose self-evidently seems to be the accumulation of power, the retention of authority in all aspects of life with the purpose of propagating abject misery, delusion and division - especially to the poorest and the most venerable.

As parlous as the Catholic Church is, it appears to be in a running battle and indeed, what ever its misdeeds, appears to be losing the title of greatest enemy of civilization to Islam. The problem with Islam does not need to be stated in terms of the clash with the west. No. The first thing to say is that it is Muslims men and women themselves who suffer most under the totalitarian shadow of the Koran. Hardly a day passes, when another Mosque has been bombed with a fresh score (at least) of dead Muslims littering the prayers halls. Last Christmas, to take one example from many - it would appear that a fanatic was so incensed by a volleyball match that he unmade himself and fellow co-religionists with a bomb strapped to his body. Not to mention the persistent and flagrant abuse of its women with the constant trickle of reports of beatings, honour killings and rapes.

All of this, is Muslim on Muslim violence. While there is much made of Western humiliation of Islam, or the damage done to Muslim minds and Muslim societies by for instance the civilian death toll from Iraq or the pictures of Abu Graib. This is, of course, true and important. This thesis however (that pain and anger have been caused by the West) can be swallowed whole, while simultaneously admitting that the biggest cause of humiliation and the greatest damage done to Islamic societies is the contents of the Koran and the details of Sharia law itself.

The depressing and absurd conclusion however is that much of this is simply slurred over, denied or explained away. Blandishments like “all religion has its fanatics” “ we need to address the educational and economic factors of this malaise” “we should not blame an entire religion on the actions of a small minority of its members” “ we need to remember all the good that religion does”. All of the these statements could apply equally to the Catholic Church as well as Islam, though I could modify the first statement by saying: “all religions have its paedophiles” - though in the case of Islam following the example of its beloved prophet - thinks it perfectly acceptable that grown men should marry and enjoy full “conjugal” relations with girls as young as nine. Maybe the only difference is that Catholicism keeps its child rapes secret - while Islam boasts of it - that you tell you something at least about the “clash of civilisations.”

It is time we ended the dogma that there is such a thing as freedom of belief or respect for beliefs that have nothing supporting them but ignorance and tradition, either a belief is supported by the evidence or it is not, if it is not then it should be abandoned. Religious belief has the same ontological status as fairies, ghosts and goblins. Its books belong to the same shelf as the Odyssey; Arabian Nights; or the Lord of the Rings. People are killing and dying in the name of nothing. Organizing their lives around a fiction. Religious moderates, condescending secularists and liberals are all engaged in the ponzi scheme that religion is useful and necessary for the uneducated and the unwell. The results of this Faustian bargain with faith meanwhile are bodies piled higher than the sun, the slavery of many millions of women, the relentless demonising of Jews and homosexuals and the abandonment of children to religious demagoguery and sexual predation.

Truly, God loves his children.

Rational Incrementalism

2009-09-10T06:05:00.000-07:00

In my last post I was considering scepticism and the certainty of knowledge. I signalled at end that I would discuss a term I had coined: Rational Incrementalism. Though what I propose here is nothing new, nor is it some new way of thinking about knowledge and certainty, it is rather, a organising structure - a kind of conceptual map. A map that we can compare theories and propositions to. I am, mostly, considering scientific theories here, however in a later post, I will consider its application outside of the sciences.

Modern science as opposed to theology or certain non empirical strands of philosophy acquires knowledge in piecemeal form. It builds up a picture of the world in fits and starts, gradually or - incrementally. Theology, makes grand claims to knowledge on the basis of a few dogmatically held positions; it can then happily and whimsically build elaborate and ornate systems of belief based on these suppositions; should though, one supposed foundation be found wrong or invalid - then the whole edifice comes crashing down. Some might argue that science is similar: “a ugly fact can kill a theory”, indeed, but science in making more piecemeal claims seeks to find a number of coherent, mutually supportable beliefs (or theories) with attendant facts and evidence. Though a fact can kill a theory, more often than not it is assimilated into the existing paradigm or theory, thereby enriching, expanding or modifying our understanding.

What I will outline is the conceptual terrain that a theory may pass through before we can say, with sufficient certainty, that it can count as knowledge, or, at the very least, having a high probabilty of being correct.To capture the progress in a metaphor - our understanding of the world according to this paradigm - progress like a person on a escalator. They start out at the bottom -yet gradually, incrementally, they get lifted higher and higher - they “see” more, they understand more, as their experience of the world increases. Furthermore, by proceeding cautiously and methodically they do not greatly risk falling over, or the ground giving way under them. They do not make one big improbable “leap” to knowledge - loudly proclaiming truth - no; whatever claims a scientist, generally makes, are the result of careful laborious research and painstaking years of study. The theory progress via six stages: 1. Idea. 2. Speculation. 3. Hypothesis. 4. Theory. 5. Error theory. 6. Scientific explanation or scientifically established theory.

1. Idea

Firstly, before there is any theory, before any hypothesis can be tested, there must first be ideas or possibilities. This is perhaps, where a creative aspect to science and philosophy comes in. I should define an idea as merely a possibility: that, which does not have any evidence for it either way. Ideas can be conceived in two main ways. Firstly, they can be conceived in what could be termed an “a priori” position. Thus, the thinker knows no important facts or circumstances upon which he is thinking about - he thinks up ideas and thereby seeks evidence to confirm or disconfirm his idea. The second kind of idea - one studies a body of evidence or set of circumstances - after which the thinker/scientist/philosopher attempts to conceive a theory which explains these facts - this, is post facto style of explanation; one needs to be careful however - that they do not yarn a JUST SO STORY. There first kind of idea is, what I shall term hypothetical ideas, the latter being explainer ideas.

2. Speculation.

Now we have our idea. We either have an idea that will attempt to explain what we have seen or experienced (explainer ideas) or we will attempt to make the evidence fit our burgeoning theory (hypothetical ideas). Either way, what we must do now is test our idea or concept. Except in some cases, perhaps in the nitty gritty sciences of molecular biology or astrophysics -we can do a lot of preliminary testing from our armchairs. We look to see if there are any reasons or evidence in support of our supposition, or indeed, reasons that would seriously count against it. If we can see something that could drastically kill the idea (falsify - make highly improbable, or indeed if it’s highly improbable in the first place -thus not worth pursuing) - then we are back to the drawing board, if not then we advance to step three

3. Hypothesis.

We now have tested our concept in a purely informal and largely unscientific way, indeed a lot of the work up until now concerns language and concepts and armchair reasoning. Questons like, what do we mean? What would prove or disprove it? What kinds of evidence am I looking for? Is what I am talking about coherent with what we already know? Is it internally consistent? Now however, it is time for philosophy to give way to science. We have hammered out a concept or proposition to test; the aim, being either to provide verification of our hypothesis, or falsification. If our experiment goes well, and it is repeated with success - peer reviewed satisfactorily and so on - then we are on to stage four.

4. Theory.

We now have a theory, perhaps a new one, or a competing one or new alternate theory which explains some phenomena. The important thing however to note, is that the new theory is only one among many; subsequently, it will have to compete against these other theories, and at the same time answer any potential criticisms before it can be respected as an established theory. The reason being, that, for any body of data we can have multiple interpretations or theories. Our new theory then, is just a new kid on the block: out to “prove itself” - why it’s a better theory than the others on the “free-market of ideas”. Though the new theory has some empirical support - it is far from conclusive; the next goal then, is to point out why the alternate explanations are wrong or that the objections are misguided or misinformed.

5. Error Theory.

Strictly speaking, a new theory does not always call for an error theory. It’s possible that something original has been discovered that does not appear to supersede or refute an existing theory. This is not always so however, as the case of Darwin and Einstein showed. What an error theory purports to show, is why we were wrong to think the former theory was correct. It many ways, this is a powerful and important philosophical tool; it, in effect, performs a Ju-Jitsu move on the opposition - using the force of the opponents argument against them. An Error theory, then, needs to explain coherently why the originally theory or belief was mistakenly held in the first place. I should note, though, that an error theory needs to be deployed after some positive evidence has been produced for a new theory which explains the facts; as anyone can do an error theory for anything established - but its useless if they do not provide in the old theory’s place an explanation of the phenomena.

6. Scientific theory or established theory.

Finally, the theory is ready to be considered a fully established, scientific theory. It has considerable explanatory power - better than any other theory. It demonstrates a high degree of consistency with the evidence; it leaves no ambiguities or unexplained problems; additionally, it coheres with what we already know to be true; furthermore, it is simple: it does not rely on obscure, largely unproven, or implausible assumptions; lastly, and perhaps, most importantly - it is testable - with a large body of experimental data to back up its claims.

Putting theory into practice - where the rubber meets the road.

Lets now compare this conceptual map to say - Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Darwin it should be noted, was not the first person to conceive of evolution: a number of Greek philosophers noted its possibility - they did not, however, test it or provide evidence for it - so it remained merely an idea. Darwin’s Grandfather, Erasmus, understood its possibility. There was, in addition, a small number of other thinkers, who, before Charles Darwin, explored the possibility - with some references to artificial selection . It could be said however, that their ideas were speculation - they had some evidential support, but it lacked scope and sufficient rigour.

Darwin provided the hypothesis and the theory - alongside Alfred Russell Wallace. Darwin, after years of thinking and amassing evidence provided testable hypotheses, and a mechanism or means by which evolution unfolds: natural selection. Darwin could point to the fossil record and argue that lower forms evolve into more complex forms (by way of transitional fossils) - over great expanses of time. Indeed, the artificial selection, and hence - evolution - of dogs, pigeons and livestock; which subsequently, though well know, provided additional and highly persuasive evidence for the burgeoning and highly controversial theory of evolution.

Darwin and Wallace then, developed the theory ( evolution by natural selection) which promised enormous explanatory power, it was in its day - highly plausible and consistent with the evidence that was available. However, it could be argued that it was not until relatively recent times - that the last two features of our schema were provided for: an error theory and that Darwin’s theory became a fully established, and secure, scientific theory.

Many thinkers have provided reasons as to why we did not conceive of evolution sooner and why many have trouble grasping it, or rather - accepting it. If we set aside religious propaganda, and examine the factors which gave rise to movements like creationism - we will find - intuitively attractive, or seductive “reasons”, though entirely unsound, - why some “think” design so convincing and evolution so absurd.

Firstly, evolution requires a vast amount of time to work - the earth being only a few thousand years old - hence not enough time for the theory to work. This objection, which is still made today, was solved in Darwin’s own time, where the age of the earth was shown to be very old indeed. Humans who only live, if at best, for a few decades, subsequently - many cannot grasp deep geological time.

The second reason we have trouble with evolution is that we are a tool making species. Darwin’s theory, as Daniel Dennett notes: “is a strange inversion of reason…. You never see a pot making a pot maker, never see a spear making a spear maker…. Never see a car making a carmaker.” Darwin’s theory when presented to our common-sense intuitions - flat out nonsensical - it has it the wrong way round. It is only complex things which can create or design less complex things; but Darwin and scientists ever since, have shown time and again why, this is wrong.

Since Darwin wrote Origin of Species, there has been a number of scientific breakthroughs that have supported and extended his theory. Firstly, there was the discovery of genes - this solved the problem that vexed Darwin as to how the information from parent to child was passed, thus ensuring the preservation of information which allowed superior organisms to survive and reproduce. Secondly, with the advent of computer technology and complex mathematical algorithms - the theory of natural selection as a mechanism - can be tested, abit theoretically. Furthermore, after more than a hundred years of investigations, in biology, in palaeontology, bacteriology, epidemiology - Darwin’s theory, is, as Richard Dawkins affirms: “the only game in town”.

Conclusion

To sum up then, we can use this conceptual map or schema to assess on what point of the scale a theory or hypothesis rests on. Furthermore, we can see what work lies in front of us if we wish to establish an idea or theory as knowledge. Finally, this paradigm allows us to independently assess what degree of support a theory or explanation has in the scientific community - we can seek out and examine studies, experiments, books and experts - in order to determine how well established and respected a theory is.

On Scepticism

2009-09-05T06:53:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have been considering the uses, values and applications of scepticism. I will try to distinguish firstly, what I mean by the term scepticism. We ought to bare in mind the sharp and frequently misunderstood distinction between academic, philosophical or theoretical scepticism or Scepticism, and “applied” or “practical” scepticism. I shall briefly sketch the differing forms of this position, Finally, I will recommend some practical recommendations when applying sceptical thought to real life problems.

Consider academic scepticism: this can be taken to be either one of two positions. The first being that all knowledge claims are of equal merit: we cannot rationally distinguish any claims to knowledge - we hold all claims, or pretensions to certainty, as being equally probable. The second, is a more moderate position: any inference between fact and theory - then there is always a underdetermination of evidence. This means for example, that when I throw an apple up in the air - the established and empirically backed theory of gravity explains - why the apple falls to earth. It is possible however, to construct a consistent (though implausible) theory of why the scientists are wrong - that it is, instead, a invisible demon pushing the apple down.

I shall now outline the problems with this form of Scepticism (this will apply both to the stronger and weaker forms.) Given however, the persuasiveness of arguments produced by philosophers such as Hume, Russell and Quine, it would be reasonable to say that we can never be absolutely sure of any claims to knowledge, even gravity or claims involving mathematics (Quine). Though I broadly accept this argument; while subsequently rejecting however, the idea that all knowledge claims are equally probable or likely; I find, in the end, that this sort of Scepticism is next to useless; moreover, it allows people to be lazy, or worse, insincere - “you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe - in the end its all just opinion.”

This kind of Scepticism is useless, for, like Pyrrho - you end up with your head stuck in the ground, not knowing whether or not it’s a good idea to try and remove it. Secondly, this form of scepticism is self-defeating. Like the Marxist argument concerning super-structure or false consciousness - it can be boomeranged back against the opponent and vice versa - without any address to the substance of each other’s argument. Each person take up a position of complete scepticism against the other, thus - no progress is made. Next, the claim that one knows nothing or cannot know anything - is contradictory - for one cannot claim to know even that. Finally, the claim, though sound - that we can never have absolute certainty, leads moreover, to a non-sequitur if we say that there does not exist probabilistic degrees of certainty or rational expectation - that any claim to knowledge has a 50/50 probability. Bertrand Russell closed the door to this fallacy forever when he came up with the argument from ignorance: the celestial teapot. We can never be sure that there is a teapot orbiting the sun, or that there are fairies in the bottom of the garden - though we cannot disprove such things, there is scarcely a reason to believe that a china white teapots currently orbits space or that there are pixies playing in the garden.

Turing now to the more profitable uses of scepticism then, - keep in mind how one could, potentially, be wrong. Seek out then, alternative explanations and other possibilities, indeed, invite criticism and debate - to ensure that you have not fallen for the first explanation you have been presented or came up with. Be careful when judging claims that are outside of your field of expertise; furthermore, be mindful of the emotional reactions when you comes across an argument that contrasts with your position - that “extraordinary claims require extraordinarily evidence”; finally, beware the claims that seek to bolster self-esteem or attempt to flatter one sense of self.

Here are a few useful rules of thumb when using positive or practical scepticism. I draw some of them from Bertrand Russell’s essay on the values of scepticism.

1. When experts are agreed, the opposite claim cannot be held to be certain. 2. When they (the experts) are not certain - no opinion cannot be held to be certain by a non-expert. 3. When they hold that no sufficient ground exist for a view - the non-expert suspends judgment.

In addition to these guidelines, I would add the metaphor of a juror considering evidence in a court case. Imagine what would, in the circumstances of the case, consist of reasonable doubt - has, then, those doubts been met? Consider what evidence or arguments would force you to revise or abandon your conclusion? Attempt then, to seek these alternate explanations, possibilities and doubts out - if you do not find them, or if they are not persuasive - then maintain your position. Finally, ask yourself, are you being objective and dispassionate in your analysis and evaluation, or, are you being driven by emotion and prejudice.

This short primer then, should help us keep in mind the important and often forgotten distinction between philosophical and practical scepticism. Furthermore, the maxims outlined are useful rules to keep in mind when encountering strange and extraordinary claims - especially if they lie outside our normal range of experience and expertise. In addition to this short missive on rational thought, in my next blog, I will consider a gradient or structure where we can track our ever increasing certainty when considering a theory - the process I call Rational Incrementalism.

best

Michael.

In Defence Of The New Atheists.

2009-08-25T02:41:00.000-07:00

Since 9/11 there has been a growing body of literature testifying to the detrimental effects of religious faith; equally, there is now an ever increasing chorus of voices devoted to saying - that it aint so: that religion is rather benign; that it isn’t a wellspring of human ignorance, superstition and intolerance; furthermore, these defenders of dogma charge the “New Atheists” of “intolerance”, “damaging science” and, incredibly, fuelling religious mania.

Religious apologists generally come in two stripes: the deeply religious themselves; and the religious/agnostic or “woolly minded, secular liberals”. An example of the first kind would be someone like William Lane Craig or Dinesh De Souza; the latter, consisting of: Terry Eagleton, Karen Armstrong, Madeline Bunting, Robert Winston, and, finally, the new kids on the block - Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney. It is, this latter “troupe” that I will be reviewing here. Admittedly, among the people I mentioned, there is diversity of opinion, but I would argue that we can safely ignore this. The criticism they make generally pertain to three lines of thinking: that the New Atheists have caricatured religious faith; that they misuse science for their own ideological purposes; and that they are every bit as fundamentalist as they people they criticise.

Firstly, lets take this charge of caricaturing religion. This comes down to two specific charges: that they widely misrepresent the texts of the Bible and the Koran; that they exaggerate the numbers of people who believe in things like virgin births, angels, and the belief in the sacredness of martyrdom. There can be little doubt that the God of the Old Testament or the Koran is not a moderate- self described as a “jealous” “wrathful” male - yes male - who engages in a fair bit of “ethic cleansing”, advocates slavery when not smiting people for heresy, who floods the world in anger when his new toy displeases him. In the two thousands years or so since these barbarism were first set down - many, it would seem, think that God has somehow evolved - tracking, rather suspiciously, the moral progress we have made in the time say - since we thought it was acceptable to stone a woman on her fathers doorstep for not being a virgin on her wedding night. Many, mistakenly, have thought that Jesus did away with all this absurdity and cruelty; nothing, however, could be further from the truth, early on Jesus “states” that every “jot” of the law shall be fulfilled. Indeed, on many occasions Jesus preaches that unbelievers are heading for hell “the burning lake of fire”, the sinfulness of adultery and divorce - yes, divorce, a decree that almost everyone - including Catholics (in their moral “backsliding” ignores. ) Finally, the latter books of the bible prophesy a angry Jesus - returned to judge the living and the dead - raining down wrath on the unbelievers and unrighteous.

One could go on with such examples - Paul railing against homosexuality, endorsing slavery, telling women to obey their husbands and keep quiet at the back of the church. If we were to listen though to religious apologists like Eagleton, all this does not matter: “God created the world for “love and delight”; Karen Armstrong, presumably after endorsing the “apophatic” tradition would state that we can say “nothing” on religious questions - that we practice “negative theology”. This now, is where theory meets practice, where religious obscurantism meets intellectual dishonesty. How many American Christians believe the statement: “we cannot say anything of God”. How many Muslims, at the very least, don’t believe that the Koran and the Hadith are best guide we have to living through this veil of tears? How many Christians - don’t think that faith in Jesus will someone save them and not others - lifting them up to a celestial paradise after death? Not many, not many at all, and that is the only honest answer that one can give.

Let me be charitable. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that the theologians are right, that God is some disinterested “entity” the “ground of all being”, that the Bible and the Koran has been greatly, vastly misinterpreted, it would not subtract - not a “jot” - from the fact that millions of our credulous neighbours believe the preposterous. A Harris poll taken in 2007 showed that “79 percent of Americans believed in miracles”, belief in hell and the devil got a confident 62 percent, belief in the theory of evolution limped in at 42 percent. A few years ago, the British newspaper The Telegraph conducted an ICM poll which found that four out of ten British Muslims wish to see Sharia Law in the UK, a footnote to this cheery finding was that twenty percent had “sympathy” with the July 7 bombers. Consider, finally, this nugget from a Pew poll on Islamic extremism, while it reported that support for terrorism and violence had decreased, many still had love in their hearts for Bin Laden and the aspirations of Al Qaeda:

In Indonesia, the public is now about evenly split with 35% saying they place at least some confidence in bin Laden and 37% saying they have little or none, a major loss of confidence from the 58% to 36% split recorded in May 2003. Among Indonesians, confidence in the Al Qaeda leader is lower among older citizens but is higher among the more affluent. Among those ages 18-34, 39% express a lot or some confidence in bin Laden compared with less than a third of those 35 and over. However, while only 32% of people in the bottom income tier have confidence in bin Laden, 37% of middle-income and 42% of higher-income people do so.
In only two countries, Pakistan and Jordan, has support for the Al Qaeda leader increased. In Pakistan, slightly more than half now place a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, an increase from the 45% who said so in 2003. Among Pakistanis, gender is a significant dividing line with nearly two-in-three men (65%) reporting a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, compared with 36% of women.

While this does show an improvement, and is encouraging, it is hardly grounds for stable optimism nor benign international relations; moreover, it does attest well to the fallacious notion that Islam is a religion hijacked by a few oddball Jihadists. It may even - be plausibly argued that, except in the countries were conflict takes place, the willingness to use force as a counter-measure to terrorism may lead to falling levels of support for terror in worldwide Muslim communities.

The ability to criticise bad ideas - about ethics, about beliefs about the world, about the nature and order of human relationships, using robust intellectual argument, is, when applied to religion - considered disrespectful, coarse and unproductive. In particular, critics of religion has been accused of prostituting science in conducting a holy war against fundamentalists. The most recent advocates are Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum in their book: Unscientific America. Mooney and Kirshenbaum accuse the New Atheists of unnecessary confrontation; asking “must science conduct a holy war against religion” appearing to endorse NOMA and the National Academy of Sciences position who believe that “science and religion can be perfectly compatible”. Many others, have over the years endorsed this position: that religion and science ask and answer different questions, that science cannot say nothing on matters religious, that scientists are wedded to an a priori naturalism and so will not, in principle, consider things like raising the dead, walking on water or transforming water into wine under the purview of scientific rationality.

These positions, while philosophically, scientifically and intellectually indefensible, are held, though somewhat naively - for laudable reasons. I doubt the likes of Moony and Kirshenbaum are pleased (as their book shows) with the abysmal state of ignorance that Americans are languishing in; but the mistake they make, is thinking that science is just another belief system - that simply contains a body of facts about the world we live in. Though it is surely this, science is much much more. Mooney’s goal seems to be thus: lets try and be nice and persuade a few moderate folk to accept Darwin; lets also say nothing too bad or offensive - case the ignorant mob get together and start burning down science laboratories.

Religion and science is however, intrinsically opposed to one another. It is opposed for three chief reasons: religion relies on authority and science rejects authority in favour of questioning assumptions; religion relies on private feelings, geographical and subjective particularity, science however is universal and committed to objectivity; religion holds beliefs on the basis of faith and dogma, science will test and test again its hypothesises and will invite criticism and comment and adjusts itself accordingly. While Moony might be forgiven for trying to play nice with religious folk -as urgent action is needed on the question of climate charge (which they vehemently deny), it is, however, intellectually dishonest and morally negligible to simply lie to these people; to condescend to them and treat them as children. As Sam Harris recently pointed out, the New Atheists take their beliefs seriously; and yes, the baby will have to be thrown out with the bathwater: faith will need to go the way of slavery, torture, belief in witches, and a flat earth before we can begin to make moral and social progress on the ever growing litany of problems that our species face.

The silliest criticism that has been levelled at the New Atheists is that they are every bit as intolerant, fundamentalist and militant as the people they criticize. As one columnist for the FT wrote recently - this charge ought to be laughed out of existence. Firstly, lets deal with the charge of dogmatism. To hold beliefs dogmatically, means that you hold them - whatever happens - regardless of the reasons or evidence that goes against it. How many times have we all heard religious people say something like “I am absolutely certain and there is nothing that would change my mind” - if anyone can produce a similar statement made by the New Atheists - I will happily eat their books.

As to the charge to militancy: I cannot better Timothy Garton Ash, who also found the phrase amusing and mistaken - When someone like Richard Dawkins begins to brew bombs from an Oxford lab - then yes, the charge sticks. When was the last time their was an atheist riot over a insult or perceived slight? When was the last time an atheist blew himself up in the cause of spreading atheism? Indeed, when was the last time a secular humanist wanted to burn people to death over such a serious problem as theological disagreement?

The Philosopher AC Grayling, in a brilliantly concise and elegant passages, sums up the position of science; the New Atheists position; and as well, shoots down one or two spurious positions that I have been covering here.

“…any view of the world (atheism/methodological naturalism) which does not premise such belief. Any view of the world which does not premise the existence of something super-natural is a philosophy, or a theory, or at worst an ideology. If it is either of the two first, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence. This is the essence of science. It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out, or burnings conducted at the stake, over rival theories in biology or astrophysics.”

And in a final flourish-

“And one can grant the word “fundamental” does after all apply to this: in the phrase “fundamentally sensible”.”

It is not the New Atheists then, who are doing a disservice to science or civil society by drawing attention to superstition, bigotry, and bronze age stupidity. Rather, it is the religious apologists themselves - by providing a cloak of respectability, by obfuscating on the historical and philosophical antagonisms between religion and science; it is they who are offering a patently false and misleading picture of what religion is and how it is practiced by the faithful. They are dangerously mistaken. It is time we put our cards on the table; it is time we acknowledged, that yes, we are still hugely ignorant of all the mysteries that this universe contains, that a proper scientific and rational approach to ethics is only beginning; that there is a place for such things as mysticism and spiritual practice, as well as such human basics as community, co-operation and fraternity. These insights, into the moral and scientific landscape however, will be gained in the present, through the fruits of experiment, philosophy and personal reflection. There is no reason, no reason what so ever, to think that scripture written thousands of years ago - by men - ignorant of such basic knowledge that would make an eight year old blush - contain - the great and ultimate truths; the best way to live; and the best way to develop a global, interconnected hyper-community. The sooner we all realise this grotesque marriage of fear, ignorance, dishonesty and credulity that is religion, that cheapens and diminishes human life, the better.

Best

Mike.

Study the Self to know the self to forget the self.

2009-08-21T07:19:00.000-07:00

“To study the Self is to Forget the self”

- Dogen

“Gnothi seauton - know thyself”

- Ancient Greek motto

A while back I had a kind of epiphany: not an intellectual one - it was intuitive - like getting a joke. I had been re-reading some Bertrand Russell, and was thinking to myself that one of the main themes in his Conquest Of Happiness, is to lose the sense of self. Russell was a philosopher: a professional thinker; someone who suffered at times from prison that is the self or the Ego. Quite a few times in his book he stresses the importance of letting go of one’s anxieties, one’s ego, one’s obsession with thinking. As I was contemplating this I remembered a phrase I had read in Zen Mind beginner’s Mind: “to study the self is to forget the self”. I saw that, in many ways, both men’s projects for happiness: abit very different as to means; are, in their ends, rather similar.

It is something of a paradox: the paradox of individualism. Both Russell: representing Humanism; the Stoics such as Epictetus and Aurelius; Zen Buddhism such as Dogen, Suzuki; all, doctrinally stress the importance of individual development, restraining the ego, and promoting wellbeing. I recognise of course that this is a somewhat broad and idiosyncratic representation
of all these systems of thought; they, however, contrast markedly with Islam, Christianity or Communism and Fascism - all laying stress on the individual conforming to the group and submitting their interests to it - to the collective.

Individualism in this sense differs from what can be called Egoism. I had this distinction clarified for me by Karl Popper in his book: Open Society and its Enemies. Egoism - can best be grasped by example - the kind of “Aristocratic” selfish, cruel, and violent individualism of a Nietzsche or a Byron. Altruistic individualism on the other hand sees the individual as a free agent, who keeps his independent mind, yet helps others, and integrates himself as part of a larger whole. The example of the Buddha, Socrates and Jesus attest to this altruistic individualism.

