Pages

Showing posts with label AC Grayling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AC Grayling. Show all posts

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Are religion and humanism really opposites, as AC Grayling suggests?

source: http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/4081/beyond-black-and-white
HASSNERS.org highlights
HASSNERS.org comments

By Tony McKenna , Thursday, 14th March 2013

Beyond black and white

Are religion and humanism really opposites, as AC Grayling suggests in his new book? Tony McKenna sees some grey areas.


In a recent article for the Guardian, based on his new book The God Argument, AC Grayling defends humanism by contrasting it with religious belief which he sees as archaic. The contrast involves one of light and darkness: humanism (in its modern guise), quite literally a product of enlightenment vs. religion, which shrouds our perceptions in darkness and demands that we “think of the world as our remotest ancestors did, thousands of years ago”.

The juxtaposition is nothing new. The image of sinister priests illuminated by the flames of burning heretics is one seared into contemporary consciousness. Many of us have the instinctive sense that the age of enlightenment was founded by the extravagant tussles between a crepuscular religious medievalism and a new-born science of modernity. There is truth in this. At the same time, however, the distinction between science and religion has never been hard and fast; in fact at various points across history, the relationship was far from hostile.

Consider the early civilisations which sprung up in Mesopotamia, Egypt and parts of what is now Pakistan. Large store-houses were constructed to protect surplus crops (usually grain) vital to the continued sustenance of a society during drought, flooding or other natural disasters. The need to quantify, to measure, to effectively store and apportion the reserve crops, facilitated the development of early science, a primitive form of maths and, a little later, the first attempts to construct a cogent written script (they needed to keep receipts!).

The coterie of specialists tasked with this had been freed from the burden and immediacies of productive labour. They were able to affect the first scientific revolutions in consort with the intimate control they exerted over social mechanisms that helped assure the survival of the broader populous. The specialists, therefore, were shrouded in an aura of mystique and power which inevitably invited reverence and worship. And so these early scientists easily morphed into civilisation’s first priests.

Thus religious formation often involves more than the irrational and isolated fantasies confined to the primitive fears of the imagination – it also mediates key social relationships albeit ones expressed in a fantastical and mystical way. The 19th century German thinker Ludwig Feuerbach reflected on this in a way at once both poetic and philosophical – in religion, he said – “the conscious subject has for his object the infinity of his own nature”.

The notion of religion as a mirror for human development is supported by the historical record more broadly. When early Christianity began to emerge in ancient Rome, the pagan critic Celsus famously described it as a religion of “slaves, women and little children”. He was being derisive but the comment tells us more than its author ever intended. In an empire often fissured by slave rebellion, and one in which women could not hold political office and children had the legal status of property - a religion which emphasised a universal equality before God provided an ideological channel through which the struggles and hopes of oppressed groups might be expressed.

But even substantially later, at the time of the enlightenment, religion still sometimes managed to mediate progressive social forces. The outbreak of Protestantism in the early 16th century had an implicitly radical element. Lutheranism very much emerged as a reaction to a feudal hierarchy in which aristocratic privilege was sanctioned by Catholic ideology; a wealthy baron might well dispatch his mistress in a bloody frenzy, only to pop down to the local church the following day and buy the “indulgence” which would spare him earthly punishment and secure his immortal soul. Lutheranism, with its emphasis on faith rather than works, sought to end to this – Godliness was to be guaranteed by a universality of faith which ignored economic distinction, and favoured neither peasant nor lord.

The universality of faith over and against the particularism of works reflected – albeit in a fantastical and unconscious form – the emergence of a modern market economy which was indifferent to social status more generally, requiring only a buyer and a seller. Much later Max Weber would provide a riff on the same theme when he suggested that Protestantism could be understood as part and parcel of “the spirit of capitalism”.

None of this militates against the horrific historical events which have occurred under the banner of religion – the crusades and the concomitant pogroms of Jews, or the persecution of witches by James I in the name of Protestantism, or the forced conversions to Catholicism which accompanied the genocide of the indigenous peoples in Latin America, or any other of the numerous and terrible examples. But what it shows is that religion is a medium which can express a variety of different and contrary social interests – from Roman Imperialism to Catholic liberation theology; it cannot, therefore, be simply understood as an unfortunate set of irrational beliefs detached from any social content.

