In Praise of South Africa
Right to life takes precedence over the right to religion
February 20 2009 at 06:13AM
By Kanina FossA 12-year-old Jehovah’s Witness girl has received a life-saving blood transfusion that she did not want after a Johannesburg High Court order gave doctors the go-ahead.
The girl, who suffers from leukaemia, was admitted to Chris Hani-Baragwanath Hospital on Tuesday. Despite being told that a blood transfusion was needed to save her life, the girl and her parents refused to consent to the procedure.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that it’s against God’s will to take other people’s blood, or one’s own blood that has been stored, into one’s body.
The official website of Watchtower, a Jehovah’s Witness organisation to which The Star was referred by the Jehovah’s Witnesses of South Africa, says: “True Christians will not accept a blood transfusion. They want to live, but they will not try to save their life by breaking God’s laws.”
The Gauteng Department of Health said doctors consulted the girl’s parents and church elders to explain the need for the transfusion. When their explanations were rejected, they brought an urgent application before the High Court on Wednesday.
The court order was issued on the same day, and the girl was given a transfusion immediately.
According to Department of Health spokesperson Phumelele Kaunda, the parents respected the court’s decision.
The girl is doing well.
SA Human Rights Commission chairperson Jody Kollapen said that in such cases, the right to life took precedence over the right to religion.
He said adults were regarded as fit to make informed decisions about their own bodies, but in the case of a child, state intervention was sometimes necessary.
South Africa should indeed be praised for doing the right thing – saving an innocent child’s life rather than giving in to the unfounded religious beliefs of her parents. It is a sad state of affairs when a child can be brainwashed into believing that death is preferable to a simpe blood transfusion procedure. We must not allow superstition to claim the lives of such children, and South Africa got it exactly right: the right to life takes precedence over the right to religion.
Dawkins says women will defeat militant Islam
- Image via Wikipedia
Richard Dawkins says that it is “the awakening of women” that will solve the problem of “the worldwide menace of Islamic terrorism and oppression”.
By Saeed Valadbaygi
His remarks came while praising Mina Ahadi, winner of this year’s NSS Irwin Prize for “Secularist of the Year”.
Mina Ahadi is an Iranian woman who was forced to flee her native country after leading a campaign against the compulsory veiling of women. Because of her resistance to the clerical regime, her husband and four of her colleagues were executed, and she only narrowly escaped the same fate.
She now lives in Germany and has founded the Committee of Ex-Muslims, a movement that is rapidly spreading across Europe. She has also founded the Committee Against Stoning, which now has 200 branches worldwide.
Richard Dawkins said: “I have long felt that the key to solving the worldwide menace of Islamic terrorism and oppression would eventually be the awakening of women, and Mina Ahadi is a charismatic leader working to that end. The brutal suppression of the rights of women in many countries throughout the Islamic world is an obvious outrage. Slightly less obvious, but just as outrageous, is the supine willingness of western liberals to go along with it. It is worse than supine, it is patronising and condescending: “Wife-beating is part of ‘their’ culture. Who are we to condemn their traditions?” A religion so insecure as to mandate the death penalty for apostasy is not to be trifled with, and ex-Muslims who stand up and fight deserve our huge admiration and gratitude for their courage. Right out in front of this honourable band is Mina Ahadi. I salute her and congratulate her on this well-deserved award as Secularist of the Year.”
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: “We are proud to have been able to give Mina this honour – she is a woman of incredible courage and tenacity. The suffering she has endured has not dimmed her determination to improve the lot of women oppressed by Islam and other religious traditions.”
Introducing Mina to the members and supporters of the NSS who gathered for the presentation in London last Saturday, Keith Porteous Wood, the Society’s Executive Director said:
“What can we say about this year’s winner – except to affirm our deepest admiration for Mina Ahadi’s courage and commitment?
“Mina Ahadi started her serious political activities when she was 16 and living in Iran. She was at university in 1979 in Tabriz at the time of the Iranian revolution and she began immediately to organise demonstrations and meetings to oppose the compulsory veiling of women. This courageous dissent got her noticed by the Islamic regime’s authorities and soon she had to go underground to avoid retribution.
“At the end of 1980 her house was raided by the police and her husband and four of their comrades arrested. Mina escaped only because she wasn’t at home at the time.