“Find something greater than you are and surrender yourself to it”

- Dan Dennett

In meditation practice you sit and notice the Self; you notice all the vain, useless and selfish thoughts that whirl into focus then drift out. Meditation practice, as I have wrote, is a kind of mental discipline, its also like mental weeding: a process by which you break down all the barriers and barricades that separate you from other people, that keep you wrapped up in the prison of the self. Joko Beck has a illuminating analogy were she compares the gradual practice of meditation to melting ice cubes. The cube, at first, is cold, sharp and impenetrable. It keeps people from connecting; when two people (or cubes) collide - chaos and anger ensures. Meditation then, is a heat that melts the cube, that frees people - this is why perhaps, contemplative practice is often called a liberating experience. Indeed, the vow of the Bodhisattva: “I vow to liberate all beings, without number”, express this sentiment well. Bertrand Russell, who did have a admiration for certain aspects of Mysticism, did not meditate of course; but he sought similar states of attention through love; through work; through hill climbing and many other activities. He ends his gem of a book: Conquest of Happiness, with this, marvellous little peroration.

“In fact the whole antithesis between self and the rest of the world, which is implied in the doctrine of self-denial, disappears as soon as we have any genuine interest in persons or things outside ourselves. Through such interests a man comes to feel himself part of the stream, of life, not a hard separate entity like a billiard-ball, which can have no relation with other such entities except that of collocation. All unhappiness depends upon some kind of disintegration or lack or integration; there is disintegration within the self through lack of co-ordination between the conscious and the unconscious mind; there is lack of integration between the self and society where the two are not knit together by the force of objective interests and affections. The happy man is the man who does not suffer from either of these failures of unity, whose personality is neither divides against itself nor pitted against the world. Such a man feels himself a citizen of the universe, enjoying freely the spectacle that it offers and the joys that if affords, untroubled by the thought of death because he feels himself not really separate from those who will come after him. It is in such profound instinctive union with the stream of life that the greatest joy is to be found.”

Best

Mike.

Bigotry, Stupidity and Superstition in the Age of the Internet.

2009-08-20T04:04:00.000-07:00

Last night, my friend and I, after sitting through Dune: David Lynch’s beautiful mess of a film; we traversed into the dark heart of America - via the omniscient power of the internet. My friend, perhaps a little naïve, was shocked to discover that the Prophet Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl (this came up after the discovery that Dune has many allusions and parallels to Islam and the oil situation in the Middle East.) He was dumbfounded when he saw the Conservapedia site; laughed outright at the sheer verbal and intellectual incompetence of Sarah Palin; and, was thoroughly disgusted by a evangelical propaganda video.

The omnipresent question one always has to ask oneself: how can anyone believe this? You can have perfectly sound explanations of course, indeed, you can even have deep and penetrating psychological and scientific accounts of why people believe the “darndest” things, But still, despite someone like myself, (who is oddly familiar with quite a bit of human credulity), I find myself - adrift in sea of apoplexy and confusion, which, finally, waves into amused apathy and despondent futility.

Why are so many Americans, from the point of view of everyone else - so seemingly ridiculous? Now I am no crude despiser of America; on the contrary rather - it is a great country. Nevertheless, the Republican cum Christian right cum paranoid maniacs are - a menace to society. It seems miraculous, that in the age of the internet, space exploration and instant global communication, people, indeed, “high ranking” politicians can still believe in something like witches. Somewhere close to fifty percent of the American electorate believe in the actual existence of Satan; a higher number almost certainly believe that all living organisms were created in their present form by some kind of celestial creator - the same people believe that Man was created in a special act of creation, thus making him, indeed HIM, the centre of a cosmic sit-com. It generally goes unmentioned that many of the same people, who’s beliefs are of the sheerest ignorance - even to a reasonably educated six year old, are the same "loons" who are stymieing, what is perhaps the most important piece of legislation that the US government has attempted to pass in a generation: healthcare reform. It also goes without saying - literally - that many of the same group, believe that Obama - a confection of so many fears: liberal, black, educated; moderately religious (if religious at all); these fearful facts that are, on their own, shocking to the “average American” are married to a perception of Obama as a avatar of Satan; a messiah of Marxism; a closet Muslim; and a “figure” from the book of revelations.

Consider the lies that has been perpetuated concerning healthcare. The irony tapers ever upwards towards astronomical heights of surrealism when one considers that many on the Republican wing would benefit from reform. Johann Hari from the Independent, pointed this out recently with poker faced hilarity - recounting that a Republican “activist” was injured fighting in a town hall meeting concerning healthcare -only to waill later that he had no insurance. Never-mind also, the fact that America already has “socialised” medicine. Ponder over some of these examples, drawn from factcheck.org; if one did not know better one would think these are taken from the spoof political website: the Onion.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/more-senior-scare/

How could anyone fall for this? We need to remember, that right from the cradle many of them were brought up to believe in Jesus, the virtues of carrying firearms and the sinfulness of Homosexuality; that anyone you ever knew believed this; you parents believed this and expected you to believe this, moreover, demanded that you believe it. It would then, take a exceptional individual to overcome such a social pressure and maladaptive upbringing. The problems of individual autonomy and clear thinking are further sabotaged by the fact that the majority of evangelicals are home schooled - thus prevented from coming into contact with other children - other ways of thinking - other ways of seeing the world. Evangelicals, live in a sequestered world, they live in a closed society; despite all the technology of the 21st century, most Americas are as ignorant of the world as a Afghan peasant. This brings me to my next exhibit: Conservapedia.

Could anything be more forlorn when you read “An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint.” - “the trustworthy encyclopaedia”. Edited and maintained by a posse of creationist wing-nuts; the purpose of the site: counter Wikipedia’s “bias” and provide “material” for “homeschooled children” - we should abandon this euphemism and simply call a spade a spade - this is, and always was - indoctrination.

Check out the hilarity -

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama

(my friend was puzzled when I wondered whether the site would indulge the “birther” conspiracy - it does - (“Barack Hussein Obama II (allegedly[1][2][3][4][5] born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961)”

Accuses Obama of mind control: “Obama used techniques of mind control in his campaign, as in this speech: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"

The icing on the cake: Obama is the “first Muslim President” and possibly an atheist!?? Where is the epistemology people!

If you thought that it was bad enough that half the American electorate hold beliefs that were first developed at a time, when a bicycle would appear as a masterpiece of technological creativity - it is not, just “regular folk” but Governors, Senators and, yes, Presidents. Enter stage right - Sarah Palin, or “Sarah Barracuda” former beauty queen, hockey mom and mayor of a little town no bigger than the hamlet out of Last of the Summer Wine. Palin: almost certainly will run for President in the next election. A President who is a believer in witches;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIOD5X68lIs

A liar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biD1Eh69lb8&feature=channel

A fool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg

Over the last couple of days, I have repeated to myself the infamous and rather ambiguous line of Thomas Jefferson: “I tremble for my country when I remember that God is Just”. that, is more than I can say of “God” as conceived from this video

Let me quote another famous, and somewhat abused line of Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” perhaps, in place of patriots and tyrants, we should have idiots and creationists - only joking.

Best

Mike.

Think Practically; Do Not Worry Unnecessarily.

2009-08-19T07:17:00.000-07:00

“Of things some are in or power, and others are not. In our power are opinion, movement toward a thing, desire, aversion and in a word, whatever are our own acts: not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices, and in a word, whatever are not our own acts…… remember then, that if you think the things which are by nature slavish to be free, and the things which are in the power of others to be you own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed……examine it……. If it relates to anything which is not in our power, be ready to say, that it does not concern you.

- Epictetus.

“To a great extent fatigue in such cases is due to worry, and worry could be prevented by a better philosophy of life and a little more mental discipline.” I think we could all benefit from this pity observation every now and then. An interesting exercise for the persistent worrier to undertake would be to try and calculate how much hours of his life were wasted by unnecessarily thinking and worrying. It would, no doubt, run into thousands of useless hours; hours that cannot be returned to you.

“Nothing is so exhausting as indecision and nothing is so futile” indeed, I would add that life seems to unfold by itself, irregardless of what we wish to see, or how we want it to be. Mostly it turns out for the better, only rarely, does it seem, to go bad (I’m talking about our ordinary daily wants and needs and desires) Another exercise, then, to carry out, is to reflect on all the times you worried about a possible, impending problem, as opposed to actually dealing with it, when or if, indeed, it emerged at all? So much of our time is spent in fantasy, WHAT IF, IF-THEN WHAT WILL I DO?…… We become angry and upset over things that have not happened yet; Epictetus then, was correct: he said that some things are in our power, and some things are not; concerning things under our control - we can simply do our best; think things through with the best evidence available to us - as to all else, we will just have to wait till we get more knowledge - it is beyond our power; out of our hands.

“The wise man thinks about his troubles only when there is some purpose in doing so; at other times he thinks about other things, or, if it is night, about nothing at all.” Thinking practically then, and knowing when to abandon thinking, is, I believe, a skill and a mental discipline, that can be learned. Purposeful thinking consists of: ends and goals; possibilities and opportunities; doubts and certainties; means and methods. A good person to consult on this is Edward De Bono. De Bono, who coined the phrase: “ Lateral Thinker”, offers a range of practical thinking tools to help one make decisions and think creatively. A few of his tools are: PMI, Positives, Minuses, and Interesting; EBS, Examine Both Sides; TEC, Task and Target, Expand and Explore, Contract and Conclude.

Its useful, perhaps then, to familiarize oneself with these tools; moreover, mind maps, lists, and clearly formulating the problem in writing, are skilful techinques of dealing with problems, whatever they may be. It is certainly an improvement, as opposed, to simply going round and round in unending circles of discursive thought. There are, however, a few positions we can reach by such disciplined thinking. 1. We can have sufficient reason for acting. 2 sufficient reason for believing. 3. Sufficient reason for not acting. 4. Sufficient reason for not believing. 5. Suspending judgement or action pending further information. Once, though, we have made our decision, we ought to stick with it until shown to be wrong, or so demonstrated that there is a better way of doing something. Once we have solved our problem, or done our best with it; we should then, simply retire from the thinking process.

Absorption into something helps dissipate the self: painting; exercise; long walks in the hills; golf - whatever takes you fancy. For me, I find the practice of insight mediation, enormously useful and relaxing. It many ways it can provide a template of mental discipline, and a access to serenity. This, I will be discussing in my next blog.

Best

Mike.

The Strange “Quote Mining” Case of Andrew Brown.

2009-08-17T14:19:00.000-07:00

Andrew Brown, a free lance journalist who regularly writes for the Guardian, under his “Free To Believe” blog, has perpetrated the finest (or worst) offence of quote mining I have ever seen. Quote mining: the process where you selectively quote an author or speaker for the intention of drawing a fallacious, spurious and highly tendentious conclusion. Brown has been guilty before of failing to meet basic standards of intellectual integrity and journalistic standards. He has, in particular, a real hatred for the new atheists, indeed he “despises” Sam Harris; - an example of his “writing” was when he attacked the “New Atheists” as shallow and intellectually feeble - for not containing a philosopher.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/dec/29/religion-new-atheism-defined

This, is extraordinarily misinformed - or an attempt at wilful obfuscation. Even a general reader, who is relatively aware of the “New Atheists”, would know that Daniel C Dennett - one of the four horsemen, is a trained philosopher, likewise Sam Harris, although prior to completing a PhD in Neuroscience, gained a masters from Stanford in philosophy no less, who studied under Richard Rorty no less. Just to kick a few more stilts from under Brown’s, now preciously perched argument - AC Grayling, another prominent critic of religion, is also a trained philosopher, who writes in the same paper as Brown, he must also have forgot, or neglected to mention Michel Onfray, the French philosopher, who, a number of years ago published, An Atheist Manifesto: the Case against Christianity Islam and Judaism.

I now turn to my reason for writing - Mr Brown has been up to no good again: accusing Sam Harris of “unambiguously” advocating torture. His blog is stunning for how clearly it argues (yet completely missing the point) that Harris is nothing more, than a fully signed up supporter of Dick Cheney and the War on Terror. I decided to respond; underneath I provide the comments that I posted. Judging by the amount of criticism Brown received and the amount of recommendations that my post and others like it garnered, it would seem that the majority of readers are aware of his shenanigans. It does, however, make you wonder: why do the Guardian let this kind of thing go on?

Firstly: let me quote what Mr Brown had to say; you can read his full post here -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/08/religion-atheism

The By-line reads

“Sam Harris, in his book the End of Faith, argues unambiguously for the use of torture. Why pretend otherwise?”

Now from the body of the piece -

“But Sam Harris is not a writer as gifted as Richard Dawkins. He has no talent for thought-provoking ambiguity. When I accuse him of advocating torture, I meant this as the literal interpretation of his actual words. Here are the relevant passages, from The End of Faith, with page numbers drawn from the British paperback.”

And

“So Harris believes that there are scientific ("neurological") grounds for supposing that his moral reasoning is correct and that we ought to be torturing people.”

Finally

“So, yes. I do rather think that Sam Harris can reasonably be described as a defender and advocate of torture as an instrument of policy.”

To which I responded with - (note I have requited Brown, along with a few other incriminating passages.)

To Mr Brown and to the editors of CIF (I subsequently complained to the editors of the paper)

“I Believe, indeed, I will prove, that MR Brown is engaging in intellectual dishonesty, and, perhaps, libellous activity by accusing Sam Harris of being a straightforward and “literal” advocate of torture.

He asserts that Sam Harris can reasonably be construed is a defender of Torture and an advocate of it.

So, yes. I do rather think that Sam Harris can reasonably be described as a defender and advocate of torture as an instrument of policy.

- From Mr Brown.

But Sam Harris is not a writer as gifted as Richard Dawkins. He has no talent for thought-provoking ambiguity. TheEnd of Faith , with page numbers drawn from the British paperback.

( again this would seem to imply that Sam Harris is unambiguously arguing for Torture)

So Harris believes that there are scientific ("neurological") grounds for supposing that his moral reasoning is correct and that we ought to be torturing people.

Now anyone reading this post, will, conclude that Sam Harris is calling for torture -

However

Mr Brown has neglected to quote some key conclusions that Sam Harris makes in regard torture.

….we can take refuge in the fact the paradigmatic case will almost never arise. From this perspective, adorning the machinery of our justice system with a torture provision seems both unnecessary and dangerous, as the law of unintended consequences may one day find it throwing the whole works into disarray. Because I believe the account offered above is basically sound, I believe that I have successfully argued for the use of torture in any circumstance in which we would be willing to cause collateral damage. Paradoxically, this equivalence has not made the practice of torture seem any more acceptable to me; nor has it, I trust for most readers.

Page 198 - End of Faith.

Finally on page 199 Harris has this to say.

Still, it does not seem any more acceptable (torture) in ethical terms than it did before

What are we to make of this? Mr Brown has quoted Harris at length, yet he has clearly left out the key passages and conclusions where, despite a long philosophical argument - Harris comes out against torture.

I, can only conclude that MR Brown is guilty of a very grave offence against journalistic standards and intellectual integrity. I hope to see an apology and a statement repudiating the misinformation that has be peddled here.

To finally put this to bed here is a long quote from Sam Harris himself, taken from his website - a response to controversy.

While I think that torture should remain illegal, it is not clear that having a torture provision in our laws would create as slippery a slope as many people imagine. We have a capital punishment provision, for instance, but this has not led to our killing prisoners at random because we cant control ourselves. While I am strongly opposed to capital punishment, I can readily admit that we are not suffering a total moral chaos in our society because we execute about five people every month. It is not immediately obvious that a rule about torture could not be applied with equal restraint.
It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences.
In light of this concern, the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article, The Dark Art of Interrogation. Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal, and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason. But our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it will be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator finds himself in such a circumstance, and he breaks the law, there will not be much of a will to prosecute him (and interrogators will know this). If he breaks the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to jail for a very long time (and interrogators will know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me, given the realities of our world."

Best

Michael Faulkner.
Recommended (62)

What is curious, perhaps to avoid libel, Andrew Brown trotted this, though, somewhat ambiguous, statement out later in a post

“In the totally trivial sense that he thinks we ought to do it. Apart from that, no, he's not argung for it at all.”

Posted at 8th of August 4.57 PM by Andrew Brown.

He would appear to be disowning his previous statement, where he argues that Harris unambiguously argues for torture; so i guess we can add inconsistency into the sorry mix.

I am not going to speculate on Brown’s motives, he has already stated that he loathes the “New Atheists” and “despises” Sam Harris in particular; he has, also, been a recipient of the Templeton prize - a rather notorious institution that “attempts” to reconcile religion and Science. In any case, I shall not be considering anything that Mr Brown has to say in the future, given his dishonesty or intellectual incompetence - take you pick: its either/or - or both.

Best

Michael.

Neuroscience, meditation and mind.

2009-08-17T07:46:00.000-07:00

Check out this interesting podcast from Upaya Zen centre, on the mind, neuroscience, meditation and relationships. It is described thus-

“Psychiatrist, researcher, therapist and author Dan Siegel says there is a deep truth to the question, “Who are we?” If the brain is a social organ, as Dan’s research and clinical experience show, then what does “I” mean? It takes the practice of mindfulness to dissolve the delusion of the “I” that separates and makes disharmony out of our experience. We can use the mind to change the brain.”

http://www.upaya.org/dharma/mindsight-and-personal-transformation/

Conclusion to How We are Wrong. Trying to be Right.

2009-07-11T07:01:00.000-07:00

What I will propose here is a simple mnemonic to use as a general guide. It might not get us to the truth, but it will help us on the road to it, indeed, it is especially useful in seeing our views and beliefs in context. The tool, more or less comes from Socrates himself, as it is largely based on his Socratic Method.

SEPAR

S - State your position.

E - Evidence

P - Process (how did you come to your conclusion)

A - Alternatives

R - Recap and Review.

1. State you position

What is your belief? What is it you propose? Boil your belief, thoughts or views down to the fundamentals. Come to terms (understanding precisely the use of words and language) not only with yourself but with others. This is another source of value concening this tool - it can be directed at other people. For example, rather than engage someone in an argument where you are not sure that they believe what you think they believe (the epistemic fallacy) - the use of SEPAR, then, wil make youl more likely to find out the real grounds of dispute (if there is real dispute at all).

2.E for evidence.

What evidence do you have for your views? There is, of course, a number of additional questions- what kind of evidence is required to establish such and such? What would verify or falsify the belief? How reliable is the evidence? What source did I get the evidence from? Did I uncover it myself, or did I get it from a source? How reliable then, is the source? Do they (the source) have agendas?

One final note, once again, without going into modal logic, facts should never be disputed unless for very good reason, opinions are opinions and should be treated as such. This is fundamental, but it is something that can get missed. If debate turns on the question of facts - the best thing to do is consult an expert authority or a encyclopaedia or expert text.

3. P for Process.

How did you arrive at your conclusions? Was it a long process of inquiry and discovery, or did it come in a dream say, or a spark of inspiration? Have you, though, spent considerable time pondering the issue at hand? Do you have any recognised expertise on the topic? Have you read the “required” reading in the field? Was your inquiry open-ended or did you already know the answer before you began? Did you start out with an opposite view to that which you ended with?

4. A for Alternatives.

Who opposes you views or beliefs and why? Name two authorities who disagree with you and why they do. Do you believe that you have an accurate and fair understanding of their position? Why then, do you believe they are wrong? Have you got a persuasive "error theory" as to why they are wrong? What evidence would change you mind?

5. R for Recap, Review and Recapitulate.

Pretty much says it all. Review and check your beliefs regularly. Test them and make sure they are up to snuff like a man kicking his tyres. “Seek out argument and disputation for its own sake” and as a means of testing and strengthening your position. Always ask yourself “how can I be wrong?”. Try and be as sure as you can why you think you are right.

Best

Mike.

Project Eudemonia: Accept Your Limitations and Appreciate Your Strengths

2009-07-10T07:00:00.000-07:00

“A mans gots to know his limitations”

- Harry Callahan, Magnum Force

On of they key commandments that Gretchen Rubin has on her happiness blog, is - to be Gretchen -

“But being Gretchen, and accepting my true likes and dislikes, also means that I have to face the fact that I will never visit a jazz club at midnight, or hang out in artists’ studios, or jet off to Paris for the weekend, or pack up to go fly-fishing on a spring dawn. I won’t be admired for my chic wardrobe or be appointed to a high government office. I love fortune cookies and refuse to try foie gras.”

Coming to terms with our lives, coming to terms with our fundamental dissatisfaction, our sense of dis-ease, our limitations and disappointments is, I believe, absolutely essential if we are to have clear picture, and a sound purpose of our lives. Gretchen Rubin asks herself why she is sad when she admits to herself that life will be as it is, not, necessarily as she wants it to be -

“It makes me sad for two reasons. First, it makes me sad to realize my limitations. The world offers so much!--and I am too small to appreciate it. The joke in law school was: "The curse of Yale Law School is to try to die with your options open." Which means -- at some point, you have to pursue one option, which means foreclosing other options, and to try to avoid that is crazy. Similarly, to be Gretchen means to let go of all the things that I am not -- to acknowledge what I don't encompass.”

“die with your options open”. I like that quip, it is very revealing. Living with doubt and uncertainty is a hard thing to do; likewise, having to make a decision and hence being indecisive is also hard. As my recounting of the story of Buridan's ass shows, we agonise over decisions, because we fear making mistakes, in losing out, in failing. In many ways, our lives aspire to the ideal of NPD - Non Binding Decisions. If something goes wrong we can just press the reset button, we can change ourselves, we can reverse mistakes we made in the past. We can endlessly self improve. We can change, we can attain perfection. Our lives are not perfect and we want them to be perfect. All this, I believe, is a mistake. A corrective, or a way out of this mire is to come to terms: with a sound and realistic understanding of our strengths and weaknesses - our limitations, our lives.

“But it also makes me sad because, in many ways, I wish I were different. One of my Secrets of Adulthood is “You can choose what you do, but you can’t choose what you like to do.” I have a lot of notions about what I wish I liked to do, of the subjects and occupations that I wish interested me. But it doesn’t matter what I wish I were like. I am Gretchen.

Once I realized this, I saw that this problem is quite more widespread. A person wants to teach high school, but wishes he wanted to be a banker. Or vice versa. A person has a service heart but doesn’t want to put it to use. Someone wants to be a stay-at-home mother but wishes she wanted to work; another person wants to work but wishes she wanted to be a stay-at-home mother. And it’s possible -- in fact quite easy -- to construct a life quite unrelated to our nature.”

The philosopher AC Grayling notes that human life is less than a thousand months long - so it is imperative that we live life as wisely, and as productively as possible. Productively, as in the cultivation of our strengths, skilfully pursuing our ends, enjoying life and helping other people to enjoy theirs. In many ways, this is intimately tied to my third principle: living with purpose. As Gretchen points out - a life were one does what one loves and doing what one is good at - is going to be a life more likely to be happy. “Rejoice in what you are” she advises. There is only one life, and it is the only one you are living, so live it.

There is one further proposition I wish to offer. Both Aristotle and the Buddha thought that for a happy life a person needs to cultivate excellence in what he or she does. The Buddha prescribed this for lay people wishing to lead the good life, thinking that it was important for a person to cultivate excellence in whatever his living was, both as means to feeding himself, but also for the intrinsic enjoyment of his efforts and skill. Aristotle wrote about arete or excellence. That cultivating our, and especially, harmonising our various abilities, virtues, and excellences, are central to achieving eudemonia.

I think it is, then, important to have a certain pride. Not a pride in the sense of being better than others, but a pride of overcoming weakness and acquiring skill and excellence in one or more of our endeavours. A undertaking of this kind is something that will encompass our entire lives. So I guess we should be more easier on our selves, we are only human after all - we cant do everything, and we cant get everything overnight.

So perhaps then, we should have a “downsized self”. We should be prepared to reject our delusions, our fantasies, even - many of our hopes. Coming to a clear and realistic understanding of ourselves is one of the necessary conditions for appreciating the life that we have, for we are not lost in mental thought, either cursing the present state of affairs, or engaged in some fantasy of what the future might hopefully be. This, no doubt, is not easy, living mindfully is something I try to do, not always successfully, but I try, and I’m getting better at it - and that is the main thing. Gretchen Rubin captures this sentiment well - accepting who we are in this present moment yet striving to improve - “That’s another paradox of happiness: I want to “Be Gretchen,” yet I also want to change myself for the better.”

Quotes from Gretchen at -

http://www.happiness-project.com/happiness_project/2008/10/paradoxes-of-ha.html

Best

Mike.

How we are Wrong: Part Five - The Shaming Principle.

2009-07-09T16:35:00.000-07:00

The origins of this term lie with the author Lee Harris - "the shaming code". When I first encountered this term“from the Suicide of Reason”, I must admit that I misunderstood it. I was skimming through his book on a pre-reading and read some remarks on this term, it was not the full definition however. Nevertheless, it is the misreading of it that I will be offering here; it has only a slight resemblance to the original term. It was, if you will, a serendipitous mistake.

I will now define what I mean by shaming principle. I intend this to be a psychological term that covers a spectrum of cognitive phenomena relating to experiences we have with our parents, friends and loved ones. A full understanding of this, can, perhaps, be best grasped by an example. First though, let me explore the outer edges of this issue - how people are “wrong” and how it relates to the shaming principle.

I think it can be said with some confidence, that modern education has produced a generation of men and women who are well aware of political correctness. For example, if a teenage boy were to stand up in class and say that black people are all violent or stupid, or that a womans place is in the home; he would almost certainly meet with opposition, both from teachers and fellow pupils. More importantly though, he would be well aware that he would be voicing unpopular views. It would, be fair to say that every person knows the problems with, and general repugnance, of such views. Why then, does racism and sexism continue to exist? There are many factors of course, too many to go into here, however, as I mentioned in my last post, the role that parents and social groups play in determining ones social, political and religious outlook is a very large factor indeed - one that I will be discussing here.

Many times, humanists, liberals and moderates ask themselves this question - how can people believe such nonsense? How can people hold beliefs that are without credible evidence, that are deeply immoral or, are held in the teeth of contradictory evidence? Though there are many factors that we can use to explain these misadventures; I intend to offer an specific error theory.

So, how then can children, who later grow to be adults, hold exactly the same beliefs as their parents, which, to other people seem ridiculous? I believe one of the reasons for this is shame: they do not want to feel ashamed of their parents. For example, we all love our parents, and we, to some degree value their insights and wisdom. Some of us, its true, value our parents wisdom more than others. It should also be said that there is a range of experience that our parents have a greater hold over us, some more so than others. For example, our parents are not likely to greatly influence our thinking when it comes to mathematics or musical taste, however, they are likely to exert influence, directly or indirectly, over politics, ethics and religion. These things, I should not need to say, produce very deep and powerful emotions in people. They are to many, much, much more important than, for example, what subjects one likes at school, or what music one listens to, they are, sometimes, life and death.

Here is my hypothesis: for people to admit to themselves that ones parents are wrong, or even worse, that they hold ridiculous or immoral views, would be to experience feelings of shame and guilt. Doubly so, for they experience shame, both for the fact that their parents hold beliefs that are contrary to reason or majority opinion; and, secondly, they experience shame, for the sole reason that they recognise the shame as shameful. We don’t want to think ill of our parents, and when we do (even slightly or unconsciously), its doubly troubling because that is what we are feeling - and we are not supposed to feel that.

Loyalty and love, and shame, then, are what motivates people to hold outlandish beliefs. In order to avoid the cognitive dissonance of having racist or credulous parents - we practice a method of self deception, and bad faith. There can, also, be a third way that shame operates on us: we don’t want our parents to feel ashamed of us. For example, imagine the shame of Catholic parents, in good standing with their community, having a lesbian daughter, or an atheist son. This leads to people becoming hypocrites and self deceivers, presenting one face to the world and one to themselves. Such a situation, needless to say, is not likely to make for happy men and women.

Daniel Dennett, talks about a similar "shaming" process in relation to people believing in God. Love for ones family and fear of letting loved ones down, can make people outwardly and even inwardly “believe” what is contrary to reason. Family can be a comforting and supportive institution, it can, however, be a oppressing and stultifying one. How then can we overcome this problem?

I would offer similar advice to what I gave in my last post. Namely, that the fact that we can recognise this process, that we spot this happening to us, is - liberating. Being aware of the ways that we can be manipulated (even if, in many cases its unintentional and undirected) into believing things that are ridiculous. When our consciousness is raised, when we see the conjuring tricks laid bare, when the cloak is ripped away - it is a very powerful and liberating insight. But, how do we deal with the painful experiences once we see that we do not share our parents or our friends beliefs?