But, as Jonathan Rée points out in this review of The God Argument, Grayling remains blind to all this, preferring, it seems, to adopt a fundamentally literal attitude to religion in which “scriptures must be taken at their word, rather than being allowed to flourish as many-layered parables, teeming with quarrels, follies, jokes, reversals and paradoxes”. This, of course, makes invisible the fact that religions are themselves constantly in the process of being formed and (if you will forgive the pun) re-formed – even those sacred texts which seem timeless and whose claim to unswerving fidelity to the original divine writ is said to be (sometimes quite literally) set in stone have in in fact been subject to perpetual and unceasing transformation.

Just consider, for instance, the work of the great Islamic philosopher Averroes, who endeavoured to synthesise religion with Aristotleanism in the 12th century. It was the preservation of the Greek philosophical tradition through the Islamic which would provide a fundamental premise for the European Enlightenment. The very tendency which would eventually lead to Grayling’s beloved humanism was unthinkable without this fusion of religion and philosophy.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

AC Grayling and Tim Crane - 'Atheists on Religion' Synopsis

source: audio: http://huffduffer.com/briansuda/27323 or mp3 download: http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/publicLecturesAndEvents/20100512_1830_atheistsOnReligion.mp3

Updated 18 April 2013


  • 'Tim Crane is a convinced Atheist' http://www.humanism.org.uk/meet-up/events/view/93?&of...

  • Atheists on Religion: AC Grayling and Tim Crane at the LSE 1 hour audio on the discussion: http://huffduffer.com/briansuda/27323

  • 7': ACG 
    - The term Atheism is no more valid than saying you are an Agoblinist or Afairyist,  ACG is a Naturalist or freethinker as well as being an atheist. What kind of universe is  this?

    8': secularism - place of religion in the public square. Religious voice has been overamplified eg BBC, faith schools, 26 Bishops in House of Lords. 10% of people go x3 a month to a church or mosque.

    12': Bishops are the little men behind the Wizard of Oz. Religious views should be proportioned down - reduce amplification; they have right to exist but no more than that.

    13' Humanistic ethics and morals.

    TC from 15':
    Once you've decided that you are an atheist its boring, atheism has no ethical content,

    17' don't rejoice in atheism, just accept. More interesting is what to think about religion and what to do about it,

    18': disagrees with 4 horsemen  - see religion as false & irrational
    19' New Atheists want to eliminate influences of religion; cosmological matter - how the world is. Arguements against god. Are Religionists irrational? 

    22' People are unmoved, talk past each other. 

    23' Religion main content is feeling of 'theres more to it than this - ineffable mystery and structure of the world'. 

    24' the Trinity is mysterious. 3 things can't be one. Religious are not bothered by this.

    25' Identification. Most people are not interested in hypothesis. Bishops are irrelevant to secularisation.

    • AC from 27'30: 
    • Church created primary schools in 1800s to combat fairies - to combat superstition! 

    • Atheists arguements do change Christians. Religions are on backfoot - secularisation is everywhere. Non-religious have doubled in 15 years in USA. Religions feel threatened. eg muslims girls who see western girls in bikinis! Death throes of religion cf 16/17th century - reformation - wars of religion - 33': 30 years war - church lost power, 1 in 3 Germans died. 

    • Religions have hijacked a great part of being a human being - eg emotional responses eg beauty, secular spirit of world. In China understood without religion. 

    • 35': The Fred move - god of the gaps

  • 36': science lives ok with uncertainty. Religion wants neat story (30 mins for religion, 3 years for physics). Fairys and tooth fairy. Religionists are NOT harmless - because of the Fred did it move.  

  • Tim Crane: 
    38' 45: Spiritual feelings - this world is fundamentally mysterious say the religions.

    AC: 
    41' 30: religions were proto-science, religions developed as understanding - agencies moved to mountain tops, then the sun/sky, then heavens. Trajectory of deities further and further away.

    44': numinous, wrong type of mushrooms! Recent in history of man. Roman empire religio 'to bind'; early Christians were called atheists! Trajectory of deities are getting further away from earth!

  • Tim Crane 
    47': why are Catholic funerals so sad if they are going to heaven! Cosmological side is not too important for religious.

    AC 
    49':
    dishonest to say that you will meet loved ones again. Give fellow humans comfort instead. CCTV replace all seeing god!

    TC 
    52' Happiness is more important than truth for some people.