“Her husband and the four arrested were all executed by firing squad soon after. She lived underground for some time and then fled to Iranian Kurdistan in 1982, where she continued to struggle against the Islamic regime for the next ten years. In 1990 she went to Vienna. She moved to Germany in 1996 and has lived in Europe since then.
“In all that time, Mina Ahadi has struggled mightily for the rights of women. She founded the International Committee against Stoning – which now has over 200 branches throughout the world. She also heads the International Committee against Executions and is the spokesperson for the newly formed women’s rights organisation, Equal Rights. She formed the Central Council of ex-Muslims in Germany early this year to help people renounce Islam and religion should they so wish.
“This brilliant idea has now been replicated in several other European countries, including in Britain by our own Maryam Namazie.
“Undeterred by the inevitable death threats, Mina has pressed on, determined as ever to protect women from the ravages of Islam.
“Apostasy, of course, is forbidden in Islam and in some Islamist states it carries the death penalty – including in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and Mauritania. She calls such states “Islam-stricken” and her own experience of living and suffering under such regimes has made her ever more determined to rescue others from their clutches. I cannot tell you how proud the National Secular Society is to honour this wonderful, compassionate, kindly but strong-as-steel woman.”
Maryam Namazie, NSS honorary associate and winner of the award in 2005, and now head of the Ex-Muslim Council of Britain, sent this message of congratulations to Mina:
“Your winning the 2007 Secularist of the Year award is a cause for celebration for people across the world. This well-deserved honour reiterates your leading role in the battle for secularism, rights and a world worthy of 21st century humanity.
“You and your movement have always been about saving lives and putting people first. Thanks in large part to your efforts, it is this life-affirming politics that is finally gaining the recognition it deserves.
“Putting people first is revolutionary in a world where people are dehumanised and deemed to be represented by political Islam or US militarism and labelled by a million characteristics beginning with religion, nationality or ethnicity and never ending in human.
“In such a world, millions of often resisting and dissenting people are deemed to be represented by the likes of the misogynist and inhuman Islamic regime of Iran, the Muslim Council of Britain or the Islamic Human Rights Commission. In such a world, opposing the political Islamic movement and defending its victims is deemed to be in aid of US militarism whilst opposing US militarism is deemed to be in support of political Islam. In such a world, people, real live human beings, are absent from the equation.
“To bring people back into the equation, to give their dissent and resistance a voice, to defend humanity without labels, is what you and your movement have done. This recognition is a victory for all of us. I salute you.”
The whole event was an upbeat occasion with entertainment provided by singer Esther Williams and comedian Christina Martin. It was rounded off by a moving performance of an Iranian love song by Elizabeth Mansfield – by that stage there wasn’t, as they say, a dry eye in the house.
Mina Ahadi was interviewed on the Radio 4 PM programme on Thursday. Listen again here (32 minutes into the programme)
26 October 2007
See a video of the event here:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
See pictures of Secularist of the Year here: http://www.rowzane.com/0000_m_e/0m_e_2007/2710/e23mina-sekolaraks2.html
Johann Hari on Mina.
See also: Public hangings ratchet up state terror and suppression in Iran
The Ex-Muslim Council of Britain’s website:
Join Maryam and Mina Ahadi’s supporters on facebook.
Related articles by Zemanta
From a lecture on “Individuality” by Robert Ingersoll
- Image via Wikipedia
…All these things they implicitly believe because it is popular and patriotic, and because they were told so when they were very small, and remember distinctly of hearing mother read it out of a book. It is hard to over-estimate the influence of early training in the direction of superstition. You first teach children that a certain book is true–that it was written by God himself–that to question its truth is a sin, that to deny it is a crime, and that should they die without believing that book they will be forever damned without benefit of clergy. The consequence is, that long before they read that book, they believe it to be true. When they do read it their minds are wholly unfitted to investigate its claims. They accept it as a matter of course.
In this way the reason is overcome, the sweet instincts of humanity are blotted from the heart… In this way we have made tyrants, bigots, and inquisitors. In this way the brain of man has become a kind of palimpsest upon which, and over the writings of nature, superstition has scrawled her countless lies. … In this way you may make Christians, but you cannot make men; you cannot make women.”
—-
Supposing one knows what a palimpsest is — apparently Ingersoll’s audiences in 1880 did — that line about the brain is a wonderful figure of speech. Anyway, enjoy.