What I recommend is courage and perseverance. Do not go out of your way to be deliberately provocative and hand waving, but at the same time you must be principled and steadfast in your views and opinions. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. This of course, does not mean you should be obstinate, or dogmatic, be, however, confident in what you believe, and be prepared to defend you views if necessary. This of course, offers little support for people in difficult situations. All I can offer besides sympathy is that, in the long run, it is better to live life according to ones own chosen principles than live a life that was handed down to you by your family or community. In order for a happy, honest and purposeful life, our convictions and principles must be our own. We should develop them by a long process of education and inquiry. Living a life according to ones own principles, is, in the end, refreshing and vital for ones sense of self and ones self respect. For it is impossible to have any respect for oneself if one does not believe, really believe, what one has to profess in public and pretend to believe in private.

Best

Michael.

How can we be Wrong?: Part Four - Moral Paradoxes and Cognitive Illusions.

2009-07-07T08:50:00.000-07:00

Here is a infamous thought experiment: a brother and sister decide to sleep together. They agree to do it only once, they practice safe sex; no pregnancy; and crucially, no psychological harm results from the action. They do not do it again, and no one else ever learns what they did. In what sense, then, are they morally at fault? Saying that it is legally wrong and therefore morally wrong is a fallacy. Claiming that because it’s illegal this provides a sufficient reason to oppose it, is also weak; for we can ask, why is it fundamentally wrong? Providing a religious reason, faces many of the similar problems, given the well documented problems that divine authority has faced from moral philosophers: this approach is a dead end. Deontological ethics could provide reasons, reasons, that are not substantial. Utilitarianism then, faces a huge problem: namely that no harm occurred, therefore, it falls outside its abilty to condemn it. How then, can we say this is wrong?

It disgusts us? Though this is a powerful emotion, it does not really provide a convincing reason, namely that this particular action was wrong. Here is, I think, the rub. On a more general level, the reasons why we should not practice incest are strong. However, when we get to particular cases (in this case a fictional incident) we find it hard to specifically justify it being wrong. This gap however, is not one I intend to focus on for present purposes. What I intend to discuss here, is the way our moral intuitions and initial built in “biases” can lead us astray. How - they make us go wrong. How, we just know it feels wrong but cant provide a reason as to why.

Nothing I have said or will say however, should lead you to think that moral intuitions are unimportant. They are important, vital even, but they are just that - intuitions. In the example of the incest thought experiment, there is a very sound biological reason as to why we should not engage in the practice of incest. Furthermore, it makes sense that nature would have selected for organisms who did not engage in the practice. It would also, have weeded out the beings who did engage in it. Though there are lots of examples that I could site of our intuitions going astray;(our ability to easily succumb to authority figures, social pressure, deluded by a person's likeability, our sense indebtedness to favours and so on) I will focus on just one. Namely the tribal trap: in group/out group hostility.

Forty years of scientific research and the long history of human conflict attest to the ease of which humans can be divided against each other. The problem is not just with other groups, but bullying of outsiders, and picking on the lonely individual who is different. Just recently, in my own country, we had the sad example of raciest attacks on Romanians by white supremacists. Just today, as I read the Guardian online, there was reports of ethnic and religious violence in China between two groups. The problem of the tribe and the group will be with us for a long time. What factors however, can help reduce it?

to take a micro approach, I think an enormous importance lies in the upbringing of a child, in curbing tribalism, though it is not an iron cast law: - raciest parents beget raciest children, non raciest parents beget non- raciest children. This is something I will tackle however, in my next post. So what other factors can we discuss? Firstly, as with everything, we should ask ourselves what are the facts? Do we have any reason to be frightened? Do they, the group or set of people have any reason to wish harm to me? If so, what are the options of resolving the problem? Secondly, as a general rule: we should view people as sympathetically and compassionately as possible. Imagine, if we can, circumstances from their standpoint. Thirdly: There may be real problems and disputes, however, we should ask ourselves what is the best time and place for attempting to resolve such things. We should exhaust every other avenue before attempting to resolve things by force.

Though there is many macro or societal level recommendations I could offer, I wish to stick firmly in the micro or personal. Some further recommendations I would offer, would be to become aware and vigilant when tribal or hostile feelings emerge. Bertrand Russell cautioned people, that, when they felt themselves getting angry or upset by reading or encountering something that they disagree with - they should, pay careful attention for it may expose or reveal a flaw in our thinking. Even if this is not so, we should pay careful attention, for if the emotion gets a hold on us, we may be liable to make mistakes in our ability to reason, as a fog of emotions has clouded our eyes. We should closely examine, then, every time we feel threatened and challenged, and ask ourselves - is it reasonable to feel like this?

The final recommendation I would offer: is that we learn and draw from as many sources as possible about the differences and varieties of human life. This is not an endorsement of mindless multiculturalism, far from it, for I think learning about other cultures can actually help us see what is vital and important about our culture. However, what this openness to learning and investigating can do, is leave us with a sense of the universalism of human nature. That many of the same problems and irritations that we face in our own countries are present elsewhere. That, travel and literature and foreign films, can give us a much more realistic picture of our place in the world and In the universe. That we are not special or inherently superior, and in a lot of ways, we are incredibly lucky.

Best

Mike.

Do Not Dwell or Be Introverted. Project Eudemonia, Principle Five.

2009-07-02T15:58:00.000-07:00

The famous story of Buridan's Ass- a poor old donkey, who starved to death because he could not decide which bale of straw to eat as they were both identical. I have a friend, who can on a whim, spend hundreds of pounds on electronic equipment, yet frets over which bar of chocolate to buy in the local shop. I, myself, spend far too much time attempting to decide what to have for dinner, rather than attend to the more important matters, such as the eternally pressing questions of philosophy or what to do at the weekend.

The relevance here of this fable to the topic I am currently discussing, is how wasteful, and unproductive much of our thinking is, especially when it takes the form of brooding, worrying, introspection. While my above examples are somewhat comical, there is nothing funny about being wracked with chronic indecision and worry about the more existential topics, such as death, love, money, purpose, family, friends, etc etc. Yet, even more for an obsessive thinker like myself, I would have to seriously question the value of applying all the rigour and laser like critical attention to myself and my problems. In my view, I think it is not only wasteful, but harmful, in that one is left in a worse state of mind than before.

What is to be done then? I will be discussing practical thinking in a later blog. In the meantime, however, I would like to mention two things that I have learned from Zen practice. In many ways the spirit of Zen could be neatly described as “just do it”. Charlotte Joko Beck states that “practice” (mindful attention) “is simply maintaining awareness of our activities and also of the thoughts that separate us from them.” The result of such mindfulness, would be a mind liberated from the paralyzing effects of obsessive thinking. You live in the Zen way, you live your live like making the "Zen cup of tea.” You are present in your experience, you observe and notice all the sensations and perceptions, internal and external, that arise, but, you do not become mired, caught, and lost in thought. Your activities become effortless, there is no worry, it’s as simple, as making, a cup of tea.

Best

Mike

How can we be Wrong? Part Three. Beliefs.

2009-06-30T15:38:00.000-07:00

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”

-Bertrand Russell.

Beliefs control behaviour. What we believe about the world, determines not only our actions, but our emotions, they are operative, cognitively, socially, politically and scientifically. What we believe about the world, then, is immensely important. The corollary to this then, is the importance of where we get our beliefs from, and how we form them, finally, perhaps, crucially how we change or modify beliefs. I intend to deal with where we get our beliefs from during the discussion of the Shaming Code, here I will discuss only the latter two: forming beliefs and changing them.

Beliefs, if they are to be useful or informative must, as best possible, accurately reflect reality. This would entail that one attempts to get as clear and accurate a picture of reality as possible. This means that evidence is crucial to beliefs. It should be said, that even people who harbour the craziest views and occupy the lunatic fringe of political or religious discourse, still view their beliefs as eminently rational. For example, if you were to find yourself in discussion with a 9/11 “truther” he would, no doubt, have a plethora of reasons for why it was the CIA and not Al Qaeda that flew the planes into the twin towers.

Nevertheless, we find that a good deal of our neighbours believe the preposterous. How is this so? Following on from what I wrote in the last paragraph, the idea that people always look for reasons and justifications for what they believe, would suggest, that there has been a misfiring or mistake in their attempt to ascertain reality. Robert B. Cialdini in his book Influence The Psychology of Persuasion, documents all the cognitive defects and misfirings of reason that humans are susceptive too. In short, we have a complex and vast suite of cognitive abilities and procedures that we deploy to make our way in the world. For example, we are susceptible to authority figures. Now, there is plenty of good reasons why authority is important, and why it is useful to follow experts and authorities, however, we are at risk to charlatans and hucksters, or even people who are themselves deceived of their own authority.

How then can we overcome these problems? There has probably been no other human endeavour other than science, that has systematically tried, as best possible, to eliminate bias and woolly thinking. I remember, my initial reaction when reading Richard Dawkins on the difference between the thinking styles in science and politics. Dawkins, gave the warming story of a professor who had been shown to be wrong in a theory he had held in biology by a visiting American professor. Rather than being angry or critical, he said to his young challenger “my dear fellow I have been wrong all these years.” Dawkins asks us to consider what would be the likely outcome of something like this in politics. Even if, miraculously, a politician did admit to being wrong on some policy, he would be pounced on as weak (the refuted professor’s colleagues and students clapped their hands in admiration for being magnanimous.) This was to me, a truly “consciousness raising” moment, to use a favourite phrase of Dawkins.

Tools scientists use such as experimental bias, peer review, abduction, verification and falsification, meta analyses - represent our best attempts to get a clear and untainted a picture of what’s real as possiable.

In our everyday formations and modifications of beliefs, what is important is that we keep the critical mindset, that we hold our beliefs tentatively, that they are always open to the possiabilty of change. We should, furthermore, welcome every opportunity to challenge and have challenged our beliefs, so we should as Christopher Hitchens proscribes “seek out conflict and argument”.

Following on from my last post, where I linked a video of the ten questions of Michael Shermer’s baloney detection kit, they are.

1. How reliable is the source of the claim.

2. Does the source often make similar claims? Ie lots of extraordinary, unproven, miraculous claims? Or just one or two extraordinary ones alongside perfectly ordinary ones.

3. Have the claims been verified by someone else?

4. Does the claim fit with the way the world works?

5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?

6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point.

7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?

8 Is the claimant providing positive evidence? Ie not just criticizing a position or explaining away why there is no positive evidence.

9. Does the new theory account for as much phenomena as the old theory?

10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim.

See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU

Best

Michael.

The Baloney Detection Kit From Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins.

2009-06-29T13:33:00.000-07:00

Check out this video from RDFS

Pretty good stuff when coming to judge claims and evidence and sources.

How can we be wrong? Part Two

2009-06-29T13:11:00.000-07:00

2. Prejudicial emotions.

We are continually beset by emotions that, if unchecked would make us all monsters and tyrants. Ask yourself this simple question. Whenever you encounter a stranger, someone say, who is very different to you, dresses different, talks different and acts different. What is your initial reaction? The ideal reaction from the point of view of say Buddhism and Christianity is that we love the stranger. This might be a tall order (consider a group of cracked, young teenage malcontents stumbling towards you with quizzical malevolence on their face) Liberalism, would preach a more pragmatic doctrine of tolerance or cheery indifference. So are you on this side of the equation? Or when seeing these people does your heart start to beat a little harder, your jaw tightens and cold hatred appears on your face? Malice then, runs through your veins, and the language of damnation unspools in your mind. In short, do you feel a sense of connection with people or separation?

Consequences might not seem to clearly follow from this, but consequences there are. I think it would be true to say that, many of the worlds problems is a consequence of this feeling of separation. “Some people and not others” as Jonathan Glover writes in Humanity A Moral History of the 20th Century. Some people are worthy of our respect and moral concern, and some, are not. We show an alarming disposition to divide ourselves along class, country, race, religion, politics and sexuality. For present purposes, the argument I am making - is that these emotions, visceral and sometimes subliminal and unconscious, can and do, influence and control our actions towards others, influence, and sometimes determine how we reason through abstract socio/political problems. Psychologists talk about each of us having an innate folk psychology, I would argue that we have an innate folk philosophy. It is an extension of our psychology and it influences how we think, how we deal with empirical questions, how we respond to evidence and how we decided the notorious question - What Ought to Be Done?

Consider what is (or at least appears a basic question), the answers offered, however, determines an entire philosophical and political outlook - How good are we? Do we, have for example, a natural disposition for kindness or are we inherently bad? Do social ills come from institutions and economics or human nature? Conservatism's (broadly defined) view of human nature is the tragic vision; in its more religious guise it is embodied in the doctrine of original sin. Man is inherently sinful-therefore bad. Any attempt at reforming say, institutions, economics and society is foolish and dangerous. Dangerous, for the walls that keep order(which also oppress and seperate), when torn down will unleash all the selfish, atavistic ugliness that our species is uniquely capable off. In secular conservatism, the basis, would, ironically, be Darwin’s Natural Selection. There is also another irony here, if it were not for the literalist religious folk, then Natural Selection would be seen as almost scientific proof for the doctrine of original sin or if you will, the first noble truth of Buddhism, for what, in a single word is the consequence of greed, selfishness, struggle and enmity-suffering.

Liberalism however, takes the opposite view. We are Rousseau’s noble savage. It is the institutions, it is society that has made a mess of our lives. Since the enlightenment, many of liberalisms attempts at reform and its philosophical offshoots have attempted to reform society--with consequences that are not always pretty to say the least.

There are two problems here. If the recent investigations as to how we acquire our beliefs-are being shown to be more influenced by heritability than was once thought - that conservatism and liberalism are not just political philosophies but are temperaments, and as such deeply emotional and intuitive. This indicates the problems we have of attempting rational discourse, and even claming objectivity. The second problem is really the crux: what happens when the evidence and reasons go to support one particular view and not another?

For our purposes however, what we need to do is notice whenever we are feeling hatred and anger towards people, notice it, and ask ourselves have we any good reason for it? If not, then let it pass. Even if we do, we should not let the emotion get a hold of us, we ought to examine every political and philosophical question dispassionately, as if we were counting pennies. There is plenty of opportunity to let the emotions roar, but in dealing with people we don’t like or disagree with, we ought to deal with them with the greatest care and with dispassionate, objective mindset. We, especially, ought not to allow our provincial emotions and experiences to inform how we deal with social questions. In short, we ought to think clearly, compassionately, and ask ourselves what are the facts.

Our emotions are like our muscles, we should value them, we may even think them beautiful and that life would not be worth living without them (it would, of course, not be possible either way). However, without the proper use of ones faculties we could just as easily smash someone in the face as help carry them on our backs, so to with the way we think and feel, in that our emotions and thinking can be used wisely or foolishly and hence, harmfully.

Best

Mike.

How can we be wrong? Part one.

2009-06-27T09:14:00.000-07:00

I am beginning new section on my blog, I am going to call it critical thinking. Firstly, here is something I was working on last month but never completed, its long, so I have decided to post it in sections. It comes in five parts, so I intend to put the rest up whenever I complete it.

Also for this category, I intend in the future to select OP-Eds, books, and arguments and point out the spurious and fallacious thinking behind them.

How we go wrong.

I was reading recently a short primer on Socrates, the great Athenian philosopher, or troublemaker, or intellectual messiah, and came across his famous dictum, “All I know is that I know nothing”. It got me thinking - Socrates mission, in many ways, was to expose pretenders to “Wisdom” or expertise. He did this in two ways. 1. Asking for a definition of the thing in question, backed up with appropriate examples and evidence. If this was not forthcoming, then Socrates would reject the person’s knowledge as insufficient to count as wisdom or expertise. 2. He would, by questioning and prying (unleashing the "dogs of philosophic war", as Will Durant puts it) to find contradictions or paradoxes in a person’s argument. The statement “all I know is that I know nothing” is an apparent contradiction, for he professes to know that he knows nothing. Still, this apparent flaw is explained away, which I will not go into for present purposes- Socrates challenge - is how can we acquire wisdom, and to know that we have acquired it. What is, perhaps, more important, rather, than say positive knowledge, is that knowing when we are wrong, and to know when we are likely to be making mistakes in our thinking.

So, when I woke up this morning, before trooping off to sweat it out at the gym, while still in semi-conscious awareness-these five rules of thumb came to me. So, I apologize in advance, if my thoughts seem somewhat woolly. I believe that the following five items are what commonly lead us astray in our thinking. What I will say, is, I believe, common sense. Good sense rather, as opposed to "common sense", however is what is needed, for many times, our common modes of thinking is what leads us into the misty, deceiving, smoke of unreason. I will also propose a tool, or mnemonic, to help us organize and clarify our thinking, at the end. The five ways we can be wrong are 1. Failure of understanding. 2. Prejudicial emotions, the trivium of evil- greed, hatred and fear. 3. Beliefs. 4. Moral Paradoxes. 5. The Shaming code.

Coming to terms and Common Understanding.

In my experience, the most common forms of being wrong is simply a failure of understanding. Humans uses language to convey information, both oral and written, however, because of the well known complexity of language, words and terms, (never mind the deliberate obfuscations at times of philosophers, theologians and critics.) People will dispute for no other reason other than a confusion of language and meaning. This is expressed in a simple example. Jay thinks football is the best sport, John thinks football is the best sport. Jay lives in New York and supports the Jets, and really thinks American Football is the best sport. John lives in Newcastle and supports-who else? Newcastle United and really thinks Soccer is the best sport. If this seems piddling, then consider the arguments that break out over words like- Freedom, Privacy, Government, Faith, Belief, God, Drugs, Justice, Equality, Human-Rights, Evolution, Creationism, Science, Morality. Entire books can be written, articles offered in rebuttal, and OP-Eds trotted out over, what is, or at times what can be, a confusion over meaning, terms and words. Of course, there really is at times dissent and disagreement, but real dissent can only take place when each party fully understands the other party and vice versa. This sounds simple, but the difficulty of achieving it in practice and enforcing it in principle is consistently challenging.

The consequence of this, is that, we should simply suspend judgment when we fail to understand something or don’t understand it yet. How then, can we judge competency in understanding? Mortimer J. Adler has offered three criteria for this. We can say that you are, or an author, speaker etc is informed if there is no facts, evidence or information that either contradicts what he believes or falsifies (proves to be wrong) what he holds to be true. If the obverse of this is true then you are uninformed. Of course, the facts that you do use, and the theories by which you explain the facts have to be elegant, consistent, and compelling. Now, Secondly, the author or speaker along with ourselves can either be misinformed. This is to say, that your are wrong in principle, for example, someone who believes the sun circles the earth is misinformed and uninformed. That is to say, they are wrong in principle and have not been instructed correctly. A final way of being misinformed about a subject - can also be understood as commiting the "straw man fallacy" that is, that the picture they have of an argument or position is wildly inaccurate. Thirdly, our understanding or the author, speaker etc, is not insufficient or incomplete. Strictly speaking, this is not being wrong per se, but it is a form of epistemic fallacy. I have a limited understanding of Greek history, but this knowledge would be insufficient for me to grade a paper by an undergraduate in Ancient History. Many, most, or all of my assertions and views, would likely be wrong.

So to recap, firstly, to check the soundness of our beliefs we must ask - is there any facts or information which contradict what we hold to be the case. Secondly, we must ensure that we have, as best possible, the most accurate understanding of, not only what we are contending, but also, other peoples’ positions. We must then, be sure of our facts and resources. Finally, we must ensure that our understanding is both comprehensive and sufficiently complete, in other words, our argument or analysis we must not leave out factors with are essential to the matter at hand.

It can also be in art or entertainment that we can also be wrong. I have a friend who, with me, has watched a few David Lynch films. He comments that Lynch’s films are “erratic” and “disjointed”-I view I would share. However, is this not just analysis? A descriptive comment not an evaluative judgment - I believe so. Does analytic descriptions imply evaluative judgment? My friend was using the words “erratic” and disjointed” in a negative, critical way, though I believe they are an accurate description of the use of narrative in Lynch’s films, however, it is possible for me to use the same words, and conclude, paradoxically, with a positive appraisal of Lynch’s films. Is this is a problem? No. Consider this statement. “James told Martha she was ugly and overweight”. Lets agree that Martha is ugly. Lets also agree (for the sake of argument) that James was wrong to say this. Does the fact that he said these things, imply(remember just sticking with the language itself - not the social/cultural implications of it) that he is a nasty man and was wrong to do so? No. For the reason that we could say that James is being truthful, or funny, or even that he is nasty, but so what? Our judgment,however, of James being nasty has to rely on reasons outside of the analysis which form the judgment. So for example, we may say that we don’t believe we should be nasty to people, or that we were brought up to be kind etc. (note these reasons can, too, be examined thus instigating a infinite regress, any terminator, however, we wish to use-God, Law, Expert Opinion runs into the same problem - regress.)

So, when we form opinions on art, music, novels, games, films, stories, we ought to understand the emotional and intellectual impression that the artist is trying to convey to us. Take the HBO TV drama, The Wire for example, a female culture critic watched one episode, (the pilot) and concluded that the show was sexist and derogatory to women. Has the woman even tried to come to terms of what the show was trying to convey? Did she not understand that the few depictions of women in the Pilot were not chauvinistic but realistic? (what are female strippers supposed to do in a strip club after all?) Did she not think of showing a little humility in light of the fact that she had only seen one episode-and only watched it to see what all her male colleagues were up to? Calling it great TV etc? Should she not have watched a few more episodes before writing her piece? Take anouther case - It is a cliché for example, to call Radiohead depressing. Is it really? And if it is, is this a bad thing? Perhaps ist not depressing but reflective and soulful, perhaps we should attend to the ideas the music and lyrics ponders over, before being dismissive. To appreciate, whether or not the execution of the project was skilful, incomplete, innovative, creative or not.

To sum up, we should ask ourselves-what is being said and how is it being said. What is its meaning and do I understand it? What are the reasons supplied for it? And finally, it is not uniformed, misinformed or incomplete in any key particular.

Best

Michael.

Project Eudemonia: Principle Four, Cultivate Zestful Joy.

2009-06-24T15:56:00.000-07:00

What does it mean to culivate zestful joy? Joy or happiness or eudemonia does not fall into our laps, indeed, like anything worthwhile it must be attained, effort must be expended in the conquering of it. This is the reason why Bertrand Russell called his book on the subject, The Conquest of Happiness.

Firstly though, a definition of zest. Russell, from whom I take this word, described Zest as “the most universal and distinctive mark of happy men,”. Zest, one would think, follows naturally from my last principle, living life with purpose; if for example, one has purpose, a purpose that one finds agreeable, then it is easier to have enthusiasm for it, to engage in it with a sense of enjoyment and energy. Russell gave an analogy by what he meant by the world zest, namely by describing various types of eaters, and how they have a similarity to people who view life the same way: as someone who views meals. “There are those who begin with a sound appetite, are glad of their food, eat until they have had enough, and then stop. Those who are set down before the feast of life have similar attitudes towards the good things which it offers.” this account: the healthy eater, corresponds to the man who has zest.

Zest for life can take many forms, just like life can afford many different purposes. Zest however, cannot be generated by reflection or reason, it is an emotion, a state of being, a will. How then can it be sought and maintained? The feeling of being loved, in particular sexual love, is, as Russell notes one of the chief sources of zest. The esteem of ones friends and colleagues along with a sense of self respect in the activities that one is doing is important. Having projects, aims and values are also indispensable in cultivating Zest. A further analogy to help demonstrate, is to liken zest to a engine that gives power and hence motion to a vehicle, we are the vehicle, zest is the engine, figuring out, personally, what fuel we need is like finding our purpose, one of the tasks of life.

Joy can be seen then, as the consequence of zest. In Buddhism, it is considered one of the seven factors of enlightenment. It does not take an enlightened being however, to recognise the intrinsic and extrinsic importance of this state. Not only is our attitude to life healthier, indeed, there is plenty of good evidence to think that a happy life has adaptive functions for us: namely success and wellbeing. Joy or happiness, or indeed, eudemonia - makes us shine, we are better at forming and cementing relationships, and better at deepening the ones we have already, we are better equipped, mentally and emotionally, to deal with life’s vicissitudes. I should say that joy is not some temporary, somewhat effete or vulgar experience a “joy joy click your heals” kind of happiness, it is a strength of mind. It is almost like an attitude of unconquerable hope or optimism; and an awareness of everything (all your experience) that is placed before you, and finding peace by accepting it. Joy, then, is something that is developed and deepened throughout life. The state of ecstasy, in contrast, is a high, it is a temporary from of bliss. Joy is much more stable and steady. In a marvellous book, The Experience of Insight, Joseph Goldstein writes that joy as a state can be compared to “a person walking many days in the desert, very hot and tired, dirty and thirsty. Not too far in the distance, he sees a great lake of clear water, the joy he will feel, that’s like the enlightenment factor of rapture”. Russell concludes his chapter on zest, the key chapter, perhaps, in his book, The Conquest Of Happiness, by saying “ zest is the secret of happiness and wellbeing.”

Best

Michael.

Project Eudemonia. Principle Three: Live Your Life With Purpose.

2009-06-23T15:19:00.000-07:00

“The unexamined life is not worth living” the kernel of this maxim, from Socrates, is that we choose values and principles that premise our lives, that gives us a purpose and a reason for living. Our life should, as Bertrand Russell noted “ spring from our own deep impulses and not from the accidental tastes and desires of those who happen to be our neighbours, or even our relations.” Putting it anouther way, the French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, identified, what he believed the key philosophical question: should one commit suicide? If the answer is no, then it implies that one has a reason to live. A life then, without some hope or reason for living, or some guiding purpose, would be one so open to chance, so open to the manipulations and coercions of others, that it would be a existence - “flying by the seat of its pants.” - a tumbleweed being blown by the wind.

It cannot be overestimated, then, how important it is that we find something that we love, something we are good at, and something that we can sink hours or years of our lives into. We can find purpose and pleasure in many things; figuring out what is one of them(purpose in finding purpose alas). The result then, is a stable, purposeful and worthwhile existence. Ends are important however, we should ask whether or not our lives contribute to the over all good, and that the consequences that we create do not bring about unnecessary suffering to others and to ourselves. It would also need to be stressed, that we place a not to great an emphasis on achieving specific goals; we should take pleasure in the doing more than the achieving. Finally, via Sartre, we should have as many reasons for living as possible, so, if one happens to fail us, we will not lapse into despair or futility.

Best

Michael.

The Ethics Of Rape.

2009-06-22T05:41:00.000-07:00

Introduction.

Last Sunday I happened to catch the topical debate show, The Big Questions on BBC. One of the issues being discussed was the contentious issue of whether or not a woman could be responsible for being raped. I enjoy watching a lot of these shows, not generally for their informed debate, but, for their ability to give me a good metal work out. Many times, around contentious issues, there is a real lack of clarity, important distinctions, and a inability to come to a clear understanding of words and meanings. In short, a lot of heat is generated without the corresponding benefit of light.

So I will attempt to clarify the issue, and make firm distinctions between the many confusions that people on the show made. It cannot, of course, be overestimated how much emotion and feeling entered into the debate, here I will attempt to reason as coolly and dispassionately as possible.

Here is the link to the programme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l94bm

Here is the question;

Can date rape be a woman's fault?

I intend to analyse this question through two categories. 1. Risk and Responsibility. 2 Legality. After discussing the issue through these two categories I will be able to make important definitions and distinctions in regard to the word “fault”

Risk and Responsibility

Firstly, let me ask two questions and see what answers we get. “can a woman’s behaviour or actions contribute to a greater risk of being raped?” and “are there ways of behaving responsibly that, all things being equal, limit the possibility of being raped?” Before answering these questions let me give an analogy that will prove instructive. Lets consider a scenario that is used many times in these debates. Suppose you are a man, well dressed, walking in a poor, crime ridden, unfamiliar neighbourhood, perhaps even, in a neighbourhood that is ethnically different. You are walking with an expensive phone, talking imperviously to your friend. Now ask the question: Is his behaviour contributing to a greater risk of being mugged? Is he acting responsibly? Now, I want you to hang on a moment, I think I might know what your thinking and feeling about what this seems to imply, wait, I am not implying that at all.