    ACG 
    53' the Noble Lie cf would you tell everyone about a meteor. Zeus = Christian story. Don't let churches off the hook. Resist that way of thinking.

  • 58' questioner - tooth fairy and Father Xmas don't persist because they don't save you from dying! Religions force comes from denial of death. 59' Q: what happens when religious attitude eg sexuality leads to unhappiness TC 60': death is a mystery - why should ones life end? In some cases it is better for someone to believe in something false and be happy. AC 61' anxiety about death can be because havn't achieved enough. 63' you can't be afraid of nothing - which is what death is!

  • ACG 
    64': cruelty of religions frightening old people who think they could go to hell.
    AC 66': 1.3 Billion Chinese prove that the innate concept of god is wrong!! AC 70': 99% of religious take on the religion of their culture / parents.
    AC 78': if churches closed their doors tomorrow we wouldn't be losing anything! 'To set Promethius free'
    AC book http://tinyurl.com/7dop9g2 proof of non-existence of god.
    80' Totalitarianism - dictators Stalin, Hitler - shocking to think about defending an ideology - 1000s

  • 1000s die - Enlightenment - diversity of opinons.

    TC 
    82':
    would not lament loss of religion - but speculation would disappear (CGS: what about science!!).

    TC 
    87': creationism is a problem in USA not in UK (what the..!)

    AC 
    89': what is a non-fundamental atheist!

Monday, November 21, 2011

Atheists on Religion: Profs. AC Grayling and Tim Crane at the LSE, 2010

source: http://huffduffer.com/briansuda/27323


From Huffduffer 'For the last 150 years or so European philosophers and sociologists have tended to regard religion as just one more pre-scientific myth and superstition that has had its day, and likely to wither on the vine of History. This view, the secularization thesis, seems today to be in poor shape. Not only does there appear to be no sign of withering, still less a clear path of scientific and rational progress, but religion seems to be reviving. Classic atheist criticisms of religion tend today to sound increasingly strident and dogmatic. In this dialogue two of Britain’s leading philosophers who are also convinced atheists will explore the continued attractions of religious belief and its place in a European world whose secular character is itself today in question.'

From http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/podcasts/publicLecturesAndEvents.htm
download: http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/publicLecturesAndEvents/20100512_1830_atheistsOnReligion.mp3

Here Tim Crane talk on this subject - 11th December 2011 in London


Sunday, May 08, 2011

The Good Book: A Secular Bible, AC Grayling, The 10 injunctions

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9446000/9446287.stm


The 10 atheist commandments

Philosopher AC Grayling has put together an alternative, secular Good Book for atheists to use in place of the Christian Bible. Peter Donaldson reads an extract from the book, a kind of atheists' 10 Commandments.
Shall we ask by what commandments shall we live, or might we better ask, each of ourselves, what kind of person should I be. The first question assumes there is one right answer, the second assumes that there are many right answers. If we ask how to answer the second question, we are answered in yet other questions. What should you do when you see another suffering, afraid or hungry? What causes are worthy? What world do you dream of where your child plays safely in the street? There are many such questions, some already are there own answers, some are unanswerable. But when all the answers to all the questions are summed together, no one hears less than this:-
  1. love well
  2. seek the good in all things
  3. harm no others
  4. think for yourself
  5. take responsibility
  6. respect nature
  7. do your utmost
  8. be informed
  9. be kind
  10. be courageous
At least, sincerely try. 


Add to these 10 injunctions, this:- Oh! friends, let us always be true to ourselves and to the best in things, so we can always be true to one another.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Denham's misplaced 'faith group' faith

source: Guardian

John Denham pours scorn on secularists with his plans for an advisory body which represents less than 10% of the population

Anthony uses his barbed wit to lampoon John Denham, our government's minister for communities.




53. Comment #432102 by Richard Dawkins on November 16, 2009 at 9:48 am
 avatarThe Times today (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6918059.ece) has an article headed "Labour gives up on 60 vulnerable seats." The Labour Party has decided not to waste money on 60 seats that they have no hope of winning at the next election, in order to pour money into other seats, which would normally have been considered safe, but which have now become vulnerable. Among the 20 formerly safe seats that have now become most highly at risk is Southampton Itchen. That is John Denham's seat. In other words, there is a good chance that John Denham could be thrown out of Parliament at the next election.