David Cortesi
__________
This wonderful quote by Ingersoll was sent to me by my friend David Cortesi, author of this fine book of advice for the godless:
Secular Wholeness – A sceptic’s paths to a richer life You can read it on line or purchase a printed copy from Amazon.com or your favorite bookseller.
Conversational Intolerance, Part II
Richard says:
A forum participant responds:
But I am an educated woman of science.
++++++++
Apparently, the delusion can strike anyone. You might think you are seeing the hand of a creator, but this is your delusion talking, not the rational thinking of a “woman of science”. The screaming you hear is in your imagination. In fact if you have been trained in science you should get a refund, because the training was no good. Or are you talking about creation “science”. In which case, I think we are done here.
Please do not represent yourself to others as a scientific thinker unless you can actually think and act like a scientist. Otherwise, you disgrace people who actually are scientists. We have a gigantic problem with scientific ignorance and stupidity in the USA fostered by religious people. Please do not add to the problem.
Children are a completely natural biological result of human sexual mating. There is nothing supernatural about them and they hardly scream they are the result of a supernatural process. They do scream, and their screams may seem unworldly, but this is not because of any supernatural reason.
This is not about you or me winning anything. It is about your delusion and your willingness because of your illness to pass delusional thinking to your innocent vulnerable children.
If this sounds hostile to you maybe it is because for the first time in your life another human spoke to you in frank uncompromising terms about your illness. You may think you are fine because there are dozens or hundreds of other people around you that share your delusion. You are not fine, and neither are they.
Related articles by Zemanta
- We can’t afford results like these (washingtonmonthly.com)
Conversational Intolerance
- Image via Wikipedia
A forum participant writes:
It is rather a relationship with a loving God who desires to know them and show them truths of the Bible in their everyday lives. It is about understanding that acceptance is not based on performance but on the very existance of that relationship. If I did not teach what I believe to be true and so very important, eternally important, I would be remiss as a parent.
++++++++++++
Hold up there! First of all you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to show there is a god. Let alone a Hebrew god of the bible (assuming you are Christian). We cannot accept such imaginings as justification for parent’s actions. Prove there is a god — then maybe we will listen to you.
Children should only be taught the truth of the natural world, not the wild postulations of the supernatural. You do not know there is a god. You simply have decided to believe there is a god. If this gives you comfort and satisfaction, well and good you are entitled to follow your conscience. It does not mean you are entitled to infect your children with your delusional beliefs.
Do you understand the difference? Making crucial life decisions based on unproven beliefs is highly irresponsible. The principle of freedom of religion only goes so far — the minute harm is caused by a belief in religion your rights are abrogated — null and void. Teaching vulnerable children supernatural myths and unfounded religious dogma is harmful. You can couch your misbegotten program with all the sentiments of love you so choose, that only makes your actions more reprehensible. Parents that truly love their children respect them as persons and allow them to make there own choices to suit themselves.
If we are going to suffer harm, wouldn’t we all rather be wounded by someone that hates us than by someone who loves us? You are trampling on your children’s religious freedom.
Having a Relationship with an Imaginary God
- Image via Wikipedia
A forum participant writes:
It is rather a relationship with a loving God who desires to know them and show them truths of the Bible in their everyday lives. It is about understanding that acceptance is not based on performance but on the very existance of that relationship. If I did not teach what I believe to be true and so very important, eternally important, I would be remiss as a parent.
++++++++++++
Hold up there! First of all you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to show there is a god. Let alone a Hebrew god of the bible (assuming you are Christian). We cannot accept such imaginings as justification for parent’s actions. Prove there is a god — then maybe we will listen to you.
Children should only be taught the truth of the natural world, not the wild postulations of the supernatural. You do not know there is a god. You simply have decided to believe there is a god. If this gives you comfort and satisfaction, well and good you are entitled to follow your conscience. It does not mean you are entitled to infect your children with your delusional beliefs.
Do you understand the difference? Making crucial life decisions based on unproven beliefs is highly irresponsible. The principle of freedom of religion only goes so far — the minute harm is caused by a belief in religion your rights are abrogated — null and void. Teaching vulnerable children supernatural myths and unfounded religious dogma is harmful. You can couch your misbegotten program with all the sentiments of love you so choose, that only makes your actions more reprehensible. Parents that truly love their children respect them as persons and allow them to make there own choices to suit themselves.