So, now I turn to the issue and ask, can a woman’s behaviour contribute to a greater risk of being raped? And are there ways of acting that would, as best as possible limit the chance of being raped? The answer is of course yes, one would only have to consider the amount of stay safe advertising and material promoted to raise awareness in women to stay vigilant and be safe.

Now, there is a gigantic fallacy that people fall into when seeing this conclusion. The fallacy is this, if a woman acts irresponsibly then this means that the rapist is absolved of the legal and moral consequences of the crime, or that it somehow mitigates the crime. This is TOTALLY false. Even if a well dressed man with an expensive phone is mugged in a crime ridden area, the legal and largely the moral responsibility lies with the perpetrator.

Legality

I think the source of this problem is twofold. The historical injustice around women and rape in particular, and the fallacy of equating morality with legality. I should not need to say anything on the first problem. I will say a few things on the second. Simply put, in legal proceedings there is either the reality that a crime has taken place or it has not. This is for a jury to decide. The legal consequences or to put it another way the agency lies with the accused, the causal reasons for the rape or murder or theft are in legal proceedings irrelevant.

What this means, is that legally, a woman can act as irresponsibly as she wishes and should not expect to be raped or abused, it does not diminish the criminal culpability of the offender, it gives a man no right to take advantage of a drunken woman. This naturally, should go without saying.

However, legal rights are one thing, safety and security in the real world are another.
In a perfect world, everyone should be able to act as they please provided they do harm to no one. However, this is not a perfect world, and there are many inconvenient things we have to do to ensure that we are safe.

Now I come to one final important distinction. Lets now consider fault. Legally, as I have noted, the rapist bares total legal responsibility for the crime committed. Now what about morally? Morally, once again the rapist bares the majority of the moral responsibility, but I believe the woman does, in some, but not all or most circumstances bares some moral responsibility.

Let me qualify this. Morality is not the same as legality. I believe telling lies to hurt someone immoral but it is not illegal. Some people consider sex outside of marriage immoral but again it is not illegal. The standard secular liberal definition of morality would be actions concerning the health and wellbeing of sentient creatures, hence, moral actions result in a increase or preservation of health and wellbeing while decreasing or avoiding the bringing about of harm and suffering. Two conclusions would follow from this. 1. That, as I have said the majority of the moral responsibility would rest with the rapist, as he is bringing about a huge increase in suffering and harm to someone. 2. That, in some way, if the woman has put herself at risk and behaved irresponsibly, then she has acted, in some way, immorally, in that she has brought about a unnecessary and unwelcome state of suffering through her actions.

Though I believe, these conclusions are sound, I understand that the use of the term immoral has connotations that are very much open to misinterpretation, so I think that using such words are unhelpful. To conclude, even though this has tidied up a few confusions, there is still many practical problems (ensuring more rape convictions for example) that I cannot explore fully here. In short, what is needed is greater public awareness, both among men and women, especially when it comes to the murky issue of date rape. The issue of whether or not a person is competent to give consent is a ambiguous issue, one that really needs explored with sound information disseminated to the public.

Best

Michael.

Don’t Believe Your Thoughts. Project Eudemonia Part Two: The Second Principle.

2009-06-17T15:37:00.000-07:00

Don’t believe your thoughts, is a Zen quote, that comes up time and again in the discourse of meditation. I cannot find the origins of the quote, however it probably traces back to an ancient master, maybe even Bodidarma

This neatly dovetails with the last principle I blogged on, “All is as thinking makes it so.” While the kernel of that principle recognises the fact that we can “direct the mind” as Marcus Aurelius might say, (we can view events and experiences positively, negatively, or indifferently) “don’t believe you thoughts” seems a more radical, sceptical principle.

Some qualification is needed here. What the quote means, is that when sitting in Zazen (meditation) or simply observing your mental experience, you will see that, thoughts, feelings, and judgements arise spontaneously and disappear. Thoughts start out like little seeds, at the periphery of our consciousness, they then become recognised, the seeds have now grown into weeds, more thoughts and judgments pour forth, they then envelop and entangle the mind like ivy, then we have emotional reactions to those thoughts and judgments. For example we remember someone at sometime criticizing us, either we believe what they say and get all upset about it, or we think how wrong that person is, and what all their faults are - why they are at fault etc etc. In the end we are caught up in a perpetual cycle of thought, reaction, judgment, emotion, thought, reaction ad infinitum.

Not “believing” thoughts is simply to see them as impermanent, and insubstantial. When you calm the mind in meditation you are able to see, feel, understand, that thoughts or concepts just arise, and then just fade out. You are untroubled by them, you don’t “believe” or need to follow them up with more thinking, you simply observe the thought or judgement dispassionately, and let it go on its way.

The practice of meditation is not achieving a thought free state, but being able to break our emotional attachment to the thinking process. Freedom, like I said in my last post is being free from the opinions of ourselves and others; thought is not reality, there is the world as it is and the world as we want it to be. There is a disconnect here, a kind of ought and is fallacy, when we see this fact and henceforth integrate into our lives - we will experience the liberation of non-duality. That is to say - “you don’t believe your thoughts”.

Belfast Bigotry.

2009-06-17T14:25:00.000-07:00

A sad example of raciest violence occurred in Belfast on Tuesday the 16th of June.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8105488.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/17/romanians-race-attacks-northern-ireland

In my experience, the people who harbour raciest views, and especially in this case, who will resort to violence and intimidation are from “disadvantaged backgrounds” read- unskilled, uneducated and bored young men. Northern Ireland is a still a very divided place, not only class and religion but sexuality, as Fiona noted in her OP-Ed, NI is very hostile to homosexuals. All this, is both paradoxically shocking and unsurprising.

One night, for example, as I came home from Belfast, to the little town of Comber, I saw two small posters, one was for the KKK! Yes the KKK, the wholly discredited and humiliated KKK from America in the fifties!. The other, using similar design read FUCK ISLAM. All this is very disturbing.

In my experience, these problems do seem to come from the Loyalist or Unionist side of Northern Ireland. There is a good reason why this is so, even if the people engaged in the recent attacks did so without this in mind - NI is largely a “protestant” country, most immigrants, especially from Eastern Europe are Catholic. They fear, perhaps, being swamped by Catholics. More Catholics, hence united Ireland. I doubt this is rational, nor am I confident that this is what motivates the hatred Ulster Protestants have for outsiders. The simple explanation would be hysteria, ignorance and bigotry whipped up to a crescendo by the economic downturn.

All Is As Thinking Makes It So. Project Eudemonia: The First Principle.

2009-06-17T02:53:00.000-07:00

““All is as thinking makes it so.” The retort made to Monimus the Cynic is clear enough: but clear too is the value of the saying, if one takes the kernel of it, as far as it is true.

“By This anticipation of Hamlet, Marcus (Aurelius) means that the nature and impact (for good or ill) of any external event or circumstance- all “indifferent” things - is determined solely by the rational judgement of it formed by the directing mind, not by the event itself. “Remove the judgement , and you have removed the thought “I am hurt, and the hurt itself is removed”: “If you remove your judgement of anything that seems painful, you yourself stand quite immune to pain.”

(Quoted from Mediations of Marcus Aurelius, translated by Martin Hammond, extract by Hammond.)

Stand back and objectively assess your experience, your consciousness, indeed, the entire terrain of mental life, you will find that your thoughts, judgments, opinions, are the cause of much unnecessary unhappiness and suffering. The ability to recognise this fact, and maintain a mindfulness of your thoughts - will allow you to remain free from the tumultuous vicissitudes of experience. This, is true freedom, a freedom from the opinion of others and from ourselves and our fantasies. This will allow ourselves to become less preoccupied with the ego, as Bertrand Russell and many others have pointed out, true happiness is largely built on a life less preoccupied with the self.

Project Eudemonia. Introduction

2009-06-17T02:24:00.000-07:00

Project Eudemonia

Recently, I have been reading this blog

http://www.happiness-project.com/

There is some interesting reading, and its certainly interests me, I spend a good deal of my time addressing the immortal question of “what is good?” What is the good life? What does it consist off? Is there such a thing as wisdom that can turn mental suffering or dissatisfaction into joy and contentment? How do we discover such things?

Gretchen Rubin, has inspired me to start my own happiness project, only I have decided to rename mine, Project Eudemonia. The word eudemonia comes from Greek, generally meaning well living or flourishing, a term Socrates and Aristotle would have bandied about. The dictionary on this computer defines it as “morality evaluated according to happiness: an ethical doctrine that characterizes the value of life in terms of happiness”

I will have more to say about such terms in a later post. For now, however, I wish to set out what I aim to do. As often as I can, I will post on subjects, questions, research and philosophies related to the good life. I will be exploring the conceptions of wellbeing in both an eastern and western philosophical tradition. There are however, a number of key figures that I will explore in more detail, what they taught or wrote, analysing it, and judging it as useful or otherwise for a modern contemporary life.

These figures are somewhat eclectic, they are the Buddha, Marcus Aurelius and Bertrand Russell. In the future I hope to explore more authors, but for now I will focus on these three very contrasting men.

However, first, I will post on what I wrote to be my commandments, little lines or phrases from other authors or made up by me, that I use to try and ground myself with some values and foundations, that I live my life by.

Why there is no refuge from politics.

2009-06-10T07:51:00.000-07:00

Last year I wrote a post--Why Politics Sucks.

http://theyoungcontrarian.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-politics-sucks-in-2008.html

One year on, I reconsider my views.

Christopher Hitchens in the introductory essay to Love, Poverty and War, states that there is no refuge from politics; even a life hermitically devoted to poetry, music and literature will have the cruel wind of the world intrude. A few weeks ago, I was asked, why study politics? I replied that everything about our lives is, essentially, political. That, every time you criticise someone’s actions or some social policy or promulgate some ought - “I believe we need to cut teenage pregnancy” “We need more jobs for British people” you are engaged, whether you know it or not. in politics. An interest in politics, is, probably, an interes, or a concern with power. Those who wish to change the world, or keep it the same, want implicitly or explicitly power. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, people who do not desire power or who are indifferent to their fellow man, are either mystics or lunatics. The Ancient Greeks had a name for persons not interested in public affairs--they called them idiots or idiotes

So, me being a very opinionated person, apt to criticise his fellow man, and equally willing to instruct him in matters political, ethical and religious, it is no surprise then that I have a interest in politics. However, it is an ambivalent relationship. I have no real interest in the grind of daily politics, or in politicians themselves. I prefer ideas, big ones, many of which were first thought and argued over by the Greeks, but mere contemplation and disputation of ideas without practical resolutions is vacuous and, ultimately, pointless.

Last August I decided to attend University. It was not a easy decision, however, the degree I signed up for was rather easy to choose. Why? In many ways, I am committed to a rather old fashioned idea of an educated gentleman: - one who educates himself in as many matters as possible, literature, culture, science and history. For me to have selected either a English degree or a science degree would have, I felt, limited me. That of course, does not mean to say that there will be no specialisation or hair splitting distinctions and arcane terminology in the degree I chose, indeed, far from it.

One of the issues I am interested in is the relationship between politics and science. For me there needs to be more of the scientific mindset in politics: a politics more clearly based upon empirical fact rather than feeling or intuition, and what the press wish. So, studying politics, perhaps, allows me to think and address these questions with greater freedom. I should say I wished to do a joint degree in philosophy, but could not because of clashing timetables, to digress a little, I believe in the Russell/empirical/ Quine model of philosophy as a extension of the natural sciences. That good philosophy be science enabling and science extending, for me, personally, I believe that philosophy can play the valuable role of midwife to a new politics, one based on reason, science and empirical research.

Economic Meltdown

What a year in politics it has been! Many time I said to myself, that this is my political baptism. Firstly there was and is the economic meltdown. I know little of economics, an ignorance I intend to rectify. It would seem, that economic reform will be the dominant theme of the next decade, after global warming and Islamic fundamentalism.

Palin, Obama and the US culture wars.

I don’t know which is more important or surprising, the election of a black US President or the Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin-- fundamentalist Christian and conservative darling. The culture war in America was especially virulent during the election, taking on an almost hypnotic pornographic quality. A major question that is occupying my mind - is the election of Obama a blip? Will Palin come to symbolise the America future? Fascinating questions, my suspicion is that we have not heard the last of Palin

Israel and Gaza

The Israeli bombardment of Gaza was in many ways a pivotal moment. I have always been interested in this dispute, now over 60 years running. It is in many ways a ground zero of all the ways humanity can go wrong. I am not, like so many liberals or leftists, (indeed I repudiate such terminology for myself,) “hostile” to Israel. I put hostile in quotation marks for it is a blatant understatement of the rancour, hatred and sheer lunacy of writing, opinion, and hand wringing over Israel. I do not have space to fully itemize or explore this issue, but the commentary, opinion and news reportage by the Guardian, BBC and other left/liberal magazines and writers was shockingly misinformed, wildly irrational and borderline anti-Semitic. This is a issue that is, and will be endlessly fascinating.

Pakistan, Iran and Islam

Islam exploded onto the world scene (or the western scene) on 9/11, this issue is, perhaps, in my top three interests. I have been following Islam in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Europe for the past several years. This is going to be, I believe, the number one political issue after global warming. Among the man questions that need exploring and answering: - are the West and Islam locked in a clash of civilisations? Can Islam reconcile itself to secular modernity? If there is a clash, who will win? Who is better equipped to win? Will Pakistan go under a Taliban like rule? Will Iran modernise? What role will British and European Muslims carve out for themselves?

Political reform and the Expense Scandal.

Returning to domestic politics, everyone is engaged in the expenses scandal, and Gordon Brown’s woeful reputation in the country. I prefer to look deeper, there is chance for some real reform--but will it happen? I don’t want a conservative government, but it seems inevitable if Brown stays. The only party that seems committed to the kind of reform I want to see is the liberal democrats, slim chance of them getting power however, though, a partnership with labour if a hung parliament results from the General election is possible.

What is needed

It has been a tumultuous year, not just for me but for politics in general, politics may “suck” but there is no escaping from it. Humans today have enormous power, we are in a position to influence and control events that no group of humans before us ever conceived possible. I believe that the enlightenment hope of a better world (one that has come under sustained attack) is a project that needs to be fought for and extended. We need to continually break down the barriers of division and irrationality, to grow the moral circle, and to educate and improve ourselves. We need greater international co-operation, a world government, a properly armed UN with a mandate to intervene in cases of genocide and mass murder. A commitment to extending and developing global human rights, social justice and the eradication of poverty. A universal education and politics based on reason, in short, enlightened cosmopolitism.

Best

Mike.

Meeting David Simon.

2009-06-09T06:42:00.000-07:00

Meeting David Simon.

Last Sunday I attended a book signing and a Q and A by David Simon, Journalist, writer, filmmaker, AKA the creator of the Wire and Generation Kill.

The event was held at Ulster hall Belfast, sponsored by the Guardian. It was part of the 2009 Hay festival. I thought my friend was pulling my leg when he sent me a text saying that David Simon was coming to Belfast. Though, sure enough, when I checked online, it did indeed say he was going to be in the City of yours truly, a great opportunity to meet the man himself.

The Wire is, the best Television show I have seen, belonging to the same elite rank of shows that came out of HBO in its hayday. Simon is no one trick pony, though, his book-Homicide a year on the killing streets, is a masterpiece of crime reporting, subsequently made into the long running TV show of the same name. Working as a Baltimore city crime reporter, especially spending a year observing the homicide unit, give Simon the necessary experience and material that would form his future career. Fans of the Wire will instantly recognise many characters, jokes and situations, from the book that made it into the HBO show.

It was not just experience and material from working in the homicide unit that helped Simon, it was where he forged the partnership with ED Burns (former police detective and teacher) the Co -creator of both The Wire, The Corner, and Generation Kill. Simon was clear on this point, Ed Burns along with three or four of the top key writers were crucial to the brilliance of the show. In this sense, the Wire is a fascinating case study in so called authorship, or auteurship. What is especially brilliant about the Wire (the same could be said for “his” other shows) is that it really is a team effort. Not only that, the majority of the writers, and this is especially true of the two main creators, have worked, lived and breathed in the environments they portrayed. This is a stark difference to what is the norm of the film/TV industry. This difference is especially apt when compared to David Chase--the creator of the Sopranos.

I was not able to ask how important this aspect was to the success of the Wire and The Corner, but I think that it cannot be overstated. In many ways this makes the Wire one of a kind: a brilliant multi layered narrative, that contains a tremendous amount of anger and social criticism. I do not expect a show like the Wire to come along again anytime soon.

My friends and I arrived towards the end of the book signing, I was not expecting much of a crowd, to my surprise though, the cue for signing was end to end (I just about got my original copy of Homicide signed) Even more surprising, was when I looked around at a packed Ulster hall to see a more or less full house of several hundred people.

My Homicide book now reads “To Michael, its all in the game, David Simon”. I got a laugh from both Simon and his PA, “that’s good, original”. I made some small talk with Simon, telling him how much me and my friends appreciated his show. I mentioned that his book was probably my favourite book in the field of journalism, comparing it to Michael Herr’s Dispatches ( Herr’s account of being embedded among the US armed forces during the Vietnam War.) he agreed saying he had a lot of time for that book. And that was that.

During the Q and A, Simon came across self deprecating, funny and articulate. He knows what he’s talking about without an air of intellectualism or elitism, the kinda guy who pollsters like to say “you could have a drink with”. We were sitting near the back of the hall and, at times, his soft, rolling, Baltimorean accent was hard to pick up at.

A taste of some of his opinions.

He thinks Obama has a good handle on what he is doing, though he doubts that any real progress will be made, ie drug reform, inner city schools etc.

It was revealed that in Season 3, where they were shooting a scene in a gay bar, a previously considered heterosexual character was to be shown - the writers quickly settled on Rawls-the “anal” stats obsessed Deputy Director. This got huge laughs from the audience, especially, as Simon noted, Rawls had been spouting homoerotic references and sexually suggestive remarks throughout the seasons. The funniest was his reply to Daniels in season two, Daniels - “I need McNulty” Rawls - “I need an extra 3 inches of meat-aint going happen”.

He responded to the question of why he killed of the likes of Stringer, Omar and Prop Joe by referencing the Greeks, Greek tragedy and Antigone. “ these characters aren’t going to change, they aren’t going to go into therapy or get a real job”.

He revealed how surprising it was for him to see how successful the show became. He quipped that he did not expect the show to be understood in Philadelphia never mind London, Belfast, Amsterdam etc. He was also, once again, full of praise for HBO. He confirmed an idea I had while reacting to the end of Season 3. Season 3 was meant to be the end of the show. By this time, everyone knew that the Wire was not going to become a commercial success. Simon went to HBO, told them his ideas for season four and five, and, they agreed. He quoted a huge number, maybe four million that HBO could have used creating two new shows, which could have been money makers, but they decided to stick with the Wire. This display of gratitude on the part of Simon was sincere, he has been know to harbour grudges and has been publicly vocal in his criticism of people (the editors of the Baltimore Sun for example), so it was a suprise to hear him giving his due.

Simon explained that when he and Ed Burns were working on the Corner, they wanted to detail all the socio-political factors that created the malaise and arguments they had realized living and working in Baltimore, they could not show this in the personal and microscopic Corner. The Wire then, was conceived as a panoramic response to this.

I asked Simon an out and out political question. I wanted to get him on record over his views of drug criminalization. “ I have a simple question, do you support drug decriminalization and if so how should it be implemented, and what consequences good and bad are likely to flow from this?”.

Simon was surprisingly candid and forceful (as usual) in his response. He believes it should be legalised, his reasons are that the war has failed, it has created failed societies and has essentially became a war on the American underclass. He cites that US prisons lock up legions of non-violent criminals and carry out early release for violent criminals to make way for drug convicts. He makes an interesting point concerning the image, perception and terminology of the use of the term war “War on Drugs”. He says that when fighting a war, you create an enemy, in order to perpetuate that idea of an enemy you essentially have to stir up hatred, you have to demonise them and stereotype them. Simon asserts, that this is what has happed to the underclass of which the black underclass make up a large proportion.

In terms of consequences, he envisions that the violence and gang culture would drop off, police would go back to real policing, communities would not be torn apart. He says the risks would be that slightly more middle class children are likely to become addicts. I, myself, support drug decimalization, believing it to be the only sensible policy we can do to fix the mess that The Wire documents. However, its highly unlikely we will see any progress on this issue.

One final observation, this time on the audience. I cannot help but notice that the overwhelming amount of people who attend the event were from the upper middle class. Indeed, the Guardian: darling of liberal left middle class did much to promote The Wire in the UK. How many people from the kinds of backgrounds that the Wire portrays are aware of the show? Did any of the people in attendance intend to take a greater political interest: in political reform and social justice? There is a kind of irony here, The Wire is down and dirty, dealing with many characters and situations that mainstream society does not want to look at, yet it is predominantly watched by people, in comfortable homes and jobs, from the kinds of places that Bubbles gazes vacantly at when he is accompanying McNulty to his kids soccer game.

Best

Michael.

What Obama can and cannot say. Reactions to his Cairo speech.

2009-06-05T08:51:00.000-07:00

The reactions to US President Barack Obama has left me somewhat perplexed and baffled. Perplexed as to what they (the liberal and Muslim commentators) expect of America and likewise of Islam, and baffled as to the sloppy moral equivalence, inaccuracy, and chronic myopia of the writers. That of course, is not to say that I found the speech profound, persuasive or likely to mark a new rapprochement in the West’s relationship with Islam, on the contrary if anything its likely to make the extremists more determined (As America does not have the stomach for a fight--what Bin Laden predicted) and the more moderate Muslims will remain defiantly sceptical.

I want you to pause over the sentence. “ West’s relationship with Islam”, Obama in his speech mentioned repeatedly the US relationship with Islam. This is curious terminology. Is it not suggestive, that, on one hand we have a President of a sovereign nation entering into dialogue with a single, monolithic and monotheist religion? (never mind all the factionalism and irredentist, ethno-chauvinist tribalism).

Indeed, During the cold war, no President ever talked of our relationship with Marxism or communism, or our need to reach out to the communist world. The fact that a democratically elected politician, a secularist, and a liberal would frame such a rapprochement in these terms is already begging the question of the gulf between Islam and America and of course the West. Obama’s speech is covertly giving credence to Samuel Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilizations model. That is, the Americans and Europeans identify themselves in political and national terms not religiously or in terms of race. Our values are ultimately democracy, Human rights, freedom and liberty. Muslims, do not see themselves in such terms, they define themselves religiously. For them no authority is greater than God, society is to be governed by Sharia law, and concern for fellow Muslims trumps concerns for other non Muslims. Needless to say, this, is a problem, and it will continue to be a problem for the demands the Muslim world will make on us, are not likely to be political, social or economic, but religious.

Obama’s speech was, though, politically excellent, but historically naive, factually inaccurate, and morally dubious. This is a strange feature of our discourse, especially when it comes to Islam. That is, the perfect acceptance of lying when it comes to this subject. Imagine the world reaction if Obama has of said this--

“On September 11, America was awakened to the fact that it is deeply hated and resented in the world. That this hatred and resentment is, in large measure irrational and unjustified. America woke up to the fact that there are millions of people in the world who think it is perfectly acceptable to use violence in the name of God. America was starkly awakened and reminded, that the end of history has not been reached, that secular democracy, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience, the values that our forefathers fought so hard to achieve and maintain are not shared by most of the world. But, America, was not alone in being awakened, the rest of the world was awakened, awakened to witness the failure of Islam. Its failure to adapt to modernity, its failure to undergo an enlightenment, failure to progress, to commit itself to universal education, equality for women and respect and tolerance for non-Muslims. Islam, as it is practiced today, cannot continue, it is not only in America’s best interest but the world interest that Islam undergoes a radical process of change.”

Pie in the sky? Riots in the streets? Death to America? Probably, what I wrote above, is I believe, a honest assessment of our relationship with Islam, but to utter such words would entail political suicide and most likely a violent reaction. I am sceptical that Obama’s speech will do anything of substance. However, caveats aside, he was right to do this speech. Why? Because I think no other President and no other President for the long conceivable future has a hope of repairing America’s “tarnished” image in the world. So, while the make nice policy will quickly go down the drain, if America is attacked, the Israel-Palestine conflict rolls on, or Iran gets the bomb or another riot breaks out in the lands of Islam over a cartoon, a comic or a book. In short, we await the next terror attack, the next Muslim riot, and the next example of western liberal masochism as it censors or refuses to publish some author on the subject of Islam.

Now as to the commentators.

Consider what Ahdaf Soueif an Egyptian short story writer, novelist and political and cultural commentator had to say…

“There is a difference between believing that ultimately the interests of the inhabitants of the planet are genuinely interconnected and believing that the interests of the world can be made to seem compatible with America's. Obama has said that America should have not only the power but the moral standing to lead the world. Today we waited for him to demonstrate that moral standing and assume the leadership of the world. He did not; he remained the President of the United States.”

This is rich considering that state of Egyptian democracy and Human rights records. More ironic, is that this is the birthplace of Sayid Qutub the intellectual grandfather to Al Qaeda and birthplace to AQ number two Ayman Al Zawahiri.

Here is Ali Abunimah a Palestinian working in Washington for a 1 state solution to the problem with Israel.

On Palestinian dislocation and what Obama could not say.

“Suffered in pursuit of a homeland? The pain of dislocation? They already had a homeland. They suffered from being ethnically cleansed and dispossessed of it and prevented from returning on the grounds that they are from the wrong ethno-national group. Why is that still so hard to say?”

Perhaps this, and I will be boringly unoriginal here--is simply not true.

And on the origins of Muslim terrorism.

“It was disappointing that Obama recycled his predecessor's notion that "violent extremism" exists in a vacuum, unrelated to America's (and its proxies') exponentially greater use of violence before and after September 11, 2001. He dwelled on the "enormous trauma" done to the US when almost 3,000 people were killed that day, but spoke not one word about the hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows left in Iraq – those whom Muntazer al-Zaidi's flying shoe forced Americans to remember only for a few seconds last year. He ignored the dozens of civilians who die each week in the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, or the millions of refugees fleeing the US-invoked escalation in Pakistan.”

A short counter to would be to remember what author of Terror and Liberalism Paul Berman and Islamic historian Bernard Lewis had to say on America relationship to Islam prior 9/11. That no other country has done more to help Muslims, from expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, helping, if belatedly, the Albanian Muslims and Muslims of Kosovo from the tyrant Milosevic. To all the aid we send Pakistan, the help we sent Afghanis over a clear example of imperialism--the Soviet invasion. never mind all the patience and time and money spent over the Israel-Palestine conflict, and all the navel gazing and masochism that followed the 9/11 attacks. But, Perhaps, as Sam Harris wryly notes this is just another contribution to “Muslim humiliation”.

It was not just Middle east writers who were expecting some kind of apology from Obama, Robert Fish was at it.

“There was no mention – during or after his kindly excoriation of Iran – of Israel's estimated 264 nuclear warheads. He admonished the Palestinians for their violence – for "shooting rockets at sleeping children or blowing up old women in a bus". But there was no mention of Israel's violence in Gaza, just of the "continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza". Nor was there a mention of Israel's bombing of civilians in Lebanon, of its repeated invasions of Lebanon (17,500 dead in the 1982 invasion alone). Obama told Muslims not to live in the past, but cut the Israelis out of this.”

For a man who is sending thousands more US troops into Afghanistan – a certain disaster-to-come in the eyes of Arabs and Westerners – there was something brazen about all this. When he talked about the debt that all Westerners owed to Islam – the "light of learning" in Andalusia, algebra, the magnetic compass, religious tolerance, it was like a cat being gently stroked before a visit to the vet. And the vet, of course, lectured the Muslims on the dangers of extremism.”

Consider the more measured NYT columnist David Brooks who had this to say.

“In the Obama narrative, each side has been equally victimized by history, each side has legitimate grievances and each side has duties to perform. To construct this new Middle East narrative, Obama strung together some hard truths, historical distortions, eloquent appeals and strained moral equivalencies.”

“The president’s critics complained on Thursday about Obama’s distortions: The plight of the Palestinians is not really comparable to the plight of former slaves in the American South. The Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 was not really a glorious example of Muslim-American cooperation, but was a failed effort to use bribery to stop piracy.