I have never voted Tory in my life, and I don't think I could bring myself to, even if the opposing candidate were John Denham. But if you live in Southampton, or close enough to get there easily, please consider canvassing against John Denham, perhaps for the Lib Dems, or another party, or just to persuade Labour voters to refrain from supporting John Denham. This could be a real chance to get politicians to wake up to the fact that there is a secular interest out there, which might just be worth considering alongside their normal sucking up to the 'Communities' (code for 'Muslim') vote. And it is a real chance to get John Denham thrown out on his ear.

Richard 


56. Comment #432107 by gcdavis on November 16, 2009 at 10:19 am
 avatarI have just created an e-petition, please take a moment to sign.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/secular-humanist-atheist-voice/

In the light of the announcement that Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government John Denham is setting up a new panel of religious “experts” to advise the Government on making public policy decisions I propose that for each faith group member there be an additional secular/humanist/atheist member.

To resist this proposal would leave the government open to the charge of ignoring balance and fairness and would also leave it open to challenge under the Equality and Human Rights legislation. 
Comments (167)

AC Grayling
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 November 2009 14.00 GMT

John Denham, our government's minister for communities, is going to have an advisory body made up of representatives of "faith" groups, further eroding the de facto secularism that has kept our society relatively stable and collegial, at least until recently. He pours scorn on secularists, which means the majority of the population who, whatever their faith or lack of it, are secularist in the sense that they do not wish religion, still less any one particular religion, to be in the driving seat of policymaking in this country.

Apart from the fact that the "faith groups" represent less than 10% of the population – namely, the less-than-10% who go to church, mosque, temple or synagogue regularly each week, and therefore represent no one but themselves and a tiny minority – what does Denham think he is going to learn from them? Are their points of view not extremely well-known and entirely predictable?

Evidently, Denham does not know enough about this. Let us therefore ask him a few questions about what he expects to hear from the faith groups on such matters as community cohesion, discrimination, the rule of law, the treatment of gay people, the rights of women – on all of which, of course, the faith groups have spectacularly marvellous attitudes calculated to maximise peace and inclusion across society.

So, Mr Denham, on community cohesion: do you take into account the fact that the major faiths officially blaspheme one another? For Christians, Muslims are followers of false prophets, and for Muslims, Christians repudiate the teachings of the Prophet. They once went to war with one another repeatedly and bloodily for centuries over these differences. Now – for the time being – they sit at the government's table side by side, their hands eagerly stretched out for our tax money for their faith-based schools and their "community initiatives".

And on the question of faith schools, Mr Denham, this oh-so-intelligent policy of government funding for division and ghettoisation of children into more entrenched versions of their communities, following the glowing example of Northern Ireland where this exact-same policy fostered mutual hostility and even murder. Is community cohesion to be achieved by separating children and teaching them fundamentally different outlooks on the world, in which all other communities are wrong and misguided in their metaphysical and ethical outlooks, needing conversion at least – or something worse if they refuse?

And what, Mr Denham, of the rule of law as this will be viewed by your faith advisers? Is each citizen of this country equal before the same law for all, or will injustice and discrimination thrive behind the closed doors of faith-based courts? Are each of the faiths to be allowed exceptions and exemptions – for example, so that any faith school can exclude well-qualified teachers because they do not share the ancient superstition with which a particular school seeks to brainwash small children's minds?

Also Mr Denham, why is your policy so discriminatory in itself? What of the Buddhists, the Zoroastrians, the Mother Goddess worshippers? What of the Druids, the White Witches, the Pagans, the astrologers, the Satanists? Are these not "faith groups" whose outlooks have precisely as much credibility and evidence-base as the Christians and Muslims? Are you going to include them and give them some of our tax money too? Can I start an "I Believe in Fairies" church and can I come to your meetings and get some government hand-outs too? If not, why not?

What is the difference, in your mature, rational, evidence-based and carefully thought-out view, between utterly spurious claims about the existence of supernatural entities requiring their votaries to indulge in irrational, discriminatory, divisive and sometimes violent behaviour, and those that putatively are not? Have you got an answer?

Somehow, Mr Denham, I doubt that you have an answer, because if you did, your actions would not be prompting these questions.

Monday, August 31, 2009

The Atheist & The Bishop, part 2

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m1nm2 via http://richarddawkins.net/article,4237,n,n

iPlayer audio available to 6 September.