If we are going to suffer harm, wouldn’t we all rather be wounded by someone that hates us than by someone who loves us? You are trampling on your children’s religious freedom.
Escaping the Threat of Hell
For perhaps the hundredth time over the past year or so, I’ve been asked by a new atheist how to get over the fear of hell. As anyone who’s ever been indoctrinated into Christianity understands, the fear of hell is a powerful emotion, and even all the logic in the world is sometimes insufficient to rid the mind of those nagging “what if” questions. Since I’ve been writing a lot about morality recently, I think I’ll take a few minutes to explain just why the concept of hell itself is morally bankrupt and completely incompatible with a loving God. Furthermore, I’ll explain why it’s pointless to live in fear of hell, regardless of whether there is a god or not!
Before getting into the argument itself, I will remind the reader that morality is simply the box into which we put interactions between beings. When an action of ours has an impact on another being, we can judge that action based on its effect. This is morality in a nutshell. God, if he exists, is a being with agency. That is, it intentionally causes things to happen. Those caused events have an effect on other beings — namely humans — and so can be placed into the box with every other moral concept.
Ok, so on to hell. Hell is described as a place of punishment for those who do not accept Jesus as their lord and savior. For the time being, it isn’t really important what type of punishment it is, only that it is unpleasant to some degree or another. What is terribly important is that hell is eternal, and there is no hope of escape or pardon. With this in mind, let’s examine the concept in detail.
Think for a moment about why we punish children. All punishments fall into four categories: Instruction, rehabilitation, protection, and retaliation. We should note that the threat of punishment is not the same as punishment. The threat of punishment can be used as a deterrent. We hope that just by promising to do something bad to someone if they do a certain thing, we will prevent them from doing it. We could make the argument that the threat of hell is a deterrent against not accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, but this argument breaks down rapidly. If the threat of hell is meant to deter us from disbelief, then we are essentially being presented with the threat of hell as evidence for Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior! This must be so, because belief is not a decision. It is a state. I cannot choose to believe that I have no hands, for instance. I have overwhelming evidence that at this very moment, my hands are feverishly typing away at a keyboard, and that I have just recently scratched an itch on my left ear with the fifth finger of my left hand. For a threat to have meaning, it must be believed. If I say that you, gentle reader, will be struck by lightning that I have sent through your computer monitor if you do not wire ten thousand dollars to me in the next ten minutes, you are very unlikely to send me any money because there is no credible reason for you to believe my threat.
Similarly, the threat of hell has no particular weight upon those who do not believe that it exists. Since it is supposedly designed specifically as punishment for the crime of not believing that it exists, we must admit we’re faced with a circular argument. The threat of hell is not sufficient evidence to pursuade someone to believe in it if they don’t believe in it. The threat of hell only has relevance to those who believe that Jesus exists, but since they believe that Jesus exists, they are presumably in no danger of hell! In effect, if hell exists, it is only a danger to those who do not find the threat of hell to be a deterrent to nonbelief!
Let me make sure that this point is completely clear. The threat of hell only bears any weight for those who believe the threat to be credible. It is not designed to convert the unbelievers. After all, unbelievers don’t believe, so the threat is empty to them. It is designed to scare believers into obedience. If nothing else, we ought to be able to discard the notion of hell based only on this observation, but let’s not be hasty. Let’s examine the actual punishment, not just the threat of it.
When we scold a child for getting too close to a hot stove, we are attempting to protect him from being injured, and we are trying to give him the knowledge that stoves are dangerous. If a child has been scolded and returns to the stove, loving parents will often make him go to timeout, or perhaps forgo a trip to the toy store. The unpleasant consequences of his actions are designed to make him a better, safer person.
When we put a criminal in jail for five years, and then release him back into society, it is in the hopes that the negative experience of going to jail will deter him from committing the same or similar crimes again. We hope that the punishment has rehabilitated him such that he will be a better member of society for the rest of his life. When we put a criminal in jail for life with no hope of parole, it is because in our judgment he is incapable of living peacefully in society, and is a real and present danger to other citizens. In fact, he is such a danger that the only way to ensure the safety of other innocent citizens is to prevent him from ever coming in contact with them.