“But this is diplomacy, not scholarship. Obama was using this speech to show empathy and respect. He was asking people in different Muslim communities to give the U.S. a new look and a fresh hearing. He was showing people in a region besotted with tiresome hysterics how to talk to one another with understanding and dignity.”

For once I seem to be in agreement with the Republicans and the conservatives (as to the truth of the speech not the political necessity) on this issue.

The Republican Jewish Coalition offered faint praise for the balance the group said Obama struck between the interests of Israel and the Palestinians.

"We urge President Obama to return to the policy of holding the security of Israel as a key American priority and requiring significant, concrete, and verifiable moves toward peace from the Palestinian side," executive director Matthew Brooks said in a statement.

Rachel Abrams wrote on the website of the conservative magazine Weekly Standard: "His greatest portion of criticism was reserved for the only nation in that otherwise benighted region that actually does believe in human rights and practices democracy, namely Israel."

Robert Spencer, a rightwing critic of Islam, said Obama had failed to confront Muslims with the words and actions of violent extremists like al-Qaida among his "platitudes and naivete".

"He assumes that it is his responsibility, and America's, to dispel mistrust that Muslims feel for the West," Spencer wrote.

Radio talk show host and former Reagan aide Hugh Hewitt, wrote that the speech was "deeply dishonest in its omissions".

The conservatives are right as to substance, but as I have said, there is no other President who has a chance of trying to overturn America’s image as an evil country.

Best

Mike

Quoted from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-cairo-speech-republicans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/barack-obama-cairo

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-middleeast

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/obama-islam-speech-analysis

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-words-that-could-heal-wounds-of-centuries-1697417.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-usborne-president-stings-israel-with-swipe-at-settlements-1697327.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05brooks.html?ref=opinion

The Cartesian Circle and The Clockwork Orange Paradox.

2009-06-05T06:44:00.000-07:00

It was Rene Descartes who coined “Cognito ergo sum” -”I am thinking therefore I exist” or more popularly “I think therefore I am”.

What Descartes is trying to prove is that there is a Élan Vital, A soul, a metaphysical essence that exists as a separate entity from the body. This is known commonly as Dualism. Descartes’ reason for this was to establish firm knowledge. Without going into too much detail, he needed to prove God existed, as a guarantor of firm knowledge. So, his taking up of Dualism was part of a long argument to establish that we can have firm knowledge.

I will first discuss some context before considering whether or not this idea has been proved. The origins of the doctrine of Dualism, generally, traces back to ancient Greece. More specifically to the religion of Orphism. Orphism held that humans have souls, that Transmigrated after death, presumably into other human beings. Pythagoras, I believe, was a member or at least followed this religion. He further elaborated on the idea of a soul, as timeless, eternal and otherworldly. Plato was greatly influenced by Pythagoras , and in turn greatly influenced Christianity and the early church thinkers.

It would seem that most cultures have this idea of a soul, however, (ie there is a “real me” behind my eyes ). The other day I read an anecdote concerning an African tribal custom. When two tribes were in dialogue with one another, they would send a emissary to walk from village to village, when the emissary arrived he would take the rest of the day to rest, (he had, perhaps, only walked a few miles) the reason was to let his soul catch up (imagine what our lives would be like if we believed this!)

There is one major world religion or philosophical tradition that differs on this issue, and that is Buddhism. There is, however, a contradiction lurking within Buddhist thought. Buddhism posits no soul, or Atman. There is no thinker behind the thoughts, no seer who sees. Thoughts are impermanent and insubstantial. At first look this would mightily disagree with Descartes, Christianity and our common sense, indeed it does. However, there is a problem. If there is no soul, no distinct self, then what about Nirvana? (The idea of souls or essences transmigrating) It would appear that Buddhism has contradicted itself before it’s even tied its shoes. This does seem to be the case, but, Buddhism was influenced by Brahmanism (which believe in a soul) and, probably, picked up the Nirvana idea from them. It would seem that the Nirvana idea was grafted onto Buddha’s thought and hence Buddhist theology. As Laplace would say “it works fine without that assumption”.

Buddhism, however, is unique, fantastically so, in recognising that there is no “Ghost in the Machine”. I might be begging the argument here, but the vast majority of philosophers and scientists especially scientists working on the brain reject Dualism. Why? Well for Buddhists they argue that thoughts and feelings are generated by a process of cause and effect. The way our language, cognitive perception and emotions operate-- producing a by-product- an impression of a self. This self or ego is really a response to fear, hatred and desire. Thoughts come up and we latch onto them believing thoughts or impressions as expressing our true selves (little homunculi in the brain or the soul.). Buddhism, however, sees these thoughts as empty, they appear and then dissipate. Buddhists see this process in meditation and claim to be able to be free from the prison of thought by attaining enlightenment. So, rather than saying “I am angry, and I am angry at him” they frame it “this body is experiencing anger, and it is experiencing anger by my expectations of how this person should behave.” In short, a famous saying in Zen is “don’t believe your thoughts they are not real”.

There are a few notable exceptions. The Stoics had a similar belief to the Buddhists. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, seemed to have transcended dualism, Hume’s “bundle theory”. I believe in short, that Hume believed that we notice impressions, “thoughts, feelings, sensations” but it is superfluous to put forward that there is someone who is experiencing the sensation. Ie there is simply the impression without the added thought that it is happening to someone.

The problems with the theory of Cartesian Dualism.

The problems with the Cartesian theory are. 1. It is circler. If there is someone or something who resides in the brain that is watching, who watches it? 2. Casper the friendly ghost paradox. Ever wonder how Casper is able to both fly through walls and hold sticks of wood in his hand? Neither do I. Descartes holds that the soul is immaterial, but how does immaterial interact with the material while staying immaterial? This paradox leads me to. 3. Where is the captain of our ship? Where is the soul? Where is the part of the brain that houses the place where I think? Where does the élan vital reside? I am reminded of the joke Douglas Adams made. A modern day scientist explains to someone from the past how a TV works. He opens it, showing that there is no “little men” inside. He explains how the TV works, but in the end the man says “there is probably still a few little men in there”. This leads me to- 4. Redundancy. Most, if not all, brain scientists explain the workings of the brain, and hence our sense of selves in purely material and naturalistic terms. Bringing up Laplace, again,--we don’t need that hypothesis. Leibniz in response to Descartes, conceived of the brain like a barn with lots of different machinery and processes, taken together they produced an effect--the impression of a self. Nowhere though, could any person point and say “there is where I reside, this is the part of the brain which makes me a person”.

Most people, reading this, will probably conclude that this is a lot of sceptical nonsense. And in one way they are right. This calls for a good error theory. Ludwig Wittgenstein was asked how could so many people be wrong about the earth rotating the sun. His famous reply was well how would it look if the earth was rotating the sun?

In terms of our everyday interaction with people, we perceive people (and animals) as agents. Agents that want something, that have goals, aspirations and beliefs. They are agents with intention, they also show regular features. Ie personality “I don’t like coffee, and tennis is my favourite sport I play it every Saturday” and memory “I remember when we were all at school, I was a quiet lad and did not get into trouble.” Rocks don’t have intentions nor do they have memories, hence we don’t think they have selves and hence we can throw them about with abandon (hopefully not near windows alas).

I am a self. To clarify this, I mean I am a person who has unique personality and memories different from other people. This is a perfectly fine definition. The problem is when we start to go in search on where this SELF IS. We will not find it, its not there. So its not I think therefore I exists, its rather I exist therefore I think.

If we define personhood in terms of unique personal experience and memories. Then it follows that, if we alter and remove those features that make a person a person or a human body a unique individual then that person is no longer the same person.

Lets say we have X, and A and B constitute X necessarily and sufficiently. If we remove A and B then X is no longer X. lets say we want X to be Z, and factors D and E make up Z. So if we implant D and E into the entity that was X then it becomes Z.

Who cares? Well this is a potential problem. Lets call it the Clockwork Orange Paradox.

Imagine that Science can do this. Science can alter memories and personality. Imagine then, that child rapists and murders can be changed in this way. Their memories of the crime, and the personalities and life experiences that led them to commit the crimes have been altered. So, the person is no longer guilty of the crime and is free to carry on a new life.

I am sure you feel uneasy at this possibility (such possibilities are not that fanciful). And there is good reasons to oppose such an idea. However, logically and empirically it would be true that the person (the child killer) no longer exists, but this is counterintuitive to the very innate ideas we have of personhood (souls and invisible essences and so on.) So to clarify, we have reached a “repugnant conclusion”. A conclusion that, although justified rationally, is still offensive, disgusting, or “repugnant” to our emotions or perceptions.

Best

Michael.

Political Reform

2009-05-22T05:14:00.000-07:00

Suggestions and ideas.

Institutional reform.

1. A written constitution, laying out several key themes. A. Greater and transparent separation of powers between the three branches of government. Judiciary, Executive and Legislature. B. Enshrinement of political and civil rights and liberties (in accordance with the UNDHR). C. The creation of a Secular state, the division of the private and public realm. D The winding down of the monarchy and creation of a Constitutional Republic.

2. Directly elected leader, President or PM. All people, (now citizens) given a vote in helping to decide who leads the country, no longer a cabal of politicians decide who runs the country.

3. An Elected house of Lords, with greater diversity and expertise.

4. The ability for a leader to form a cross party, cross ideological Executive.

5. A greater emphasis on evidence based polices, independent committees and policy tanks should have greater say in policy making, leaders should not be able, to a far lesser extent, pander or be bullied by special interest groups, or ignorant and divisive groups in society.

6. A complete end to political donations by private individuals and corporations. At the very least it should be limited and clearly transparent.

7. Greater freedom for parliamentarians to vote on policy.

8. More debate and scrutiny for the executive proposals in the house of Parliament.

9. During election periods there should be US style presidential debates.

Secular state.

1. A truly secular state, no religious test for office, political or social polices must be secular and empirical based.

2. State no longer supports the Church of England as the state religion.

3. The slow, and controlled end to faith schools. However religious education should continue in schools but with a greater focus on teaching world religions, histories, doctrines and differences.

4. The Secular Islam project. Prominent Intellectuals, Muslim scholars, community leaders, debating and exploring and recommending how to reconcile Islam to modernity, promote understanding and awareness of Islam, with an aim to trigger a reformation within the British Muslim community to serve as a possible example to the rest of the world.

Education

Education I believe should consist of three key things.

1. Economic success and wellbeing. Giving children a understanding in finance, and financial prudence. Training for the job world, how to undergo successful interviews, write a CV, how to communicate and team lead etc. In short more emphasis on practical tools and abilities that will help with the world of work.

2. Emotional wellbeing. A greater emphasis on sexual and relationship advice. Effective parenting. Coping with stress and mental health awareness. A more open ended and discursive exploration of the ends and values of human life.

3. Creative and critical thinking. We should turn our children into little Socrates. How to think clearly and for themselves. Grater emphasis should be placed on the attempt to develop creative or artistic impulses in children and young people. This is not for economic interests, though it could be, its more for private interest, to develop a sense of self and self-esteem.

Social Policy

1. The age of legal Alcohol drinking should be raised to 21, there should also be a higher tax on Alcohol.

2. (this now might sound comically paradoxical). There should be tentative and experimental steps to end drug criminalisation. This should initially apply say to Cannabis, MDMA, LSD but in theory could apply to much harder drugs such as Heroin and Cocaine. Any policy should be rigorously evidenced bases, reform should be piecemeal and the results should be studied intensely.

3. Prisons reform. Initially, for less serious first time offences, there should be emphasis on personal discipline, education and addressing mental health problems of offenders (many of them do). for serious and second time offenders, Prisons should be run like Military boot camps and then with the re-education elements. In short prisons should be for both punitive purposes, but, mostly for reform purposes(in cases where this is possible.)

4. The Civilisation Project. Civic centres that are the centre of public life. In short a secular, non-dogmatic, non-intolerant alternative to the role that religion functions in society. It should be committed to a wide number of activities and engagements. Local charity work, activities for young people, social networking areas for the elderly and retired. A commitment to providing information and spaces for public debate on politics, events and values. I believe it should also attempt to address peoples social, emotional and spiritual needs. (I cant go into the details here unfortunately)

5. Tax breaks and incentives for married couples, greater access for Grandparents to their grandchildren. Tax breaks and encouragements for women who have children later in life.

6. Incentives and rewards for people who do not use private health care and have not used the NHS in relations to diseases and illness relating to smoking, binge drinking and over eating. Purpose is to save money and to encourage health and wellbeing among people.

7. Greater Tax on corporations and individuals earning over 100,000 a year. A Euro/word-wide co-operation should be set up to prevent corporations from avoiding the paying of tax.

8. Greater improvement in Public transport, low-income earners should travel for free when work related.

9. More freedom for individuals to choose their working hours, greater flexibility for both mothers and fathers to look after young children.

Best

Mike

Remembering JG Ballard.

2009-04-20T15:24:00.000-07:00

JG Ballard, an author I have admired for long time, has died, after a long battle with illness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/apr/19/jg-ballard-obituary

I first discovered JG Ballard when I was 18, the first book I read was Millennium People (one of his best, I believe). I’m trying to remember what, exactly, it was that lead me to him, for sure I had seen and read Fight Club before discovering him (a book that would not have existed without Ballard) I was also listening to Radiohead at the time, (who have acknowledged an influence,-- the milieu and mood of OK Computer is very Ballardian). I would, almost certainly, have watched Crash before reading any of his work, it is probably this (the film) that sparked my curiosity.

Its somewhat ironic, though, to think that Crash made me seek him out, even though I have never read it, and that it is considered to be his chief work. Ironic and also a bit simplistic, for Ballard’s work was much more richer, more intriguing, more influential than reducing him (as a lot of the press is doing) to being a chronicler of his war time interment as a child in a Japanese camp in China or his provocative book of car-crashes, sex and death, techno-porn. Though Crash has elements that would form the basis of the majority of his work, I think something like Super-Cannes or Millennium People is to be considered the essential Ballard. What he chiefly gave the world in way of his output was literature both informed by Dali and Freud, first hand experience of human cruelty, the effect and affects of modernity and consumerism and social organisation. The outcome of his work invariably seen individuals and sub-cultures reacting to modernity in ways that were, anarchic, messianic hero worship, and the appeal of fascism. The results on the page were funny, absurd, hysterical, frightening and wholly original. As Martin Amis put it in his interview with Channel Four news on Ballards death “no other author could have wrote what he wrote”. I have to also quote the well know phrase a publisher said of Ballard “beyond all psychiatric help”.

I haven’t really read much of his stuff for over a year, indeed, since becoming interested in philosophy--the kind that can be called empirical philosophy, Ballard has somewhat fallen out of favour. I’m reading John Gray at the minute, a philosopher with what I would suppose are continental influences-- described Ballard’s book Super-Cannes as one of the key books of the 21st century. There is a deeply irrational strain that runs through these two authors work, almost at times I suspect, a admiring of violence and cruelty and tribal impulses. Perhaps, or perhaps not, what Ballard and Gray wish to articulate, is that naïve ideas of unfettered human reason and progress and comfort are delusions. That there is a deep, irrepressible urge in humans for the lusting of power, of cruelty and irrationality. Ballard’s work, maybe a testament, a notebook, a view from the inside of the mass murderer, of the crazed fabulist, of the charlatan, the fake messianic figures, psychopaths, bored advertising men drawn to violence and danger.

Ballard is sometimes seen as a prophet, his work, especially the early sixties sci-fi stuff, are seen as prescient of our recent environmental catastrophes and imminent disaster with global warming. His writings on the obsessions of celebrity and their deaths, pre-figure Princess Diana and Jade Goody. To my mind, he has changed the way I view modern architecture and cities. The films of Michael Mann express some of the ambivalence and the de-personalising effects of architecture on the individual.

Ballard though, was foresaw himself by another great writer and foreseer of the future. In another moment of serendipity, I was reading a totally unconnected, old article by Bertrand Russell from Sceptical Essays-Some Prospects Cheerful and Otherwise, he had this to save on future irrationality.

“Perhaps, in the end, safety will become wearisome, and men will become destructive from sheer boredom.”

Or in a more full blooded way.

“In such a world it is to be feared that destructive impulses would become irresistible. R. L. Stevenson’s Suicide Club might flourish in it; secret societies devoted to artistic murder might grow up. Life in the past has been kept serious by danger, and interesting by being serious. Without danger, if human nature remained unchanged, life would lose its savour and men would resort to all kinds of decadent vices in the hope of a little excitement.”

Bertrand Russell--Sceptical Essays.

That’s an extraordinary precise of Ballard. Indeed, Ballard main theme, I believe, is the dangers of too much order, comfort and security. That civil society will always be threatened by anti-rationalist, radical and murderous groups wanting dis-order and a return to the tribal law of the jungle. His last book, Kingdom Come, is a tale of banal consumerism breeding a neo-fascist revolution-cum-religious messianism. As you expect from the title, the conclusion is apocalyptic.

It think it telling that one of the titles of his books (collection of reviews and essays ) is called a User’s Guide to The Millennium. So, in signalling agreement with John Gray, I would conclude that for someone dropping into the planet from the years 1995 to September 2001--then, JG Ballard is surely one of the essential guides. In two hundred years from now, we will either by living in caves, clubbing animals again and engaging in slavery or else we will be colonising space, presided over by a world government with liberal democracy flourishing everywhere. Depending on what happens, Ballard will be viewed as an author of impulses best forgotten or a calm, disinterested, clinical Cassandra who foresaw the future.

Best

Mike.

Comment on Ed Husain op-ed, What Binds Brits together?

2009-04-17T10:43:00.000-07:00

Here is the Op-Ed at the Gurdian website.

Mr Husain, the man who wrote the Islamist,(which i reviwed here) has this to say on the values that bind people of the UK together.

key points from the OP-Ed

"Last week's arrest of alleged terror suspects reassured many in Britain. The suspects are all – bar one – from Pakistan. There was an unspoken sense of relief among many that at least they were not British. But why? Why do we expect not to be attacked by "our own"? Why is "home-grown terror" more terrifying? What in Britain glues us together to prevent us from turning on one another?"

"Let's cut to the chase: we have a problem with connected identity here in Britain. It's not just Muslims such as Khan who feel disconnected from Britain – the problems of atomised, self-centred existence are widespread. The "nothing-to-do-with-me-guv" mindset has caused us damage. It has made us unwilling to find common ground with our fellow citizens."

I believe though, you answered your own question. How can (Muslim) non-drinkers and drinkers get on? How can we reconcile the values of collective obligation with individualism. How can you reconcile the culture or reason, discourse and scepticism with the culture of obedience, faith and group-loyalty?

"We need to move beyond simplistic debates about identity and engage with the deeper issues that are at stake. Too often, commentators have suggested that a united society can be built on shared tastes in sport, food, and clothing. This is not enough: such arguments overlook that the 7/7 bombers played cricket, ate fish and chips and dressed in jeans. We need a deeper debate about the core values that can bind us together as a nation."

from Ed Husain, writing in the Guardian.

My View

I dont believe you can. Two choices face us from this conclusion.

1. We continue on the same path of not seriously engaging with Muslim separatists, by apologising for them, stating that there is not a problem with them or their ideology, that the problem is really US foreign policy. British policy regards Muslims at the minute is to engage with the non-violent extremists. This is a very short-sighted policy. The problem is not terrorism, it is the values of freedom and inquiry that are under threat. The extremists might not use violence, but they use ever other tactic to coerce others into complying.

2. Both the Government, the establishment and the intellectual class can and should wage intellectual war on Muslim separatists. We need the same kind of response that was present during the cold war intellectual battles over communism. The ideology of Islam and the politics of Muslim separatists will erode in the face of unrelenting, challenging scepticism from the larger population. Secondly, we need to give larger voice to people like yourself MR Husain and someone like Ayan Hirsi Ali. We need to encourage and support Female Muslim rebellions, and quests for independence.

The goal of creating a tolerant and reasonable Muslim population in the UK is a worthwhile goal. Why? For the reason that ideas spread, that relatives back home might pick up on whats going on with their UK cousins. That many silenced, progressive Muslims, might draw inspiration from the modern Muslims in Britain. One of the sad observations from MR Husains book is that England is such a hotbed of extremism, that it outdoes even the Saudis in rhetorical fervour, that many young British Muslims grow up to be the most radical kinds of Muslim. This, of course, can be changed, but only if their is willingness to do so, at present, I do not see such will.

Best

Mike.

ON Coppola

2009-02-25T07:11:00.000-08:00

The Films of Francis Ford Coppola

Over the last month or so I have had the pleasure of re-watching the films of Francis Ford Coppola. Out of at least five films deserving of entry into the pantheon, Coppola contributes an astonishing three (which is mightily impressive considering the output of that decade-the seventies) the other two being Star Wars and Taxi Driver. It is even more remarkable when one is aware that the budding director was nearly fired from the Godfather, which would have robbed us of the Conversation, Godfather part two and Apocalypse Now. It also needs to be stressed that, like Radiohead with its dazzlingly eccentric output , every movie Coppola directed (and produced and co-written) was in some ways a reaction or answer to the previous one. With the exception of the difficult but rewarding Conversation every movie is a filmic feast, filled with the best of American talent, narratives that are gripping and absorbing, that mirror the politics of its time and paradoxically are personal and intimate, that aesthetically in many ways capture both the mood of European art house and film noir of the 1950’s. (which in turn had its roots in European art.)

It would of course be a crime and a sin to omit the names that helped make the films what they are. Set designer Dean Tavoularis, composer Nino Rota and Francis’s own father Carmine, Cinematographers Gordon Willis and Vittorio Storaro, editor and sound designer Walter Murch. Writing contributions from Mario Puzo (the author of the Godfather) John Milius and Michael Herr. Acting talent that of course includes many of the best actors of the last fifty years but consider how less rich the films would be without the likes of Richard S Castellano (Clemenza) Sterling Hayden (capt McCluskey) John Cazale (Fredo and Stan,) G.D Spradlin (Senator Geary and General Corman) Lawrence Fishburn (Mr Clean) Lee Strasberg (Hyman Roth) The uniqueness and richness of the characters both in writing, acting and personality is echoed in another great American achievement--David Simon’s The Wire.

It is worth remembering some of the things that went on in the making of the Godfather. I strongly recommend by the way the Godfather boxset with its wonderful documentary materials and interviews. According to these behind the scenes and reminisces, Coppola wasn’t much wanted as director, he recalls how he was sitting in a toilet stall only to hear fellow crewmembers bad mouth him. Perhaps its apochrya but Coppola was meant to be fired the weekend over which they shot the great Sollozzo assassination scene in which Al Pacino has his first moment of glory and Michaels first moment of malignancy. What a scene to be saved by, Coppola stayed and the rest as they say in the business is history.

Michael (Al Pacino) dominates the Godfather films, or rather haunts them. Even when not present, his brooding, calculating malevolence is ever felt. Critic David Thomson suggests Michael visibly seems to retreat into the darkness. In the flashback scenes in number two, we along with Michael find it painful yet unable to prevent the existential contemplation of the past, searching for the answers to what went wrong in the present. Michael is a lonely figure, left at the end of Godfather two with a pyrrhic victory that is more like ironic tragedy without a trace of self knowing cynicism or humour to leaven the increasingly cramped and claustrophobic air of his fort (prison?) at Lake Tahoe.

Michael’s tragedy is also presented as America tragedy and the trial and sorrow of every man who has to live up to some kind of ideal whether that be a tradition or some great ancestor or indeed father. John McCain’s autobiography is called Faith of my Fathers, he will have to spend the rest of his years contemplating himself as third time nearly been, a man who surrendered himself to the Rovian mudslinging politics that he deplored (when directed against himself) in his first run for President in 2000. He may also go down in history as the man who brought the Christian fascist and fantasist? Sarah Palin into the spotlight and potential 2012 presidential victory. The tragedy is (as Aristotle pointed out long ago) that the things you hold dear, the beliefs and values and emotions that you cherish are the very things that lead you to despair, failure and solitude. Michael loved his father and his father was a loved man but he was also a criminal, a gangster and a murderer. The flashbacks scenes in Godfather 2 have the quality of a romanticized and sanitized past that every leader and conservative re-witnesses history whether political or personal. When Michael stands before the priest in Part 1 and renounces Satan while standing at the foot of an orgy of chilling violence which Coppola masterfully cross cuts and scores to Catholic liturgy- Michael is presented as the poker faced representative of a soulless hypocrisy- Catholic and Capitalist. Thirty years earlier his father would have been standing in the same position with the same attitude and contempt for the Church and the pezzanovante, only Vito carries his criminality and contempt off with a certain rustic charm, his Machiavell/capitalist machinations shrouded by words like honour and respect and dignity.

The themes of power, certainty of leaders and the consequences that follow from their actions are the bedrock of Coppola’s themes throughout his films of this period.

In the Conversation, Harry Caul, has knowledge of a potential murder, he is certain (wrongly) of the people who are the malevolent forces and the consequences of his actions here see the murder of the innocent and the destruction of his own flimsy walls of sanity. Like Michael and Kurtz, Caul is in an existentialist dilemma. Does he hold true to his core beliefs or loosen them? He has the power of life and death but he is unsure of how to act. How does one know that ones actions are right? Kurtz is “clear” in his mind but his soul is “mad”. Michael follows the logic of extirpation ruthlessly but is hollow and emotionally vacuous as a result. Caul has neither the intelligence nor the clear thinking logic of these two yet in many ways he ends up the worse, reduced to madness and insanity, the knowledge? That one is being watched and that ones very secrets or guilty action is known and there is nothing one can do about it.

There is an irony here and Coppola’s fellow film-maker and Catholic friend Scorsese would know it only two well. Caul specialises in ear dropping, listening in on peoples secrets, spying that has and will have terrible consequences. Mentioning the title Godfather with the image of puppeteering gives the game away. (never mind Kurtz’s deification--spot James Frazer’s Golden Bough as one of his set texts for a modern re-creation of a far east Yahweh with M16 Assault rifles and machetes. Caul at the end of the film undergoes a breakdown, a potent symbol. I observed to myself has this not been Caul’s condition for the entirety of his life? As a serious and guilt-prone Catholic--what else would there be to expect? All very well having an all seeing and knowing God if your filled with loving and kind thoughts-not if you’re a solipsistic misanthrope like Caul. I had a conversation once with a Zen Priest--an ex Catholic who recounted how relieving it was to have this concept of a permanent CCTV camera removed from his mind.

The Conversation was made in between GD1 and GD2. It is a much smaller film, far less grandiose and fully demonstrates a side of Coppola that many people miss--that is the introverted and pensive Francis, the man who would drive himself to near destruction on Apocalypse Now. Before that though, Coppola laid to rest any doubt as to his talent with Godfather 2. It’s a very rare thing indeed that a sequel of something actually exceeds the first. Watching the Godfather 2 again confirmed it. The unrelenting, underlying misery and folly of the 1950’s story juxtaposed with the simple, rustic and dreamily romantic flashbacks of Vito’s rise to power is deftly engineered. Pacino comes into his own in the film, even manages to outdo arguably his greatest scene of the Sollozzo execution when he smashes his rebelling and protestant and non-Italian wife’s face in over her abortion. It is the only sign of mental or emotional weakness in Michael, the only time he drops his cool, logical macho intellect. (the other snap which is related was when Tom Hagan informs him of the “miscarriage” “was it a boy?” “Mikey after 3 months…” “Cant You Give A Straight Answer Anymore! Was it a Boy?!”

GD2 does answer a charge though that was labelled at the first film. That it glamorised the gangsters. I believe there is some truth to this. But it is this truth that adds power to the Godfather 2. Unlike the last one were we could and did enjoy the vanquishing of the families enemies and cheer on the many murders--we are not allowed this in number two. Even when Vito kills we sit in stony faced silence.

Themes of the certainty of power, the consequences of violence, moral hypocrisy are fully treated in Apocalypse Now Redux but still without any conclusion. I was stunned watching this film again, I already considered it the most impressive film I have seen but seeing it again on a widescreen with surround sound (I await the day of seeing it in the cinema) was an experience, a thrill that few other films have ever delivered.