2/3. Professor AC Grayling and Lord Harries of Pentregarth explore where we get our values from

Series in which an atheist and a bishop come together to apply their own philosophies to the experiences of people they meet, with Jane Little chairing the discussion


HASSNERS.org highlights
HASSNERS.org comments: visit Bacons College, London & Camp Quest, Somerset. At the faith school, AC Grayling wonders if having a faith orientation adds anything and whether it effects intellectual enquiry.

Faith
AC Grayling: (5'40" to 6' 4") Faith comes down in the end to saying 'blessed are the those who believe but havn't seen, that is to say, don't have evidence or who havn't got a reason for believing; how is this consistent with one of the great aims of education which is to equip students with an ability to evaluate information, to think critically, to assess evidence and to think for themselves.

Parental Indoctrination
AC Grayling (16'20' -16'28") to a muslim student "would you be a muslim if you had been born to two very devout Roman Catholic parents?" Muslim Student: "I doubt it, I'd probably be Roman Catholic".

Logical Fallacies
Samantha Stein (24'30') talks about introducing children to logical fallacies (informal fallacy) and Straw Man arguements.

Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence (Carl Sagan)
AC Grayling (25' 26") to Samantha Stein: " how will you encourage children to have a clear idea of what they think and a clear idea of what viewpoints don't deserve respect if they don't?"
SS: she will ask children to invoke Carl Sagan phrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Anything they are faced with, be it scientology, religion, homeopathy - anything that requires that if someone is making claims for which you need to believe in something, you cannot see or cannot be empircally tested, then, they need to consider Carl Sagans' phrase.

AC Grayling (28') asks 'Suppose a martian came down to earth, was presented with two docuements, the New Testament and The Koran, how would the martian choose between those two documents to find which was true and which was not true?" A Muslim Physics teacher responds.

AC Grayling: (36' 40") is asked 'where do humanistic values come from? we are social animals capable of empathy... basis of our thinking about morality and organisation of society... he talks about Aristotle & happiness and evolutionary psychology... many talents for being good.

Creative Commons License
This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Julian Baggini interviews John Gray & AC Grayling

source: http://www.philosophymonthly.com/?p=51

Discusses (1-8 minutes) the continuum of the Sunday morning church goer to Islamic Fundamentalist willing to blow people up. I've always been sceptical of this arguement. Here Julian Baggini argues the point with AC Grayling.


Very Brief Notes (listening to the podcast is a better idea!)

Before 9/11, which was a watershed, religion was 'off the subject'. Since then people have become 'pissed off' with religion imposing beliefs. Religion is not making a come back - its the noise that has increased. Unearned respect for religion. Christianity is the idea of goat heards told thousands of years. Hercules and other silly stories. Wake up! Sam Harris said moderate gentle sunday Christian is on a continuum with the Islamic Terroist. Democratic Socialist and Stalinist continuum. If you literally become a Christian. Moderate Christian not sure what they believe. Exploring spiritually, moderate christians are hypocrites. Harsh but not certainties. Jeans wearing vicars.

Progress
John Gray - Faith in Progress. Is cumulative. Scientific knowledge is fixed. Faith in Reason. Hubris of reason.
AC Grayling - would rather live today in UK rather than other episodes in history. Material progress is breathtaking eg dentistry etc. Progress is reversible.



HASSNERS.org highlights
HASSNERS.org comments

Julian Baggini's Philosophy Monthly

Episode 4: July 2009

icon for podpress bpm July 2009 [29:59m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download
Julian Baggini - Baggini's Philosophy Monthly - Baggini's Philosophy Monthly
In the latest edition of Baggini’s Philosophy Monthly, I’m talking to two philosophical antagonists, AC Grayling and John Gray, discussing belief in progress and the power of reason.



Creative Commons License
This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

By their works shall ye know them

People of faith have rejected the benefits of an open mind and, perhaps through choice, are destined to repeat their bloody pasts

If one were asked to prescribe the fundamental condition for a good world, it would be: peace and freedom for all, where "freedom" means personal autonomy and mental liberation from prejudice, superstition, ignorance and fear. Cynics will no doubt think this a saccharine sentiment merely, if only on the grounds that it is unattainable and that one had better stick to the realities of a world in which the majority of people are trapped in economic and intellectual prisons made by history, perpetuated and promoted by demagogues and the greedy and powerful.