The opening! What with the Doors, the images of helicopters swooning in slow motion across bombed out trees lines, lit up with Napalm. On cue to the lyrics, Willard’s stoned out and burned out face appears. Coppola has always been a great visual storyteller but the number of things both profound and subtle and small in this sequence can only be described in the words cinematic genius. But there is so much! After that intro, consider the next crescendo--of Willard going mad and wrecking his room. Two masterpiece scenes in under ten minutes. The briefing/dinner scene, shot mostly from Willard’s Point of View is another ace. Coppola is a rare thing, especially today, a moviemaker who has an impressive ability for large beautiful bombastic films that are also rich in detail, nuance, thematic obsession and concern for actors. Though he made a few more masterpieces since--his decline is one of the saddest things in American movies.

Is Apocalypse Now an anti war film? Its worth asking, for it can be assumed that it is without justification. I would say no, or rather I would say its an anti-establishment film or again to put it more pointedly--one mans personal journey, polemic and self-destruction (Kurtz and Coppola’s) against hierarchy and bureaucracy. Sam Peckinpah would have appreciated the film immensely. Coppola in retrospect has been cast as a member of a group of young turks who would shake up and eventually re-establish the film business and studios in the 1970’s. Their names are well known but it would seem that Coppola really did despise much of the studio system that was still potent despite the relaxing of the Hays code that constricted the industry since the thirties. Coppola wanted to go it alone, “he got off the boat he split from the whole fucking program”. He created Zoetrope studios to do personal films outside the mainstream. For a while it was working. The dream ended a little later in the 1980’s with the failure of the Cotton Club. In some ways I picture Kurtz as Coppola and Willard as the ambivalent and ambiguous George Lucas who’s career Coppola gave lift to, which in an almost oedipal move killed his dream off. Star Wars along with Jaws killed the possibility of a mature and thoughtful and entertaining American cinema. Perhaps that is too harsh, that the banality of much of what we see today would have won out anyway. Perhaps though like in Vietnam, a small victory could have been achieved, or, rather the forestalment of defeat and despair could have been kept at bay for a few more years.

When Willard kills Kurtz and emerges as the new God, when he drifts back to civilisation, the flat and Zen and stoned out face is our face. The “witness” to so much, so many explosions and settings suns, so much fuck of eloquence of soldiers shooting at the shit. Words cannot capture the almost mystical and religious aura of much of Apocalypse Now, there is much in human experience that words cannot express that are much better “understood” in music or images. Drugs help, was Coppola dropping Acid like Lance? Carmine Coppola’s score which would sound cheesy and ridiculous in any other setting accurately gets the mood of this film-fucked up-out of sync, stoned and wasted, wistful and dreamy. The movie stays with you, days later walking down the street or driving in the city at night, snatches of music come back to you, lines of dialogue, images of helicopters flying across your vision. “the Horror the Horror”.

Best

Michael Faulkner.

The Doctrine of Terror.

2009-01-08T14:18:00.000-08:00

Here is a thought experiment--an attempt to lay out what kinds of violence a terrorist or terror group would deploy that was justified. I am here, positioning myself in the mind of the potential terrorist. I will not be exploring in great detail, the justification that can be given for violence such as just war. I am primarily interested in setting down a continuum of ethically justified, proportionate terror/violence. Developing a gradual increase in action.

I feel I should say a few words on the use of the word terrorist. As the name implies, terror, fear and panic is one of the goals that various “terror” groups seek to achieve. However, I believe as this will show there is a distinction to be made concerning numerous terror groups various goals, intentions and tactics, not to mention their attitude towards targeting non-combatants.

In what follows can be seen either as an escalation of violence or a slow slide into ever more questionable or unethical and immoral action. (please note, again, this will be argued from a point of view of a terrorist, I am not dealing with the underlying premises. Or example I believe it would be justified to respond with some sort of “terrorist“ activity in response to genocide or slavery or a huge infringement of civil liberties.)

Here is the gradient.

* Rational persuasion and negotiation has failed to bring both sides to an agreement or that one side will not listen to rational argument. Said policy is continuing and will continue for the foreseeable future. Which leads to…

* Warning-that the failure to cease and desist from said policy will result in violent consequences.

Failure to do so results in….

* Kidnapping of political leaders who have either advocated, implemented or created the said policy. Attempt to persuade them to either see arguments to desist (dubious given the circumstances) or present them with three choices. Either support our cause, (if you really have changed you mind) and or cease and desist from you role in carrying out or implementing said policy or die. If you choose to cease and desist and renege on your promise--you will be marked for death.

* Targeted assassination (designed to kill one person, ie a sniper rifle or pistol--one bullet one body) of a political leader who has either advocated, implemented or created the said policy that has motivated the terrorists.

* Targeted assassination of various political leaders, deputies, ministers, military leaders, police chiefs, CEO’s who have either advocated, implemented or explicitly support said policy.

* Bomb or mortar attack on HQs, offices or home of said political leaders who have created or implemented said policy. If there is collateral damage this is justified if and only if there is strong evidence to think the political leader is or will be in the targeted location. And only if the violence is proportionate. (I will discuss proportionality later)

* Telephone or email target and or media and inform target that a bomb has been planted in said location. The call is a feign. There is no bomb, the point is to cause fear and to show the enemy that next time we might not either be lying or merciful.

* Plant bombs in or near military or political institutions. Ring forward and state that said bomb will explode--this will give them time to evacuate the building. Only structural damage and financial damage is the aim here. There is one other aim--which is power and fear (which is used to persuade the enemy to change said policy) Inform target that next time there may not be a warning.

* Deliberate shoot to kill policies against soldiers, policemen or other government personnel who are actively in co-operation with said policy.

* Deliberate and without warning--detonate bombs or mortar attacks, military bases or government building which are actively in co-operation with said policy.

* Kidnapping of non-combatants and NGO’s who are clearly and explicitly in support of said policy. Either persuade them to the cause or get them to cease and desist or kill them, and kill them (target for assassination) if they renege.

* Targeted assassination of non-combatants and NGO’s who are clearly and explicitly in support of said policy.

**** Indiscriminate bombing of non-combatants in a public place****

**** Maximal indiscriminate targeting of non-combatants in a public place****

Given the logic of just war and that there is times that violence is in fact an ethical response to things like slavery or genocide or the threat of annihilation- it seems to me that much of the above is justified. The problems start I believe when we move from bombing military and political institutions to the kidnapping and finally killing non-combatants. The threshold is non-combatant, however I believe it could be said that for example a wealthy German businessman who was donating money and resources to help the Nazi party could be targeted as a facilitator and supporter. If he were “persuaded” to cease and desist this would seem to be a “positive” outcome. If his death was caused, there would be less money and resources going into the Nazi party.

However this action would be constrained by what difference would it really make? Furthermore it might actually increase support for the Nazi party or similar political party or policy for example. Also would there not be more worthy targets? Would his targeting be justified though if the previous justified actions (kidnapping and targeting of leaders etc) were carried out and to avail? Surely though, if the leaders and solders were killed and a regime or country did not still change its ways how likely is it to change after a civilian is targeted? This is an “empirical” point, if there was no prior indication of what the action may result in it might be justified to carry out the action--provided the outcome or goal to be brought about was worth it.

Clearly the real problem is with indiscriminate bombing. Bombing kills indiscriminately. It kills both supporters of a terrorists cause, indifferent civilians and the backers of said policy that terrorists have a problem with. It is a crude, blunt weapon. However is there any circumstances were it could be justified? I believe so. To be adopted only in extreme circumstances and when all other approaches both non aggressive and aggressive has failed and only if there is a real chance of success and that the action is proportional to the likely success and goal of the terrorist and of his action.

Putting it more clearly, this pretty much rules out bombing if not in theory but in practice. I would define extreme circumstances as either slavery or genocide. Real chance of success also seems pretty negligible. The only “success” that perhaps can be taken from deliberate targeting of civilians is that it might persuade both sides to sit down and work out their differences peacefully as they have seen that violence does not work.

Proportionality is a problem and I don’t consider myself to have solved it. In the end all that can be said is that it is a matter of degree and reasonableness. For example it would not be proportionate to detonate a nuclear bomb in a city of a country that has denied certain members of that county labour rights or basic civil rights. It may be ethical though, to assassinate a politician or bomb a government building. From this crude example it would suggest that our concept of rights, freedoms and welfare does not translate easily into the arithmetic of body count. For example is it ethical to kill one person to promote to welfare and rights of twenty million people? What about twenty thousand or twenty? No? What if he is actively blocking their welfare and causing their death and suffering? Should violent action only justified in the actual consequences it brings about? Ie intentions and means are unimportant if the end gained outweighs the losses?

Given the hierarchy of justified violence it is quite clear that many terrorist groups do not consider them and go straight to indiscriminate killing or show no regard for human life whatsoever. There is many who would make a moral equivalence between say a government that accidentally kills civilians in air raid and a terrorist who blows up a teenage disco. The distinction is obvious when you consider it from the perspective of the continuum. The military are targeting either military or paramilitary targets, the terrorists are not. The military as best possible seek to reduce civilian deaths, the terrorists in many cases seek to maximise it.

Arguments about collective responsibility are fraught. Indiscriminate targeting, kills as I have said people who are indifferent or in support of what the terrorist wants. Also it should be considered unethical to hold hundreds or thousands of people guilty for policies in which they have not explicitly supported or carried out. Especially when there are more guilty targets that deserve singling out. Also at the risk of repeating myself, the repugnance of the action, the indiscriminate nature of the violence and the probability that it will bring about what the terrorist seeks is also further strikes against terror bombing.

A move against this could be that because individuals “choose” to live in a democracy they have to assume the responsibilities and consequences that the country they live performs. There does seem to be some tacit support for this. For example lets say I possessed illegal drugs, I don’t agree with the governments support of drug criminalisation and would argue the point with the judge, however I would have to resign myself to the prison sentence nevertheless.

I don’t think this argument is more persuasive to the idea that perpetrators of crimes are the ones that should be held to account. There are graduations of culpability and in turn graduations of punishment. It would seem to fly in the face against everything we hold of value such as individual liberty, choice, responsibility and notions of judicial equality.

To conclude then I would argue that almost certainly the policy of indiscriminate bombing and mass murder against non-combatants is never justified.

Best

Michael.

A New Years Resolution For Christians.

2009-01-03T12:33:00.000-08:00

(I sent this in email to my Christian friends--its kinda half tongue in cheek but if we got Christians to carry out these reforms our quarrel with them would be rendered mute. Perhaps you may wish to email this to whoever you know or mail them similar ideas.)

Dear friends

Recently I have been considering, again, the almost eternal debate concerning religion. Again, recently I came to the conclusion, or rather realisation, that it is the negative consequences of much religious doctrine and practice that has motivated much of the current war of words. As opposed to say, just having a barney for the sake of it, a financial opportunity or that it (New Atheism) is just a fad that has developed arbitrarily. This is hardly an original analysis but worth baring in mind--for all sides ( many miss this point), for not all religions are the same and not all are worthy of the same respect or disrespect-should the circumstances require it.

The following proposals that I will outline here may seem the most controversial suggestions since the reformation. So it is here that I will nail my thesis, not to any door but to your very computer screen. For my part, I consider what follows is basically sound and cut from the cloth of common sense. My proposal is this: That good Christians, real, moral and educated Christians should reject both the impostor St Paul or Paul of Tarsus and utterly abandon the Old Testament. (Abandon its theology and morality-not perhaps its poetry in places)

Why and how?

These are words no doubt, forming on your very lips at this second. I will answer both why and how in what follows. So, are you tired of being called deluded? Are you fed up of going about in fear of being buttonholed by some pedantic gadfly who lassos you with the historical and theological Christian support of slavery and the nonsense of a creator God who makes the world in six days and puts his feet up on the seventh? Do you wish that atheists would just leave you alone and go annoy someone else? Well if you do--then I have the solution for you.

I recognise, that this and what follows can almost be seen as satire. For the paradox is this--I will outline what I believe I have not seen any religious apologist do, which is to make the strongest case for Christianity possible (in both theory and practice for the 21st century). What would follow I believe, would actually make it more influential (for a time) it would though like a vaccine shot, make the spread of resistant anti-bodies to dogmatic and lunatic forms of religious belief harder to take hold in a population. As any good doctor will tell you, Natural Selection has adapted us to a certain amount of germs--it just depends how much and how strong a germ or virus we are exposed to and what consequences it brings. Or as Zen Roshi Joan Halifax humorously states “it’s not the case that we don’t drink poison in our lives--its knowing how much.”

So I will both play the role of Louis Pasteur and Robert McKee (the Hollywood script doctor)-- “We have a good story to tell here, perhaps the greatest one ever told, it comes in three acts, act one is too long and the violence and barbarism is too much for a modern audience these days--they would be sick into their popcorn, and this third act, bit too cheerful for the coming destruction of the earth, and this bloke St Paul, bit too much of baddie to be a hero I’m afraid, no no, it wont do--lets be radical, lets abandon the whole three act thing and simply base our story on the entire second act, one this rather fine fellow you call Jesus.”

You may be raising eyebrows at this point--saying that if I can make a case for Christianity in such a way as to make it more likely to spread through the population--have I not contradicted myself--what stops me then becoming a Christian?--well I will say a few words on that point in my closing remarks.

There were of course debates in the early history of Christianity as to whether or not to drop the Old Testament. They kept it--for reasons I’ll discuss shortly. However I believe this was a mistake--a profound one, for the blood drenched odour of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Second Samuel and the implausible Genesis and mythical Exodus has followed Christians around like a bad smell.

Of course the reason they tagged the Torah on was that it contained prophesies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled. Especially the doctrine of the virgin birth. Surely, good people can see that the value of a person lies in what they do and say, not in what was possibly ordained or prophesised for them. Take the case of the virgin birth--Jesus never had any control-- just like you and me of how he was conceived--or not. In today’s society we value and judge a person by what they do and say not by their background--especially how they were born. Do we for example deem people of caesarean birth more special than those who only slipped out of the birth canal? Or someone conceived by in Vitro fertilization is special in a way they cannot be by the more natural methods of procreation?

Lets say if we grant the premise that there is a God-one who designed the gravitational constants, the laws and intricacies of mathematics (which even today the best and brightest are still puzzling over) the wonders of deep space and deep time, the planets, the stars, the universe and everything in it. Frankly, it cheapens a God of this statue that he would announce the most immense moment in the history of the universe by bestowing a virgin birth for his son to an illiterate woman in bronze age Palestine.

Good, intelligent, Christians should have no need of tricks, either they build their faith on the noblest aspirations or not. Either they claim their faith on the verifiable and realistic actions of their leader or else they will suffer the ridicule and opprobrium that they rightly deserve.

The second reason for Christians to hold firm to the Old Testament is this.

“Don’t think that I have come to destroy the law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. I have not come to destroy them but the bring about what they said. I tell you the truth, nothing will disappear from the law until heaven and earth are gone. Not even the smallest letter or smallest part of a letter will be lost until everything has happened.”

Matthew 4, 17

Ok so how do we deal with this?……

Firstly its clearly ambiguous, what law? Which version of the ten commandants? (there were two contradictory ones remember) also remember, that much of Jesus’s ministry was in opposition to the prevailing orthodoxy of the day. Also it should be said, that apart from a few ambiguous lines--Jesus never did violence or called explicitly for violence against anyone. Unlike the laws and behaviours of both God and the patriarchs of the Old Testament. If this is not enough then consider this. It might not work in theory but everyone accepts, indeed expects it in practice.

“It is said “anyone who divorces his wife must give her a written divorce paper” but I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife forces her to commit adultery, the only reason for a man to divorce his wife is if she has sexual relations with another man. And anyone who marries that divorced woman is guilty of adultery.”

Matthew 5, 31.

Of course, no one takes this seriously anymore, except a few bookish, elderly virgins in the Catholic church. It was this dogma of course that forced King Henry the 8th to break with the “king with the pointy hat who sits on his throne in Rome” (if only at least for Henry’s more creaturely reasons--well I suppose divorce is better than losing ones head…)

So here we have a ringing, sparkling, flagrant breaking of scripture. I could of course list countless examples of such concessions to modernity and common sense but I don’t need to. The example of this should demonstrate that our moral sense has changed-- reasonable good men and women both Protestant and Catholic reject the above commandments of scripture--the words of Jesus himself. If that is Kosher (I’m mixing my monotheisms here) then it is only a small hop, skip and jump to abandoning the Old Testament. After all-- if we don’t listen to Jesus on specific and rather clear issues then its hardly a grave sin to reject a book that has little to do with the core message of Christ. If you are further in need of persuasion on this point I kindly recommend you ask an unbeliever what he or she thinks of the morality on display of some of the more notorious books of the Old Testament, or better yet and with more kindness--you read them yourself.

So now we come to Paul. Who is this fellow anyway? Surely after the visitation of Jesus--God’s work was done, why did he have to blind Saul on the road to Damascus? Surely the testimony and actions of Jesus was all the proof that was needed? Why didn’t Jesus foretell of Paul and his role in early Christian history? What do you think is more likely- that God needed Paul to spread the word (which would mean that his own son had failed to convince) or that Paul was maybe mistaken in his visions? Or if you want to take a more sinister line--maybe Paul was doing it for underhand reasons-- a racket perhaps? Or simply to have power and influence? Or maybe as some serious scholars have suggested that Paul who suffered from epilepsy which they claim, produced the experience of being in dialogue with the divine. (aside note I am aware of “experiments” involving theologians taking LSD and “communing” with the divine, obviously cultural influences play a role in determining the content of a persons spiritual or drug experiences. For example South American Indians trip out to Ayahuasca and commune with their spirits, which needless to say have nothing to do with the spirit world and everything to do with the affect of certain chemicals on the brain)

I believe that I have stated sufficient reasons for rejecting Paul. I will though say a few more words on his ethics. Clearly, I believe, you can see that Paul’s attempts to return to the more oppressive and rigid Old Testament ethics are clearly in contrast with much of Christ’s ethics. There are many passages of homophobia in his writings, he supports slavery, believes women to be subservient to men “Christ is head of the church so man is the head of the house” that women be disallowed from talking in church or holding positions of responsibility. Clearly, Jesus never advocated any of this.

So here is where we “should stand and do no other”. Again recalling the protestant mantra “back to the bible” should be replaced with “back to Jesus” and all else should be safely placed back upon the shelf.

To clarify my proposals: we can conceive of two types of Christians.

Imitatio Paul

And

Imitatio Christ

Here is an idea to spread, don’t call Pauline Christians, Christians at all call them perhaps Paulians so that will leave good Christians like yourselves to reclaim the word Christian. An analogy with the gay movement is easy to see here--where they reclaimed the word Gay as a positive word, not one of abuse.

So it is easy to see here, two traditions and two lines of demarcation.

In the Paulian camp we have figures such as Ratzinger and all the Popes of the antiquity. We have Augustine and Aquinas, Robertson and Robinson, Bush and Blair, Luther, Falwell, Paisley, Warren and the Bishop of Carlyle. The consequences that such men have wrought is variously war both national and sectarian, inquisitions and witch hunts, oppression and torture, homophobia, child abuse, undermining science and obscuring ethics.

In the tradition of Imitatio Christ we have Martin Lurther King, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Bishop George Bell (who opposed the carpet bombing of Germany in the war years) and countless unseen and unheard Christians who to paraphrase sceptic Michael Shermer- do thousands of acts of unseen kindness every day.

I hope and trust that you know what side you belong to or would wish to. A Christian or a Paulian? Let me reduce the issue further to its most simplest components. A good way to see a proper follower of Christ and a follower of Paul and Leviticus is to observe the reactions to this question--- In terms of your religious beliefs, what is your view regarding homosexuality? If as Iris Robinson (along with many others) would say that it is “vile” an “abomination” and one of the things that will damm you.(in the tradition of Paul)

Or

A proper Christian would reply “I have no religious opinion on the matter in question, for Jesus never speaks on the matter, so I am indifferent, God will judge I wont.” I could formulate the same question regarding creationism or slavery or war or many other issues that beleaguer the world.

It is only when one cuts away the theological obscurantism and barbarism that the inspiring figure of Jesus emerges. Jesus is nothing if not a troublemaker. A gadfly, a maverick, an angry young man, a friend of the left and social justice, a contrarian, a punk and a hippie, he is the messiah and he is a very naughty boy. Jesus, if he were alive today would not be sitting in on Friday nights drinking tea with pious old ladies--he would be out, mixing it up with the best of them, raving and revelling but teaching that there is more to life than such exciting pursuits. In this craven age where potential voters in political elections are asked which candidate would they like to have a drink with, at least, unlike say George Bush we could at least and would want to have a drink with Jesus.

So now you ask--what could possibly be wrong with this man? Well I should note the reasonable objection, that no man, no matter how ethical or insightful testifies to nothing other than he is ethical and insightful. It does not prove or remotely indicate that he is divine or the son of God. No man also, even if he did posses magic powers as the Gospel claims- would only mean he would be nothing other than a person of extraordinary ability and just that--it would not prove he was the son of God. (and only if such miraculous events were further corroborated with sound scientific methods of investigation--repeat, double blind experiments, observation, reasoning to the best explanation of phenomena-- which unfortunately we cannot do in this case)

However I wish to repeat what Bertrand Russell wrote. He places Jesus lower in his ethical estimation of great historical figures such as Socrates and the Buddha. Socrates loved argument and was put to death for it. He displayed indifference to people who disliked or disagreed with him, he never threatened like Buddha and unlike Jesus anyone with hell fire and eternal damnation.. Nor it should be said that Socrates never attempted to persuade anyone other than through his reason (no promise of heaven or to render it more jarring-- Sugar Candy Mountain--as George Orwell has the animals of Animal Farm imagine their own idea of eternal repose--where every day is a Sunday, with an endless supply of sugar cubes and hay to gorge on.) the use of force, bribery and manipulation are not logical or noble reasons for accepting propositions and for these reasons Russell places Jesus lower in the pantheon.

So there we have it. Here is my proposals for your religion in the year 2009. Please do share this with your fellow Christians and the ideas expressed within--if only for arguments sake--and what wrong with that? Either we sort out our problems with talk or we sort them out with bullets and bombs. I’m all for the former as are most non-theists while many religious people, muslims especially are not. As Sam Harris concludes “we cannot expect to survive our religious differences with weapons of mass destruction indefinitely”

Best wishes and be well in the new year.

Michael.

Is Belief in God the way to peace?

2008-12-03T04:08:00.000-08:00

(I was recently at a debate at Queens university to see and take part in a debate concerning the above question-this is my own response to it.)

What God needs be believed in, for peace? Is it Thor? Is it Zeus? Apollo maybe? How should this God, if he exists, be worshipped? Prostrations several times a day towards a fixed location on the earths sphere? Imbibing wafer biscuits, in a bizarre, symbolic act of cannibalism?-how about burnt offerings of livestock- or better yet, of humans? Of course the Homeric Gods are dead, just as the Gods of the Norse and Mayan have also perished, reposing in the graveyard of myth and ignorance, of our bloody and desperate past. The Gods we concern ourselves with today are of the sky-God desert religions-the Abrahamic faiths-the “religions of the book”. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Needless to say, they don’t believe in the same God, or worship their God in the same way. Pushed to their logical conclusion they are all in direct competition with one another, not only for their own survival, but for the souls of every man, woman and child on the planet. Look to their eschatology’s for how human history will be written, invariably you will find, holy war, holy terror, and hell on earth. Messiahs coming back to judge the living and the dead. Christians floating off into sky, Jesus serving in the ranks of the Mahdi, waging Jihad against the infidels; and the earth going up in an apocalyptic fireball, of religious frenzy. This is what belief means for earth, this is where human civilisation is supposedly heading. As Jesus himself said “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not send peace but a sword.” What does this mean--well as scripture say “The earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” 2 Peter 3:10

Do I need to say more? Do I need to go on? Well, lets start with the barbarism and tribalism that has engulfed my own country of birth. Northern Ireland, a pokey little country, of just over a million souls, on the edge of western Europe, who have for centuries been at each others throats-- and at each others--knees. The conflict is of course largely political but it arose out of oppression and inequality, justified and perpetuated by religious myths and differences. It was not that long go that politicians of this country uttered statements-- “A Protestant parliament, for Protestant people for a Protestant country”. Who would not see what would happen when each side denounces each other as idolatrous heretics and antichrists? Do I need to recount the litany of misdeeds that religion has accumulated in this country? Do I need to mention the drills going into peoples knees? Or the method of butchery we call knee-capping? Petrol bombs used to drive families out of their homes? The enforced ghettoizing, impoverishing and balkanizing of separate communities. Much of it self created and self policed as witness- women beaten and molested by paramilitary groups for holding relationships with the other side? Unwritten taboos over marring out, the separation of children into faith schools, a ready made identity foisted onto them and encouraged to hate the other side. Did belief in God cause peace and prosperity here? Or did it cause murder and misery?

Did belief in God cause peace and prosperity during the middle ages? Did it stop England from descending into civil war? Was it a peaceful, joyous time when women were hunted and prosecuted and burnt for witchcraft? How much inner harmony and equanimity resided in a poor unfortunate-- suffering the gruesome pleasures of the rack? Or having to be branded with a B on the forehead--accused of being a blasphemer? Or men having their arms dislocated in a process called Squassation? I wonder, really- how pious and noble did Christians feel during the two thousand years of Jew baiting that concluded in the crematoria of Auschwitz’s?
Who else today is guilty of that ugly and rancid ideology of anti-Semitism? That talks of a global, Zionist conspiracy? That Jews are pigs, rats and apes? I think we all know. Its been at it again, in India, in Mumbai, in the East. Who did they single out for special treatment, Jews of course. Second on the list were Americans and British nationals. Hotels were targeted, as were cafés. The western media seem to be relieved that it was not Al Qaeda, does it really make a difference… Who is going to stand up now and really, honestly, say that Islam is a religion of peace.

Islam especially,needs to be singled out for blame and opprobrium here. For though Christians mostly “behave” themselves compared with the lunacy and terror and mad work that gets carried under the aegis of Islam. A few topical examples serve reminder of a fact that is buttressed by more and more evidence day after day. That Islam not Islamism, or Jihadism-that Islam, as practiced today by billions of Muslim, is anti-west, anti-freedom, and anti-woman. The point needs reiterating for it is Muslims themselves who are suffering the worst and who are losing out the most by living under a 7th century system of morals. A recent news report coming out of Somalia that tells of a thirteen year old girl, raped, buried alive and bricked to death for adultery. I ask you to pause over the fact the girl was thirteen years of age--she was accused of adultery??

Consider the story not so long ago that trickled out of Iraq. Where a young Muslim woman was slaughtered and left in a ditch-killed by her own family. Her crime? having a crush on a British solider. Her mother-who appalled at the actions of her male relatives left and sought refuge in the authorities--she too was hunted down and killed. Or what of Parwiz Kambaksh who in “free” Afghanistan was sentenced to death for allegedly insulting Islam. His crime?- to download information regarding the human rights abuses of women under Islam. His sentence as of this minute has been reduced to only life imprisonment. I could continue- about the nature of Jihad, the death threats over Salman Rushdie, the beheading of journalists, the forced marriages, the institutionalised rape and paedophilia of young girls from Yemen. Does all this make for stable and prosperous and peaceful societies? Does it make for happy men? Does it make confident, fulfilled women?

The term peace need not and does not, just relate to the social, political arena. It can mean inner peace and tranquillity. The cultivation of compassionate states, altruism, love and charity. It is scarcely believable that given the mess that religion made of much of our discourse and progress on such things as human rights and individual autonomy that it could ever result in states of inner peace. Yet it obviously can. This says nothing though to either the truth claims of the religion nor does it speak to the consequences wrought by their attainment or the effects of their preservation.

It is simply a myth that Christianity even in its Sunday best is the Summum bonum of our religious or ethical systems. The morality on offer in books like Leviticus or Deuteronomy or Second Samuel not to mention large swathes of the New Testament is, frankly, embarrassing as a guide to attaining peace and wellbeing. --only if you take it for what it claims to be, that it is a book of divine inspiration of which no mortal in the bronze age or the computer age today could have written. Christianity especially becomes less impressive when set against Buddhism for example. Five hundred years before Christ walked the earth and quite a bit before either Plato or Aristotle set down their thoughts, Buddha and numerous Buddhists laid down an ethical system that is largely more compassionate and conducive to happiness than is Christianity. Indeed its four virtues of Loving-Kindness, Compassion, Altruistic Joy, and Equanimity outstrip Christian teachings on sin, faith and belief. Indeed the ultimate aim of a Buddhist is to work to achieve enlightenment or peace. A person could spend their life trying to reach this goal-if its at all possible. A person can become a Christian and await to enjoy the pleasures of the afterlife in less than five minutes. This is cheap, this is not a way of gaining wisdom or insight. Like the ancient Greeks however, Buddhists saw that peace or human happiness was the end goal in itself, that it was realizable in this world and no God need be worshipped for it to be obtained.