The cynics are of course right about the realities, but that does not mean one should shrug one's shoulders and capitulate. There is something one can do to fight back, by taking part in the battle that underlies it all: the battle (to put it in Voltaire's terms) between those who seek the truth and those who claim to have it.

On one side are those who inquire, examine, experiment, research, propose ideas and subject them to scrutiny, change their minds when shown to be wrong and live with uncertainty while placing reliance on the collective, self-critical, responsible and rigorous use of reason and observation to further the quest for knowledge.

On the other side are those who espouse a belief system or ideology which pre-packages all the answers, who have faith in it, who trust the authorities, priests and prophets, and who either think that the hows and whys of the universe are explained to satisfaction by their faith, or smugly embrace ignorance. Note that although the historical majority of these latter are the epigones of one or another religion, they also include the followers of such ideologies as Marxism and Stalinism – which are also all-embracing monolithic ownerships of the Great Truth to which everyone must sign up on pain of punishment, and on whose behalf their zealots are prepared to kill and die.

If anyone does not know how to pluck from history and the contemporary world examples of these opposing mindsets and their operation then he is either deaf, dumb, blind and illiterate – or he is one of the creatures of faith.

In the aftermath of the Reformation in the 16th century, Ignatius of Loyola founded the Jesuit Order as an army of defence against the attack on the One True Church. The Jesuits saw that the reformers had learning and intelligence on their side; they were translating the Bible into vernacular tongues, and encouraging lay people to read it, and when laymen did so they could see that the doctrines and practices of the Roman church were a mountain of rubbish. The Jesuits aimed to be an army of very smart casuists and propagandists, skilful in rhetoric and argument, trained to counter the reformers' charges, not interested in truth but in Catholicism's tendentious version of it.

It is said that the ignorant are condemned to repeat history, but it is equally true that those who know history can repeat it on purpose. In the US the proponents of intelligent design and creationism have taken a large leaf out of Loyola's book of strategy, and are training a new breed of jesuitical defenders of faith against the onslaught of science. Only look at the exam set by creationist William Dembski for his Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics course at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The Final exam questions are as follows (and can be seenhere):

1. You are a panelist at the premier showing of Richard Dawkins's BBC production debunking religion titled "The Root of All Evil?" Richard Dawkins is there on the podium with you. After the showing of this program, you are asked to present a brief response. Throughout the program, Dawkins emphasises that evolutionary theory is confirmed by overwhelming evidence whereas religious belief is as a matter of blind, unthinking faith. Challenge him in your response on both points: spend half of your response showing that evolution is not nearly as overwhelmingly confirmed as Dawkins makes out; also, indicate how, at least when it comes to the Christian faith, religious belief can be well-supported evidentially (eg indicate lines of evidence supporting the resurrection and the reliability of the Scriptures).

2. You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You've been asked to summarise why you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch out ID's method of design detection and then show how it applies (or could apply) to biological systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what evidence would disconfirm ID?

3. Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross have characterised intelligent design as part of a vast rightwing conspiracy to undermine our democratic institutions by substituting religious dogma for scientific theory. Accordingly, they see intelligent design as part of a "Wedge Strategy". Briefly recount the history of the "Wedge" and indicate why Forrest and Gross may be wrong to paint it in conspiratorial terms. Is the "Wedge" a legitimate cultural movement? Explain.

4. You've been assigned to teach six Sunday school lessons on intelligent design over six consecutive Sundays. Each lesson is an hour and fifteen minutes. Outline how you would conduct these lessons. What would you have people read? In what order? What would you present? What would you want participants to take away at the end of the six weeks?

As this shows, the training at the seminary is aimed at producing infantry for a religious war against science and reason; proof of this, and in Dembski's own words, lies in another of his exam questions for the same course:

You are the Templeton Foundation's new program director and are charged with overseeing its programs and directing its funds. Sketch out a 20-year plan for defeating scientific materialism and the evolutionary worldview it has fostered if you had $50,000,000 per year in current value to do so. What sorts of programs would you institute? How would you spend the money?

Apart from the interesting aside on the Templeton Foundation, which exists to keep religion confused with and implicated in science, this makes as clear as day the tendentious purpose of an "education" at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

When the faithful of any faith win the doors are open to horrors ranging from Muslims killing Christians in Gojra, women being whipped for wearing trousers in Sudan, Sunnis blowing up dozens of Shias in Iraq, oppressive theocracies, reactionary social policies, prejudice against gays and women, pogroms against Jews, slaughter of kulaks, starvation of millions as a result of ideological nostrums such as collectivisation, wars, communities separated by walls in Israel-Palestine and Ulster – the litany seems endless.