There is some research from social psychologists which suggest that Christian fundamentalists in America are the happiest in the country. I don’t have a problem believing this as true. This is to be contrasted though with northern European countries-largely atheistic and by similar investigative methodologies report same levels of happiness with far less societal dysfunction such as homicide, prison populations and STD’s. Phil Zuckerman’s Society Without God explores this point in more depth in his recent book. You may be tempted to say, well good for them and good for us. However do they need to create fractious tribal hostilities, demonize homosexuals, lie to their children, or try to get bullshit taught in schools. Where is Norway’s secular equivalent to Sarah Palin? The UK is mostly irreligious but here in Northern Ireland we do have are very own Palin- MP Iris Robinson, the wife of the first Minster of this country no less, who believes she is carrying out God’s will when she announces that Homosexuals are worse that Paedophiles and vile abominators. This is not the sort of people we want running a country--but this is the sort of person we have--and will do unless we learn to leave behind our myths and superstitions.

In the coming decades we are going to understand the constituents of Eudemonia, (Human Flourishing)we will understand what kind of political arrangements, economic systems and ethical attitudes and behaviours which do and which don’t contribute to human well-being. Religion is man made. No doubt there is much social utility in it, this can be used and understood in a totally secular way though. Religion operates like a placebo, it is a positive illusion. It is an archaic and a divisive force today in our truly global community. The historical degradations and the current malaise wrought by belief in God is simply inexcusable, as is the taboo of criticizing it. It is time we all grew up, it is time we all had a serious discussion and exploration about is best and what is good in this world. The sooner we realise this the better, happier and more peaceful we will all be.

Best and be well

Michael Faulkner

Project Civilisation

2008-11-24T09:34:00.000-08:00

What kind of person do you consider yourself to be? Decent? Responsible? Kind? What kind of life do you wish to lead? To make good use of your existence, to find rewarding and enjoyable employment? To cultivate deep and valuable friendships? To find love? To raise a family? Furthermore, what kind of society do you wish to live or raise your family in? Do you desire to see your children grow up to be happy and well adjusted and well-informed? To do well in school and to treat other’s with respect and dignity, to live in a society that is fair, equal and tolerant? One that elects smart, responsible leaders who serve well informed voters on ethical, political, and environmental issues? All of the thoughtful and mature among us recognise, that this is the project of living that we are all engaged in. It is upon the realisation of these many aspirations and hopes that will determine the well-being and future of our societies and of ourselves.(1)

There are many people who believe that such endeavours can only be realised, via one or more of our faiths. There are many who claim that enlightenment values- political liberalism, tolerance, human rights, were birthed by Judeo-Christian values. (2)(3). There is no doubt that the moral identity that people draw from religious beliefs or otherwise are important(4) But in today’s truly global community, divisive and mutually competing identities, such as Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist, is archaic and in need of changing. We should simply act as responsible and decent human beings-we do not need to separate ourselves or give ourselves a name in order to accomplish this.

We are in a strange time regarding our beliefs. Religion as practiced by the vast majority of people in the first world, is bereft of intellectual content and has been for quite some time.(5)(6). Its status, as guardians of the moral law and champions of human dignity hasn’t been admittedly- fully vitiated as its factual claims- it has however been thoroughly criticised and found deeply unpersuasive(7).

These facts, omit a dreamy reality though. For rather than pulling back from the precipice of religious unreason, we are seemingly still hurtling ourselves towards it.(8) If good people of all persuasions are to embark upon and realize our common goals, then we all will have to omit of our delusions about our current situation.

The crucial point that religious moderates need to realise- that the recurrence of religious criticism has not taken place in a vacuum nor has it come about arbitrarily. It is a principled push-back against the consequences that various religious beliefs and practices have wrought upon society.(I invite the reader to a long footnote as to why this is such, if they are unconvinced and in need of persuasion on this point.(9)

It has become apparent to me that there is a substantial number of atheists though that are in principle opposed to anything that has a tincture of religion in it. This is a sad confusion that all sides are guilty of. Mistaking the numinous for the transcendent, the super for the supernatural, the spiritual for new age quackery. There is an impulse in all religions, faint in many but nonetheless present-a groping for the profound a need of the sacred. The crucial point is that what many get out of community, charity, hymns, prayer or contemplation is interpreted as confirmatory of their beliefs.(10)They are of value in and off themselves-not what they purport to be for. Many atheists though seem incapable of seeing the value of these things.

This is not an excuse however for people to utter the most egregious claims concerning- meaning, morality, values or otherwise. The punch line, is that there is activities of value that are practised by religious people but can be understood in a totally secular way. The solution to our problem is neither eradicating religion or promoting good religion but promoting good people to lead decent, honest and thoughtful lives.

Surprisingly Karl Marx had it right when he said-

“(Religion)-is the heart of the heartless world, just as it is the spirit of the spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people….Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain, not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower….the criticism of heaven turns into the criticism of the earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of right and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.” (11)

Though upbringing, ignorance and the limits and traps of our psychology play a role (12).What ultimately I believe so convinces people, once identified with a religion who remain so- is the positive social and psychological emotions they garner from it.(13). So we need to locate, isolate and extract what is of value in our religions and transport it to anyone--who wishes it. It is hard to find a word or words that express this succinctly. A good place to begin, is with meaning, morality, values and community or explanation, exhortation, inspiration and consolation.(14) Marx’s “spiritless” age meanwhile has not gone away despite the “flowers” of consumerist culture(15).

What we need is a national project, a grass roots development of a centre, where people can undertake and fulfil the needs that are met through religious affiliations. Connection, intimacy, a sense of being valued, a sense of the scared or reflective without the intrusion of the ridiculous or the commercial. Creative workshops, clubs and societies, lectures and talks from both professionals and enthusiastic amateurs, on various public interest matters. Opportunities for young people to socialise and enjoy themselves free from both drink, drugs and mischief. Community arts projects. Charity work, sports……

Every town could have a centre or at least hold events at schools, libraries, leisure centres or even churches. Larger towns or cities would naturally have more resources to deploy. It could be a government funded, charity based foundation. We could call it Hope or Project Civilisation or the Eudemonia Project- the Greek word for human flourishing. Although I do not have space to fill out what the exact details of what such a project could do, I will sketch in what such a project may hope to achieve with two areas of central importance-meaning and community.

On the question of meaning, its not about providing a single, one size fits all message, its about allowing people to explore the question and implications of meaning, values and morality, both inner-personally and inter-personally. Asking questions, rather than providing answers, searching rather than arriving at a fixed conclusion. The imparting of information relating to questions, such as how should I live my life? What should I value? What inspires me? Specifically, we may have speakers or part time co-ordinators from a range of different backgrounds and expertise. It need not be strangers though, local men and women may choose to share their own perspectives. Semi-conferences may be organised, workshops set up and personal projects embarked upon. It does not have to take a “discursive” approach though. Some might choose to take up guitar lessons or cookery lessons, or organise a local choir or enter the town into competitions and so forth. Local people may find fulfilling, moral and social identities, by attending or helping to organise events or helping to run classes for other members of the community.

The above paragraph related meaning, very closely to community and in a sense that’s the heart of the project. To re-capture the sense of community and social intimacy that would have been around thirty or forty years ago. Something that for a variety of reasons (not all of which is lamentable) has been lost. The project is not some romantic pine for the sunny days of yore. Strong communities of the past may have been desirable for their intimacy and support but they were also and still are raciest, sexist and insular. A priority would be learning about other cultures, perhaps sponsoring and supporting some less well off town, in a third world state. A citizen exchange program may be a fun and exciting extension of the opportunity that some schools give pupils. I have already mentioned many community programs that could unite people--let me give a few more, especially for young people. Sports is highly important not just for health or a sense of identity but for making connections and learning self-discipline, co-operation and endurance. For children with other aspirations--drama clubs, music clubs, computer game dens. Alcohol and drug free, Saturday night discos or mid week trips to the cinema along with possible weekend residentials, to learn team-work and leadership skills.

There is a real need I believe, to offer ways of marking births, marriages and deaths in ways that are not exclusively through church. The project could also help promote special community events such as the towns birthday or celebrating an important person who came from the area. Summer barbecues, Halloween discos and Christmas parties could be another possibility. Other projects would be-a town newspaper-or Ezine (electronic magazines emailed out) frequent town hall debates over issues that effect the community, mother and toddler groups, child day care, or even speed dating events.

Rather than unnecessarily explaining the reasons of why such things are psychologically, socially and spiritually important or their useful contributions to informed citizenship, I will look at possible difficulties and pit-falls that such a project might face.

Funding is obviously a challenge. Governments would argue that similar organisations and activities exist anyway. Setting it up as charity, making it tax-exempt with some government support is one possible route to go. Getting rich, high-profile philanthropists to kick start the project may be another one. With one of the above methods along with grass roots community support and desire to see such a thing would be the best way, to surmount the financial challenge.

The point that many or all of these activities exist anyway misses the point. Either all of the above is entirely provided by religious groups, therefore alienating everyone else or is through other exclusive bodies or organisations. The obvious attraction would be that it is open to all and all the diverse activities is brought under the aegis of one, big tent project. Also the message of community, co-operation and tolerance would be expressed explicitly and implicitly.(16)

Would it make a difference? We would never know for sure until such an enterprise was up and running. Clearly there is a need for many of the things I have outlined. However, three foes that such a project would attempt to eliminate would be- ignorance, tribalism and dogmatism. It would obviously be unsuccessful if it failed to redress such things or even if it contributed to them. The world is getting smaller and social demographics are changing. A gated, insular, racially/religiously separated community is a recipe for social dysfunction. As a resident of Northern Ireland, I know only full well what the consequences are of such maladies. A high profile and popular, inclusive organisation with one of its aims being to tackle these ills would surely make a difference.

I cannot think of a better way of putting my case or signalling the gravity of attempting to realise such an endeavour by quoting the last lines of Samuel Harris’s End of Faith.

“No myths need be embraced for us to commune with the profundity of our circumstance. No personal God need be worshiped for us to live in awe at the beauty and immensity of creation. No tribal fictions need be rehearsed for us to realize, one fine day, that we do, in fact, love our neighbours, that our happiness is inextricable from their own, and that our interdependence demands that people everywhere be given the opportunity to flourish. The days of our religious identities are clearly numbered. Whether the days of civilization itself are numbered would seem to depend, rather too much on how soon we realize this.”(17) (italics my emphasis)

Best and be well.

Michael Faulkner.

1 The stark conclusion is from Jared Diamond’s book Collapse How Societies Choose To Fail or Survive. It is not just problems such as environmental damage, overpopulation and climate change but actually convincing public figures and the public at large of them. Even if this has been met, there is still the consensus building and implementation that needs to be carried out, in order to stave off disaster. Various self interests yet collectively destructive factors, the weakness of human perception and political/religious differing identities are surely an obstacle to global co-operation. Furthermore, a recent global trends review by National Security Council reports that American leadership in the world will be on the wane by 2025 as the world becomes more bi-polarised “"No single outcome seems preordained: the Western model of economic liberalism, democracy and secularism, for example, which many assumed to be inevitable, may lose its lustre – at least in the medium term," the report warns” From The Guardian UK http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/barack-obama-president-intelligence agency

2 An example of this view is found by conservative author Dinesh D’ Souza in his book What’s So Great About Christianity. Philosopher John Gray although irreligious, has attacked secularism and “utopian” thinking as a descendent of Christianity. He has also attacked “New Atheism” Black Mass by John Gray. Straw Dogs by John Gray.

3 For an opposite narrative on the Enlightenment and what it means and where its inspirations draw from-AC Grayling- Towards the Light: The Story of the Struggles for Liberty and Rights That Made the Modern West. Grayling himself has offered a rebuttal of Gray’s Black Mass here on http://newhumanist.org.uk/1423

4 The importance of moral identity and what it means for our ethical considerations towards others is discussed by Jonathan Glover throughout his book Humanity a Moral History of The 20th century.

5 Theologians have not came up with a convincing case against the arguments concerning the truth claims of Religion. Alistair McGrath who appears to set himself up as the chief opponent of Richard Dawkins makes a coded concession that religious belief is detached from normal evidence thinking or that the evidence is or ought to be emotional rather than factual. This can be seen somewhere in this fascinating exchange between himself and Dawkins. http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=dawkins+v+mcgrath&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
Rabbi David Wolpe, who has debated Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, a published author, states that “Belief in God is not a propositional claim but an orientation towards life”. One final example would come from another theologian. Theo Hobson-the resident apologist for Christianity on the Guardian. “My response is: let's leave aside the question of the truth or falsity of religious belief… because the rationalist rejection of belief can't be the definitive answer it thinks it is. . And my response is also to say: let's focus on the second part of the atheist objection, the harmfulness.” This is from an exchange with Julian Baggini, Hobson position I gather is to evade questions on the truth or falsity and focus on harm or what’s good that religion does or could do. A fair summary of his position would be this “The core of Christianity is thinking that this man Jesus is uniquely important, on another level from any other human ever, worthy of worship. This belief can't be rationally justified.
So I can't really claim there's a gulf, or even a ditch, between me and the simple-minded devout, because that would imply I believed in a rationally defensible version of religion. That's why I'm so keen to park the truth question, and stick to the harm question”
Julian Baggini points out as would many that this is not the sort of belief that characterises the many millions who describe themselves as religious. In my opinion, Theology can be best thought of as a form of literary criticism. The problem is that much of it is impossible to falsify, its operates on equivocation , ambiguity and other sophistry. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/03/religion

6 Richard Dawkins is of the opinion that it was not possible to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist” until Darwin’s discovery. It is the chief reason he claims why he is an atheist. It is rarely pointed out though especially by Dawkins himself which is generally disappointing-that Darwin, never, ever, set out to destroy Christianity or rubbish the genesis myth. Indeed he believed that his amateurish specimen collections would be additional evidence of Gods creation. Darwin has been described at one point as a unreflective fellow who considered becoming a country parson, who stumbled upon the discovery of evolution by natural selection. Darwin sat on his discovery for many years and only published his work when Wallace, another independent discoverer of the theory was intending to publish his findings. This aspect to Darwin should be presented more, for although he indirectly created the sliver bullet to slay Yahweh it was Dawkins who fired the shot with his 747 gambit. Darwin is far from the bogey man and arch enemy of religion that he is understood by many unreflecting religious people. I say this only to show that Darwin was no polemists nor did he have a vested interest in seeing God “murdered”- to use his heartfelt expression of what he discovered. However this is not to say that his discoveries has nothing at all to speak to on either the inerrancy of the Bible, the nature of Man, or the existence of God himself. The discovery is utterly corrosive to religious belief and especially to the God hypothesis.. Dawkins’s 747 argument, found in The God Delusion has generally gone unnoticed by religious apologists and bizarrely by many atheists themselves. I believe this represents the best case that can be made scientifically as to why there “almost certainly is no God”.

7 see- http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html showing correlations between widespread theistic belief and societal dysfunction. Also-- Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations can tell us About Contentment (New York University Press, 2008). Demonstrates positive levels of societal well-being and other indications of a well-functioning societal that are irreligious such as the Northern European countries. For a concise, effective repudiation of Christian ethics and its consequences see Letter To a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.

8 Even though the sell of New Atheist books has done well, it only amounts to a few million copies. It is too early to tell if the attacks not only on Religion but on the idea that faith is a virtue will have an effect.
See http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7913 for a article on the possibility that Religious families will have more offspring than secular ones, especially descendents of Muslim immigrants and how this will change the secular character of Western Europe.
Despite defeating several attempts to get Creationism/Intelligent Design into the classrooms it shows no sign of going away.-- http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/the_battle_rages_on_in_texas.php There is also concern over the number of children in British Schools from Evangelical and Islamic backgrounds brought up to believe in Creationism, faith schools has no doubt added to the problem.
http://www.teachers.tv/news/30218--a

9 The End of Faith, which is the first in the so called New Atheist books is one that is more expressly political and social rather than rehearsing the arguments on the existence of God. Harris was moved to write the book the day after 9/11 after studying religion for fifteen years. It would appear that many of his concerns were already shaped before the September attack. What did however influence him was the explaining away of Jihad within Islam as either not religious or aberrant along with the retreat into religious obfuscation that America embraced after the attack. It was clear to him that whatever else was going to be said, religion and faith would not be held to account for its consequences. In chief, his concerns are that the failure to hold religious belief to the same standards of other rational discourse, has been disastrous for social, economic, political and scientific progress. Indeed even rational discussion of them. His follow up, Letter to a Christian Nation is not an attack on the foundations of Christian ethics, or its bloody history nor is it a extended argument against the truth claims of it but-- largely on the consequences of specific beliefs and practices and the ignorance, unreason and dogmatism that propels them.
Richard Dawkins is self-admittedly less interested in the various consequences of religious belief. However his prime concern is the subversion of science, in particular, evolution. In an interview with Lawrence Kruss he stated that his motivation is to get people to accept evolution and the scientific method, his strategy of achieving this is to attack religious superstition--namely God hence-The God Delusion. It is likely though that Dawkins would have wrote a book concerning God at some point in his career, but I feel that the tone of the book would have been vastly different if the rise of creationism in both the US and UK, along with 9/11 had not have taken place.
Daniel Dennett’s approach is more measured than Dawkins or Harris et all--he wishes to see the spread of “a-virulence” that is-that people are protected from being inculcated with the most dangerous and retrograde belief systems. Religious apologists have for, perhaps understandable reasons, especially in the Muslim world- not conceded the point that these criticisms are fundamentally about consequences. Putting it bluntly, if it was not for Jihads, terrorism, honor killings, genital mutilation, undermining of abortion rights, the lies over contraception. Demonizing homosexuals, the murder of artists and beheading of journalists and the inculcation of children with fairy stories, the New Atheist movement would be largely bereft of content. If such dreadful consequences were remedied, debates over virgin births, inerrancy of certain books and the resurrection of certain people would be merely “academic”.

10 Sam Harris has been the most eloquent in his view of this. It can be found in his two books, along with various talks, debates and essays.

11 Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s philosophy of Right by Karl Marx.

12 Daniel Dennett--Good reasons for believing in belief in God http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-808547712754338659 His talk begins around the 17 minute mark.

13 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7302609.stm and this for a larger overview of the issue which seems to confirm my thesis http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/pagenum/all/

14. I believe that it was Richard Dawkins in a debate who coined these terms in relation to the good life.

15 For an excellent literary insight into this I would suggest the work of JG Ballard in particular, Millennium People, Kingdom Come and Super-cannes. Radiohead’s masterpiece OK Computer provides the soundtrack to modern malaise along with the film and book Fight Club by Chuck Palahnuk. The work of Bret Easton Ellis which at times hilarious and brilliant also shows the “soullessness” of modern culture. For literary work which extols the luminous without the transcendent I cannot not recommend the work of Ian McEwan in particular Saturday-surely one of the best novels of the last few decades. There is perhaps no finer modern poet in showing that there is “grandeur in this view of life” than McEwan--which is to say the humanist naturalist outlook.
There is obviously disagreement whether we are less spiritually or psychologically contented than say, our ancestors recent or ancient. The founding of professional health care and the institution of psychology along with the relaxing of taboos over mental health, has no doubt revealed people with problems where in by-gone times they would have suffered in silence. As to our physical and material welfare there can be no doubt of the improvement of this index. It may well be an existentialist problem. Once the basic needs of life has been secured, alongside the freedoms that western liberal democracy brings and the availability of choices, the reflective individual is inundated with possibility. It is this search for meaning, value and inspiration that is for the humanist, one of life’s pleasures and rewards. However for many, such long and exploratory processes may be unfeasible and undesirable. Conventional religion perhaps can be thought of-disparagingly- like fast food, quick, easy and superficially satisfying. Modernity has raised problems for sure but we cannot turn the clock back. It seems that we need to rethink politics-- as a continuation of ethics, which is to secure the well-fare or well-being of each individual, to arrange social and economic situations to maximise the ability of everyone, everywhere to flourish.

16 It could not take place in competition with other, similar groups.

17. From-The End of Faith. Sam Harris.

Getting an IS from an OUGHT

2008-11-13T12:17:00.000-08:00

Jonathan Haidt is an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia. His talk at Beyond Belief 3 was on morality or why liberals and conservatives don’t understand each other. His recent book is going to have the title the Rightious Mind: Why Good People are divided by Politics and Religion.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/jonathan-haidt-1

He is an articulate speaker and he gave a perceptive talk which I believe captured beautifully what morality is to a lot of people. There is many reasons why I’m interested in what he has to say. One of them would be of course to understand the opposition better. To also perhaps reconsider if there is something wrong or missing in your own views or to better communicate with people you disagree with.

In this sense its almost like an exercise in gathering intelligence behind the lines in war. As such Haidt and the work of his colleagues have crystallised many of the reasons why Liberals and Conservatives dont "get it".

One the first concerns I have with Haidt is not the content but the ambiguity in his view of the five factors of morality. At the start of the talk he calls himself a liberal, a moral consequentialist and utilitarian. He also goes on to claim that he is no moral relativist in a later exchange but right at the end of the round table discussion he spells out the point that we need to think of morality as “team sports”.

So does Haidt endorse what conservatives think of morality as valid? Does he wish to live by their principles? I’m not sure and he may be committing an odd inverse of the fallacy of deriving an ought from an is--saying that morality Is what Conservatives claim it Ought to be. I will attempt to show here that I don’t think his concepts although as descriptions are accurate they are neither real morality or a good system of ethics for today’s 21st global community.

Let me outline the five moral factors that Haidt presents.

1. Principles of harm and care.

This is simply happiness and suffering. Don’t cause harm to people, help them to get on etc. Try your best to reduce other peoples suffering if you can.

2. Fairness and Reciprocity. The golden rule. I scratch your back you scratch mine. Tit for Tat. One good turn deserves another.

(This is where Haidt claims that morality stops for liberals and the following 3 apply more to social conservatives.)

3. In Group loyalty. Loyal to the tribe. My country right or wrong. Patriotism, nationalism. Favour your community, race, religion, in all matters. Modulate your interests to that of the group. Obey group rituals etc, hold and show to hold similar beliefs and practices etc.

4. Deference to authority. Father figures, priest, preacher, teacher, men in uniform, the president or head man (providing he belongs to your in group.)

5. Purity. Virginity, sex, heterosexuality, drug taboos, food taboos, images, information, ideas. (This one surprised me but upon reflection it is a very perceptive remark upon concerns that motivate conservatives and the religious.)

Haidt argues that for conservatives morality is the balancing between these five factors. Factors one and two operate largely in relation to 3. (group loyalty). If you’re a liberal and you look at this you have a sort of epiphany, so that’s why they hate us.

Consider deference to authority as an example. Haidt sees the status of the President of the United States as a quasi like religious position. A position of ultimate authority appointed by God that should be free of critical analysis. This also translates to other positions of authority within society and critical acceptance of them. I don’t need to point out the reputation of liberals as activists, campaigners, sceptical of authority and untrusting of power figures. Also look at the mocking and criticism that George Bush came into from liberal critics.

Liberals are seen as cultural vandals, traitors and a infectious virus that threaten to undermine the country (I’m principally talking about America here but it can apply to every society.) Needless to say I don’t agree with either the conservatives idea of morality or Haidt if he is claiming it as moral strategies. “well you would say that wouldn’t you” You might reply, well yes but not because I’m more of a liberal but because it has been framed the wrong way.

Haidt’s last three factors are best not thought of as moral systems or concerns but as Adaptive strategies that foster strength, cohesion, trust and community in homogeneous social groups competing against rival ones.

Haidt actually has a passage in his talk that supports my claim. He quotes the famous passage from Charles Darwin from the Descent of Man that discusses morality and its effects on group selection- what factors make one group more likely to out compete another one. Human groups that are highly structured (authoritarian) and militaristic and banded. That have trust and can co-operate ( group loyalty) that have cults of purity and infection (keep isolated from other groups and ideas) are more likely to survive and out produce the other group.

Cults of purity and in-group loyalty would of course extend to rules about marrying out. In my own country it still raises eyebrows between inter-marrying Protestants and Catholics. A few short years ago it could have resulted in murder. Much the same could be said for American mixed race marriages in the south a few short decades ago. Similar things can be seen for the Hindu caste system or in Iraq where a young Muslim girl was stoned to death by the male members of her family recently for talking with a white British solider. It was rumoured that she fell in love with him. Taboos about marrying out linked to purity have the effect of course of not allowing any “foreign” or “contaminating” influences that would pose a threat to the status quo and homogeneity of the group. If marrying out did occur then one party would have to sacrifice their social and moral identity.

Societies that are ruled by dictators or authoritarian leaders and are tightly organised can of course achieve great things that more democratically inclined societies couldn’t because of disagreements and the inability to implement decisions.
Stalin for example ran a brutal regime that was responsible for the death of many millions of Russians but modernised the country and made it a superpower within a few decades. Russia under Stalin operated under a cult of personality and had its fractious in group loyalties and out group hostilities. It ran an “efficient” strong state though one that did little to contribute to the welfare of the people overall.

The punch line is when societies come crashing, human societies that are closely bonded, trusting of each other, have a strong single leader who operates as he sees fit, are aggressive towards rivals, are more likely to out compete peaceable, plural democracies.Morality is the way diverse indivduals are able to co-operate in order to prosper. The key difference is conservatives are hostile to difference, change, individualism.They want to suppress these factors. Where as liberals are the opposite. Looking at it this way is there any suprise that there is conflict?

There is another claim that I believe Haidt makes--namely that homogeneous societies that follow the five factors are more likely to be happy than ones who aren’t.

Let us imagine a society that is white, heterosexual, largely Christian. Women operate only in church, kitchen or home. Young men have extended stays in the national services, young women look after children and babies. Raucous music and drugs are strictly illegal. There is little dissent, no satire or criticism. There is though strong, vibrant communities of individuals working together and looking after each other. They all belong to the same political party and regularly have parties and parades celebrating their culture and beliefs.

The society I am describing is not American Protestant evangelicals in 2008 but what would have looked like in Germany in the 1950’s after the Nazi's had flattened Europe and rolled out its Lebensraum aims. The Nazi’s had a vicious cult of purity and of course passed racial hygiene laws, demonised Jews and homosexuals. Though such a “vibrant” “strong” “happy” community would have been created, the consequences of such a transformation would have been and where appalling.

There is no question that the five factors that Haidt discusses were useful strategies in our evolutionary pas. They create unnecessary misery and divisiveness. They are also a bad and outdated response to globalisation and modernity.

While some disagree that there is no such thing as progress. I think its largely clear that the historical trend is one away from theocracies and despotism and towards democracy, human rights and individual freedoms. Though it may take some time for it to spread to certain parts of the world, here in western Europe the genie is out of the bottle and is here to stay.

Christian conservatives in America may be the most happiest set of people in the country but this fact is matched by countries like Norway and Sweden which are largely secular and atheistic. At this point you may be tempted to say well good for them and good for them too. This misses the point though. At what price does the Christian fundamentalists keep their community happy? The effects of their socially unifying beliefs on capital punishment, abortion, stem cell research, teenage sex and drugs is one that is largely maladaptive. Homicide, abortion, STD, divorce and violent crime rates are higher in conservatives states and cites than liberals ones. We should also consider what happens to individuals who cannot or will not conform to the social and cultural norm.

I have argued elsewhere that we can conceive of morality as a four fold step. Reason in acquiring facts and information and leaving superstition and dogmatism at the door. Second, using those facts to best decide what consequences will produce the most human happiness and lessen suffering. Third the golden rule and fourth considering a civil society. Freedom and liberty may be more desirable though in some cases than lessening suffering or promoting wellbeing (such as free speech). Allowing people freedom to choose their beliefs and actions is vital and is the most important aspect to civil society.