Someone once said "by their works ye shall know them". Indeed. Do not venture the fig-leaf of charitable works – the non-zealous do these too, and for better motives. The true contrast is with antibiotics, surgery, television, lighting and heating, air travel – the litany is equally endless. And again, by their fruits we know them. Do not venture the canard that science produces atom bombs and mustard gas, as if mentioning them justified the atrocities committed by faith on the bodies and minds of multitudes, for these applications of science are the result of political and ideological decisions about how the findings of science are to be used. Scientists do not start wars with each other over different theories of nitrogen fixation or whether black holes or boson stars lie at the heart of galaxies. Theologians, however, have committed many murders over the word "and" in the formula "the father and the son": if you want a lesson in lunacy, go and find out why; it makes all my points for me.

To summarise: the battle for peace and freedom is a battle about mindsets. The battle lines are clear. It is fought on many fronts: against faith-based schooling, against the overweening privilege accorded religious lobbies in society, and in the agora of public opinion. It would be easy to take the next step of showing that the mindset which looks for and tests the facts rather than shores up ancient edifices of authority is likely to make the world a fairer one economically and in power relations too. But that discussion is for another time.


Comments

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

This much I know - AC Grayling, philosopher, 60, London

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/05/a-c-grayling-this-much-i-know via http://richarddawkins.net/article,4017,n,n
HASSNERS.org highlights
HASSNERS.org comments


Philosopher AC Grayling
Philosopher AC Grayling photographed in London, June 2009. Photograph: Karen Robinson
A human lifespan is less than a thousand months long. You need to make some time to think how to live it.
The democracy of blogging and tweeting is absolutely terrific in one way. It is also the most effective producer of rubbish and insult and falsehood we have yet invented.
I am putting together a secular bible. My Genesis is when the apple falls on Newton's head.
I spent the first 13 years of my life in Zambia. In Africa you can't walk in the countryside and think. You might be eaten by a lion. You have to read instead.
My mother was a straight-up-and-down racist of a very marked kind. She used to laugh at the shopping lists the cook would try to copy out. It would never have occurred to her to teach him to read.
I would imagine Jesus was a kind of Jewish reformer. If you were looking for an equivalent to the figure you dimly perceive through the gospels it would probably be a Richard Dawkins.
I'm a vegetarian, but I wear leather shoes. Some people say that's a contradiction; I say I'm doing my best.
I used to be a terrible hypochondriac when I was young and a great reader of medical dictionaries. One day I realised that I was not actually frightened of terminal illness but of not getting done the things I wanted to get done.
I recently retraced on foot a famous journey that William Hazlitt made from Shropshire to Somerset to visit Wordsworth and Coleridge. I spent two weeks slogging through nettle beds before I realised the bastard had taken the coach.
When I was 14 a chaplain at school gave me a reading list. I read everything and I went back to him with a question: how can you really believe in this stuff?
I'm passionately in favour of legalising heroin and cocaine. But I despise people who depend on these things. If you really want a mind-altering experience, look at a tree.
I don't believe in killing animals, but I think President Obama did a justifiable thing in swatting a fly. Flies spread disease.
Christian churches and Muslim groups have no more right to have their say than women's institutes or trades unions. The government has actively encouraged faith-based education, and therefore given a megaphone to religious voices and fundamentalists.
I have enough faith in statistics to know there must be conscious life on other planets.
Initials can be useful to hide behind. I once heard Jonathan Ross on the radio asking Kirsty Young who she had coming up on Desert Island Discs. When she mentioned "AC Grayling" Ross replied: "Oh, I know her."
Science is the outcome of being prepared to live without certainty and therefore a mark of maturity. It embraces doubt and loose ends.
I'm not sure it is possible to think too much. You don't refresh your mind by partying in Ibiza.
Life is all about relationships. By all means sit cross-legged on top of a mountain occasionally. But don't do it for very long.
Every professor of philosophy needs a nine-year-old daughter.Mine has a habit of saying, "Daddy, that is a very silly idea." She is always right.
• Liberty in the Age of Terror, by AC Grayling, is published by Bloomsbury, £12.99


Creative Commons License
This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.