Stable, informed democracies are the best ways in which individuals of all kinds can flourish. What is needed is global ethics and world morality. Tribalism, dogmatism and irrationality are to be opposed in all forms. This does not mean we should not support appropriate authorities or write off the importance of community and human connection. I believe a police force and criminal justice system are essential to society. No one apart from conservatives is saying that you cannot have friends or intimacy or strong, happy, moral societies without believing any unjustified claims or demonizing outsiders, except maybe Jonathan Haidt.

Best and be well

Michael Faulkner.

A Day in the City. Arguments, Thoughts and Opinions.

2008-11-12T08:18:00.000-08:00

“Having a brain and not thinking is like having a hand without fingers.” Sam Harris.

“many people are walking around unwittingly with another’s ideas or memes in their head” Sue Blackmore.

“is this your idea man or is it someone else’s?” Krishnamurti.

“some people would sooner die than think” Bertrand Russell.

“the use of the intelligence and the critical faculties are inseparable from angst, conflict, doubt” Christopher Hitchens.

Thinking, argument and disputation is not useful but essential to progress. Not only as individuals but as a society and as a species. Is there though limits to thinking? To disputation? To the dialectical method? It is vital but is it always sufficient on all matters? Is there some questions, some problems or spiritual yearnings that lie beyond the scope of rational, critical analysis?

To ask such questions is of course to beg them. For we are attempting to answer them by the process of thinking about them. So on Tuesday the 4th of November the moment I became conscious, my mind began its thought cycle. Thinking about future events, repeating solutions I came up with to last nights private arguments. The idea or thought or memory emerges slowly almost imperceptibly like a flower or weed sprouting from a seedling. The thought arises, I recognise it and attach to it and fly off into a extended tour through my consciousness . Its not so much thinking but repetition. Almost as if the constant repeating of sayings, visualising reactions to situations is a balm or bad habit or a confabulation. An unceasing narrative that gives my life drama, importance a sense that there is a I.

This is of course one of the reasons I meditate or rather practice mindfulness. The exactness of being present in the moment and experiencing each sensation as it is. I practiced for about twenty minutes after getting up. I’m getting “better” at it. Your actions take on a serene flow, a suppleness. Your powers of attention and awareness towards your body, your thoughts and feelings and external phenomenon is heightened. Your concentration is improved and your ability to precisely notice things about your self is developed. Certain patterns of thought and perception, little quirks and oddities noticed. Like ways you wash your face or butter your toast or thoughts of past memories that the smell of coffee brings. Mindfulness is not at all like self-consciousness with its feelings of anxiety and doubt. No its that you simply observe the arising of thought and sensation, notice and label your thinking. Rather than “I am angry” “this body is feeling anger” Observing without an observer, thinking without a thinker.
*

Later when I was in Belfast to meet a friend I got this recurring impression. As I walked past the numerous coffee shops hosting lawyers, bankers and other assortments of young professionals. I saw a large sign stuck to the window that read. “Your best Neighbourhood corner store.” The choice of the word neighbourhood was strange, it has American connotations and not something that is not normally used in our vocabulary. So with this, the coffee shops, the men in suits, the minimalist asexual hair salons, the variety of life that passed me by. I got a feeling of being in America, in New York. The greatest of cities and no doubt getting ready for election night with the chance at cathartic relief with an Obama win. It stirred within me that profound yet trite knowledge that there is billions of people on the planet getting on with their lives at this very second on this moment without being aware of either me or me of them.

Imagine also all the people of history. What must it have felt being the last of the Mayans? The last of the Greenland Norse witnessing the collapse of your society and the only way of life that you know? Or a young man gazing out into the pacific ocean from the remote Easter Island hundreds of years ago? For thousands of years humans have fought, lived and died, have loved and lost and suffered shocking, inexplicable natural disasters. Experiencing the mysterious deaths of loved ones whose reasons only modern medicine would understand. The majority of life so far and for the majority of people still, live under the aegis of the most abysmal ignorance. I often consider our teeming loneliness on this planet, on this little pale blue dot. In the middle of nowhere with nothing out there. This is what it must have felt like to those lonely souls of antiquity.

I sat down at city hall, waiting for my friend to arrive. Every time I see the Victorian nature of it I think of the similarly looking building in Baltimore’s The Wire. The site of which houses the mayor and is the base from which many dubious and nefarious schemes are plotted and executed. As I waited I started to read from Jonathan Glover’s Humanity a Moral History of the 20th Century. It begins with something called Nietzsche’s challenge. Nietzsche of course dramatically and contradictorily proclaimed that God was dead. How can a non existent entity die? Nietzsche like a good fundamentalist Christian of which he was rebelling from believed that without God there was no morals. You were free to decide for yourself. You were “free” to self-create yourself. Nietzsche, Glover writes did not like Darwin but saw in his theory a confirmation of his world view which was struggle, hardness and cruelty. When we talk of Social Darwinism we should really talk of Social Spencerism as it was Herbert Spencer who advocated pulling the rug of compassion and charity for the suffering and improvised. Spencer would interpret this as natural and good for the species, Nietzsche would have agreed with this. Though I doubt that Nietzsche got his views from Natural Selection applying them callously like Spencer and hence committing the Naturalistic fallacy. (that is what occurs in nature is morally right or ethically justified).

Glover rebuts Nietzsche by rightly pointing out that although God may not exist and that the moral law may not be as self evident as it once was it does not follow that cruelty, strife and selfishness proceed from it. Others peoples ideas of self-creation may be compassion, charity and tolerance. I first seriously encountered Nietzsche’s writing in Will Durant Story of Philosophy. I found his views adolescent and callous, it was asking for trouble. The impression I got of him is that much of his writing was a guilt induced rancour when young and unable to participate in a war with his comrades and losing the chance at marriage. His views on women and hence “feminine” qualities turned particularly caustic. Some of his views stuck me as nothing more than the private and hectic writings of a forlorn, sexually vexed fourteen year old.

It reminded me of nothing more than Sayyid Qutub. The man who would “unsettle” Islam. Who is required reading for every aspiring Islamist. Another chaste and puritanical virgin who’s bitter views on America, women and western culture in particular have shaped the Islamist psyche. He is Bin Laden’s favourite philosopher and perhaps is to him what Nietzsche was to Hitler.

My friend was late. I paused and looked up at the thousands of people around me. I had just finished reading anecdotes under the section the Festival of Cruelty. Iraqi political prisoners under Saddam being thrown into tubs of acid called the “swimming pool”. South American junta’s torturing prisoners by attaching electrical nodes to their genitals. Women forced to serve the guards naked and being raped and violated with strips of wood and metal.

I stared at the passing people. Watching them “live” with no idea of me or what I was reading or the suffering and misery in the world. Ian McEwan’s remarks about photography and its evocation of mortality came floating back into my attention.

“Not only the young couple pausing by a park railing, but the child with a hoop and stick, the starchy nurse, the solemn baby upright in its carriage- their lives have run their course, and they are all gone. And yet frozen in sepia, they appear curiously, busily, obliviously of the fact that they must die-as Susan Sontag put it “photographs state the innocence, the vulnerability of lives heading towards their own destruction” Photography she said is the inventory of mortality”

That thought returned to me as it does near every day, that this will all end. That my life is finite and ever depleting, that with each passing moment with every exhalation of breath I move closer to my death.

My friend arrived on bike puffed, yet without looking hurried or upset. Hugh is perhaps my oldest friend and I have known him since I was a very small boy. A model candidate for eudemonia, a Greek word roughly translates to flourishing or human well being. A fair, tolerant, engaging personality. Open minded and affable. Indeed despite being a Christian he display qualities of openness and curiosity that would shame many an atheist. He perhaps represents the pragmatic argument for religion in its strongest form. We have had many adventures, scrapes, arguments and discussions. Played football together, represented the school on debating matters. Though we have many different views and interests we both subscribe to the essential attitude of being earnest about life.

He told me a charming story being at an Oasis concert and getting involved in a fight with a “Yo” over some trivial jostling. My friend politely asked the man to calm down. Rather than a sheepish acknowledgment and apology from the drunk, a head butt was the reply. My friend speared him to the ground, an unconscious subliminal reaction before being set upon by his friends. No serious damage was sustained. Hugh had the guy in a armlock and was struck from all sides. While this almost surreal event was taking place his mind found time to press play on a discourse as what should he do as a Christian? Fight the attackers or turn the other cheek. Perhaps this best represents Blackmore’s line that we carry foreign ideas or memes around in our head that we would not think about otherwise. I replied jokingly- you have obviously not read Aquinas and his Summa Theologiae his justifications for war. I told him you had plenty of Casus belli to throw a few “digs”. Though he was lucky somebody did not stick a knife in him. The effects of alcohol have never been summed up better by Epictetus that there are three branches to it. First relaxation, second drunkenness and third violence.

*

My friend took me to a gallery- a joint project between art and science. A challenge and an attempt at consciousnesses raising over our attitudes to disposable materials. Essentially it boiled down to the amount of plastic we throw out rather than recycle or reuse. The novel solution was once the plastics (a fairy liquid bottle say) use was no longer required then it could be dissolved in warm water. It could then be further used by using the plastic gel or perhaps “plagel” or “pell” as a kind of compost. I assure you this is no joke. Plant seeds could be stored in the bottle cap and planted when required. They had a cute display of this with fairy liquid bottles slowly “metamorphosing” into sunflowers. A true fusion of the plastic and the organic perhaps. It was though novel and pleasing to see the fusion between an arts and science project. The two are of course notorious in their antipathy towards each other.

This was signalled as I was introduced to a female acquaintance of my friend. “ah he loves this its all science stuff.” directed jokingly at me. There is of course a division between what can broadly be called the humanities and the sciences. Higher Superstition: the Academic left and its Quarrels with Science. Stephen Pinker’s Blank Slate has a long section on it. Then there is of course Richard Dawkins Unweaving the Rainbow. Where it begins with the famous charge by Keats than Newton destroyed the mystery and wonder of the Rainbow by his “cold” and “sterile” experiments on light. There is something interesting though in the debate. Science Tand technology has made enormous contributions to civilisation and no one is left untouched by its effects. It has an almost promethean ability to discover knowledge and cultivate that knowledge to the betterment of mankind. (Caveats aside-weapon technology, Global warming) However something so practical and useful is generally looked down upon as “lower”. Indeed things like paintings, dance and poetry are elevated to “high Art” and seen as works of genius and the greatest fruits of human aspiration. There is undoubtedly a gaping chasm between the excess and abstraction and uselessness of much art and its cultural prestige and promethean science which is largely snubbed and trivialised. I’m no philistine nor am I far from sympathy with culture (I feel my life would be a great deal lesser without some of the pleasures of literature, film and music.) The best case comes from evidence against interest which is John Carey’s What Good are the Arts? A kind of God Delusion for the art world which asks some tough questions and gives some pointed answers. Carey is no barbarian at the gate, he is a professor of literature at Oxford no less so its his “turf” he is talking about.

Another thought arose when viewing the gallery. The depressing but realistic conclusion from Jared Diamond in his book Collapse how societies choose to fail or survive. (which I had just finished). Diamond argues that our environmental damage and ecological destruction is hurtling us toward the cliff (unsurprising) but that with much of the world in third world or developing status they will contribute to the damage by modernising. The cruel irony is that the world as a whole will not be able to support large swaths of the planet living as we do in Europe and America. Mass immigration will not solve the problems as it will overwhelm our own resources. In this day and age, with Global warming, weapons of mass destruction, rogue states and continuing human rights abuses the need for a world government is needed more than ever. Millions though will have to live in abject misery for a very long time. And unless the experts are very much wrong our current form of living will not last forever.

I flicked through a copy of Sight and Sound while in reception. It had as its main spread “What good are film critics?” I had little time to ingest the pro and cons but David Thomson as ever had something interesting to say though as usual unconnected with the issue discussed. He relayed Norman Mailer’s views on film as death “Film is a phenomenon whose resemblance to death has been ignored for too long.” The similarity of this reminded me of my earlier thoughts of McEwan. He goes onto to say that the capturing of emotion, atmosphere, action on film which survives as a kind of memory of what has passed. This is similar to our own memories which constructs the past and plays it out in our heads like little film reels. Films are “static” yet watch a favourite years apart and your aware of the changes and differences in your own life since your last viewing. You move on but the film is entombed in time.

We had lunch near the Albert Clock. I had an enormous “lunch” box of pasta. Hugh less so. We enjoyed a cigarette post lunch and a talk about happiness and society. We start out at roughly the same place: a disenchantment with poplar culture, a refusal to be satisfied with “barbecues and ball games”. Hugh liked the phrase though I must confess I stole it from Robert De Niro in Heat in the immortal address between him and Pacino. My friend’s solution is ultimately in Christianity, mine is far less certain and open ended. The importance of friendship and connection is something he lists as a valuable necessity for the good life. I broadly agree with this but as someone who has dwelled both on and in solitude I wouldn’t say that this was sufficient itself for happiness. For there are many people who are hermits and profess to be perfectly happy. This however is the exception not the norm.

The truth though is that for most of us it is neither possible nor desirable to live alone. My friend somewhat romantically pines to live in the past, in a small, tightly knit community of cooperation and friendship. There is much to had in this but I think part of our generations challenge is to think globally and internationally. It cannot be dismissed though that loving ones neighbour and existing in a community is surely better than living in one that’s selfish and alienated. The other challenge is of course to have community that is not tribal, belligerent and hostile.

I believe it is on this question that religion seems to stand on firm ground. Its surely contributes to tribalism but for creating strong, similarly minded communities and hence enabling trust and cooperation it is monolithic. In this country especially it is the only game in town when it comes to occasions such as marking births, marriages and deaths. Providing youth centres and community projects. This is certainly one of the reasons why religion still persists and gives the false impression on people that without it society would collapse. Let me put it bluntly. If your working class in Northern Ireland you have three spheres to belong to. Firstly you have drinking. That is going out to clubs, pubs and house parties near every week to get blind and fighting drunk. Secondly you can cocoon yourself in football and devote yourself to the God that is the Premiership. Third is religion. Drinking and football go well together, football and religion can work. Its hard though to do all three.

You don’t need to be a social psychologist to see and understand the appeal of all three. But if secularists are to win the war with religion they must provide some idea and structure of community, identity and values without committing the excess and divisiveness that religion causes. A article in slate magazine seems to be saying the same thing, showing that there is not just one way of creating, happy vibrant communities.

http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/?GT1=38001

*

Me and my friend visited another art gallery and an interesting exchange occurred. It had an exhibition on the Mexican festival of the day of the dead. Where celebrations and gifts to dead children would be “given” to alters. My friend disliked it, perhaps for its “gaudy tastelessness”. It is certainly a different “perspective” from our culture. The curator, a woman dressed in punkish clothes with her hair in dreadlocks engaged us in dialogue. I agreed with her that our culture has a high and unusual aversion to death and it appears unable to look at in and properly acknowledge it. I cannot help but recall Larkin’s line “the vast moth eaten musical brocade created to pretend we never die” the brocade is of course religion and it was on display at this gallery. A huge cross decorated with trinkets and ornaments, skulls, toy cars, sweets, stones.

I posed a question to the woman. Asking for her take on my little “performance art” suggestion. Gather together a few hundred male and female revellers and dress them in Burka’s for a rave. Halfway through the set and no doubt played to some rousing anthem, the lights would go down for a few seconds to come back on again to reveal a transformation. Witnessing a few hundred people discard a symbol-better than any, for the enforced oppression of women and a sign of their servile and secondary status. My little proposal, perhaps the most explosive and radical “performance art” that would ever be undertaken was met with consternation with this impolite suggestion. Apologies were offered over words like “sensitivity” “racism” “modesty” and this “some women choose to wear them.” There is something almost ironic in me with short hair and dressed in denim and desert boots- a short hand look for social conservatism outdoing the so called counter cultural curator before me and my bohemian friend beside me.

Protests such as women “choose” to wear such things is although disputed is still met with the rebuttal that even if freely elected it’s done in the connection with several other unreasonable beliefs. These beliefs come from the Koran and the Hadith which are ultimately given authority by the creator who presumably authored them. A book is not a sufficient reason for either men or women to believe that females are better off treated as chattel and the sexual property of men. What are the odds that Chinese, American or Irish women would freely choose to display their “modesty” in such a way if it was not for the inculcation of such ridiculous beliefs at birth?

The curator said to me that she engages in a lot of cross community work and that it would probably upset people. I wish I had of replied by telling her to look at the Christian cross behind her. Did people NOT get upset by that? Is that not a form of sacrilege? A short time ago you would have burned for such an offence and it is only through the many deaths and brave actions of men and women do you now have the freedom to erect that cross upon your wall. “who are we to criticise other peoples beliefs and practices?” Who are we NOT to criticise beliefs and practices when they are needlessly contributing to the suffering and misery of millions of the worlds population. Words like sensitivity, modesty and respect are obscene when set against the very real and disgusting events such as the thirteen year old Somali girl who was first raped, second accused of “adultery” and third buried to her neck before being bricked to death. Pause on the word adultery and consider this in the context that the girl is thirteen years of age. This further highlights the despicable practice of forced marriages and underage institutionalised rape that occurs across the Islamic world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7708169.stm

There is so much white guilt on this issue and so much political correctness along with the ecumenicalism that religion fosters among itself that is almost impossible to challenge any of the pervading dogmas that surround the issue.

After the art gallery me and my friend had an interesting chat with a police inspector overseeing the arrival of a Royal prince (who’s name escapes me) to the war memorial building in the Cathedral quarter. I asked him what he thought about the war on drugs. The man was articulate and intelligent and it was hard to tell what he really thought. What came across was more or less a support for the blanket ban on drugs. Though we politely disagreed, I did learn something from the exchange. The debate is muddled on two key fronts. Firstly the mistake of equating all drugs as the same and omitting no key distinctions between them. Secondly the framing of the issue. The chief reason of banning and of criminalising them is that they pose a threat to human life. Essentially it is a question of pharmacology not morality nor legality. Looking at it this way you discover the obvious but often omitted point that all drugs are not the same. So we arrive back at my first point. Which as I said is almost always overlooked.

Drugs such as LSD, MDMA and Cannabis are far less dangerous and corrosive to society than is either Alcohol or Tobacco or even perhaps junk food. Our policing on what is essentially a human universal-an unstoppable and eradicable a desire like sex is doomed to failure. Violent offenders both in America and in Britain are released to make room for drug users and dealers. Watching something like The Wire you see that it is prohibition rather than the drugs themselves that cause the violence, the deaths and the societal collapse. The UK recently upgraded Cannabis to class B against the advice of not only the medical experts but the police as well. There was no rational basis for the upgrade. Like a lot of other culture war issues a serious debate and rectification of reasons is scarcely possible when such actions take place.

The proper way of conducting and deciding such debates is via a fourfold step. Firstly the application of reason. Acquiring facts and documenting evidence. Leaving dogmas and superstitions at the door is also required. Secondly using these facts to decided which action or choices increases the net happiness and reducing the suffering of human beings. In a sense what action reduces the most harm. Thirdly considering something like the golden rule. Doing onto others what you would have them do onto you. Or doing onto others what they would want seen done to them. The Golden rule, GB Shaw’s inverse of it and the platinum rule serve two principles. Empathy and opening yourself up to the charge of hypocrisy. Finally considering what is a civil society. What is best for the whole of society? What contributes to the liberty, well being and aspirations of individuals as well as the whole. Though good arguments can be made on both sides of an argument for a variety of issues it is clear that when we consider moral problems through this prism the intellectual and moral pretensions of many who oppose things like abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality, inter race marriage and drug prohibition are left stripped and bereft of any credibility whatsoever.

*

A quiet coffee and cigarette at writers circle on Cathedral quarter is how we played out the rest of the diminishing afternoon. We talked about the Northern Ireland “troubles” I mused as to why it had taken so long for a power sharing agreement to be reached. I asked the open question of what role did people like Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley play in prolonging or instigating the violence. The agreement that we have now is little different from the proposals of the sixties and the 1973 Sunningdale Agreement. Who or what was responsible for the unnecessary violence of the last thirty years? Why did Irish Nationalists give support to bombing and bullets rather than civil rights protests and peaceful marches? Why did they not model themselves on the desegregation movement of America in the sixties? What role did Protestant intransigence and intolerance play in creating the divide? These are open questions to myself that will one day need to be explored. What will people say and think fifty or sixty years hence? That Irish mothers raised a generation of psychopaths? That the failure of reason, compassion and common sense determined the violence? Both sides have a richly sordid and shameful history but can the deep divisions ever be overcome? Our we going about it the right way? Is it good thing that protestant and catholic identities are drummed into us since the moment we are born?

My friend left me at the Linen hall library. A great and vast house of books, a wonderful place to spend a day, reading, chatting and mulling over the great issues. I doubt I fitted in well with my garb of denim and sandy coloured boots. Not with the place mostly populated by wealthy looking elderly people. It was a great little moment as me and my friend chatted overlooking Belfast city hall at twilight. The city centre beautifully illuminated, with the Eye slowly rotating in the background. It was a day well spent.

*

My time in Belfast had not finished yet. For the past few months I have attended a Meditation group or a Zen group. Sitting that night took on an uncommon simplicity and ease. Suzuki Roshi stated that Zen is “nothing special” “Zen is not some fancy, special art of living.--just to live always in reality, in its exact sense.” I simply sat. Simply did the walking meditation or Kihin. I’m the sort of person who steels himself up for things, mental preparation, planning out moves and thinking ahead. I noticed this aspect in myself that night quite clearly. There was a freedom in simply “getting on with what your doing.” Doing what the moment required without prior thought or planning. There was no thoughts such as “have to concentrate now” “or I must meditate well tonight” “oh look at me Mr meditation”

So why am I interested in such a weird or unusual endeavour? I have always been interested in the orient for as long as I can remember in particular Japan. Childhood fascination with Samurai and Ninjas (who practiced meditation) Japanese history, culture etc. A passing interest in Buddhism but more the particularly Zen school of Japan. So it is somewhat arbitrary my interest in Zen rather than Theravadin or Tibetan Buddhism. Secondly one of my favourite authors Yukio Mishima used the metaphysical underpinnings of rebirth and karma as a vehicle for his sea of fertility teratology. This somewhat rekindled my interest but it was Sam Harris who persuaded me that there might be something of interest worth pursuing. Greek Stoic philosophy also lead me to it, so there is many tributaries and streams which have brought me to it.

Am I wasting my time? In a sense we are all wasting our time in one way or another. How we do it and why is of course the fundamental question. Ironically it is this that Zen attempts to uncover. Similar in a sense to Socrates judgement that an unexamined life is not worth living. A claim I would tentatively advance for eastern religions or philosophies (I’m using a broad brush here) is that some of them in some forms have the very best and most desirable aspects of western traditions. They go on to distil and refine them and claim to cultivate them systemically and methodically via the practice of various meditation strategies. This is of course an empirical claim and I expect science to fully settle the question in the next few decades. Ie whether it is bullshit or not. For myself I can say that I have benefited and enjoyed both the practice and find some of the ethical considerations relevant and useful for today. Its philosophical views on life best expressed in the four noble truths, three marks of existence and eight fold path are particularly elegant. You don’t have to believe anything on faith and nothing need be taken without having good reasons supporting it.

*

The day though was capped with-well what else? The US election. I was glad to see the Obama win and for the shocking and disgraceful campaign of John McCain to implode. As I write Obama plans to overturn Bush’s obstinate and irrational refusal of funding stem cell research and for his brazen unconcern for unethical methods of oil drilling. I hope of course that the tarnished image of America as a stupid, racist and bellicose nation can be repaired. Obama is not just black but an intellectual-an elite. This is something to be celebrated of course as we have seen what a regular “guy you can have a beer with” does to a country.

I was barely able though to stay awake during the election night. Drifting in and out of sleep, waking up to see Obama edge ever closer to victory. It was a surprise and pleasure to see Christopher Hitchens come on the BBC and ruffle a few feathers with his acerbic wit and bombastic polemics against the McCain campaign. I’m well used to Hitchens on You Tube and in writing but seeing him live and with the rather non-descript company of two bit political pundits made me recognise just how rare and special he is.

So when the election was called early on Wednesday morning I allowed myself a smile. The economic crisis may have given Obama the victory more than any other factor. However there is still some room for “hope” and a example that the lowest common dominators do not always hold sway. After eight years of Bush I sincerely wish that Obama can restore America as the respected leader of the free world.

“everything must be doubted” I was glad to see many Republicans cross party lines and give up divisive single issues and vote for the candidate who is actually best for them. Dogmatically holding on to beliefs, ideas, ideals of how things should be is harmful. It is especially corrosive when those beliefs simply do not map onto reality. Such as Obama being a Muslim or a terrorist or a socialist. To finish lets hope that statements and beliefs such as this are never again operational in politics.

“A few days before the 2004 presidential election, Ron Suskind, a columnist who had been investigating the White House and its communications for years, wrote in The New York Times about a conversation he had with a presidential adviser in 2002. “The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community’, which he defined as people ‘who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality’. I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors.. and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’

Best

Michael Faulkner.

Being Right About Right and Wrong.

2008-11-07T07:20:00.000-08:00

From Beyond Belief conference 3.

Here is two interesting talks which I intend to explore in later blogs their implications. Sam Harris is making a case that we can be right about right and wrong and that science, in particular Neuroscience can help us discover the laws of well-being. I did a earlier blog with a similar idea that we can objectively find solutions to moral problems and can effectively say that certain actions are morally wrong. I equated morality with the practice of Science and Jury based criminal justice process. (see Slaying the Dragon of Moral Relativism.)

With the talk the Harris did I intend to explore what kind of evidence would support his contention that moral truths exist and how we discover it.

Sam Harris 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdQhLXTvNM&feature=related

Sam Harris 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqF0jnv3tZY&feature=related

Jonathan Haidt has come in for some harsh treatment from Sam Harris so I was curious to see his views and opinions. His research into cultural and group psychology is fascinating and his talk did not disappoint. Some of his ideas on morality are interesting but I find myself in profound disagreement over what he believes morality to be and its purpose. In particular his view that morality is like team sports. I believe that Haidt not only commit’s the fallacy of deriving a ought from an is but getting an is from an ought as well.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/jonathan-haidt-1

Best

Michael

No Solace to be Found.

2008-11-07T06:03:00.001-08:00

A review of the new James Bond film Quantum of Solace

I have always been a fan of James Bond, preferring him over Indiana Jones and I have never had time for marvel based superheroes. I read all of Flemings books when I was 14 and had seen every Bond film in one long summer when ITV showed them all in sequence leading up to the premiere of Tomorrow Never Dies. My favourites are From Russia with Love, You Only Live Twice and Goldfinger. Watching the new film with Daniel Craig left me longing for these films of old. For a director to hold a take for longer than 3 seconds, to stay within the same ten mile geographical area for more than minute. For it not to leap oceans and cross deserts as fast as commercials go from advertising Tampax adverts for women to extolling the seductive allure of Lynx for, to begging for money to help stop aids in Africa. To say the film transcends time and space is to say that the film has jettisoned any kind of reality and grounding in any kind of disenable plot. It is one long commercial for action and action not very original at that. To say that of course is to say that the plot so to speak is reduced to nothing more than scene setting, a 30 second exposition before Bond goes off to smash another nameless villain’s head in, or run across roofs or shoot someone. QOS is like a live action version of GTA4 and Bond pretty much does the same as the character in the game. Bond is not really a character at all now, he is a symbol, a short hand for violence and destruction.

It’s a bad film. You have a sort of queasy feeling like after you eaten a McDonalds and saying to yourself what the hell did I do that for? The real question is why did they make such a hash of it? After Casino Royal they did I believe a fine job of recapturing Bond from the puerile Brosnan years. Bond apart from the early moments largely keeps his feet on the ground and there is more emphasise placed on story, character and acting. Craig especially was refreshing in the role, as he brought a much needed toughness and a brutish, thuggish, simian cold sadism.

Craig has been wasted in the new film which is the greatest disappointment. He has not yet earned the role nor made a significant mark. I believe he could offer the best Bond since Connery. It seems unlikely he will be given the chance. The producers seem intent on playing the lowest common denominator.

The film does prove to me a suspicion. That is that I don’t think the Bond films really succeed when working outside the domain of Flemings fiction. Ask yourself the question- did Casino Royal work because of Craig, the absence of silliness and the presence of a more realistic serious story? Or did it work because it stuck close to Flemings original?

Best

Michael.