Sometimes, punishment is not constructive. It is revenge, pure and simple. In reality, we should probably not even call this punishment, but it is often presented as such by those exacting it upon others, so we must address it in this context. There are times when we humans hurt other people to make ourselves feel better. If someone has wronged us, we don’t wish to make them a better person. We just want to make them hurt because they hurt us. It’s important to note that a loving parent would punish their child for exacting revenge or retaliation on someone. Revenge for revenge’s sake is nearly universally recognized as a bad thing, as it is just perpetuating pain without contributing any good to the world.
So, which one of these things is hell? It cannot possibly be for instruction or protection. Since there is no way for the inmates to ever get back into society, there is no way that the knowledge of hell’s reality can serve any purpose for the person in hell. Likewise, it’s absurd to suggest that the person in hell is being protected from some danger.
But what about protecting others? Hell certainly separates the evil from the good, if we are to believe the Bible. Might it be that separating the evil from the good is done for the protection of believers, in the same way that we lock up some criminals for life? Unfortunately, no. Even this explanation does not wash, for the people in hell are already dead. They are no danger to any believer, and never will be again. If they are simply winked out of existence, the effect for believers is the same. Their eternal existence, separate from believers is not in any way different than if they simply did not exist any more, for in either case, they can have no effect on believers, either those on earth or in heaven.
In short, there is simply no benefit to either believers or the nonbeliever if hell exists. If it serves no function for humans, the only possibility left is that it serves a function for God. Is it possible that we’ve overlooked some “greater good” in the universe — something about the eternal punishment of unbelievers that contributes to goodness by giving benefit to god himself? If we answer this question honestly, we must conclude that if God does in fact gain anything from hell, it can only be pleasure. The God of the Bible needs nothing for he lacks nothing. He has the power to do anything that suits his whim, and to create anything at all that he should ever desire. There is nothing that any entity could do for God that he cannot do for himself. However, if God desires pleasure, and derives it from putting people into eternal punishment with no hope of reprieve, we could say that there is a purpose in the existence of hell.
Is that a good purpose? Again, if we are honest, we must say that it is not. It is inflicting pain upon another without contributing to the greater good. It is revenge without rehabilitation, instruction, or protection. It is designed by the designer with the sole purpose of giving himself pleasure.
Perhaps this god and this hell do exist, but if they do, is God loving? Is he worthy of love, admiration, or respect? Clearly not. He is worthy of derision, scorn, and hatred. He is the ultimate evil force in the universe. Luckily, there is no evidence whatsoever that such a being exists, so we need not lose much sleep on the idea. Even so, let’s suppose for a minute that we are convinced that God exists, and he is the ultimate evil in the universe. We might be persuaded that becoming a Christian is still the correct logical decision, for it must be better to spend eternity in paradise with an evil tyrant than to spend eternity in hell as a matter of principle.
Alas, this logic also fails, for if we have acknowledged that God is the ultimate evil in the universe, what possible reason could we have for believing that he has been honest with us about the standard by which hell or heaven is awarded to humans? In fact, why would we not immediately suspect that the ultimately evil God who created hell would also attempt to trick as many people as possible into sending themselves to hell? If he gains pleasure by perceiving the existence of people in hell, would not more people in hell provide more pleasure? It would be in his best interest to send as many people to hell as possible, and the best way to do that would be to trick us into d0ing exactly the thing that would send us to hell! But then, if I can figure this out, can I not also guess God’s logic and suppose that he means me to discover his motive? If that is the case, doesn’t it mean that the logical thing for him to do would be to tell the truth about how to get to heaven? For if I discover his motive, I should suspect that he is also wise enough to anticipate my discovery and reverse the playing field yet again so that I will be tricked into going to hell in spite of my discovery.
As you can see, this is an endless circle wherein one can never reach a conclusion about what is the correct way to get to heaven. Any guess we make is equally likely to send us to hell. Once we’ve realized this, it should dawn on us that the ultimate evil being would be best served by not creating heaven at all, but creating only hell and sending everyone there, regardless of their actions during life. Why, if he derives pleasure from sending people to hell, would he deny himself pleasure by allowing some people entry into heaven? Perhaps he derives pleasure from allowing people into heaven. If this is so, then the pleasure he derives is either equal or unequal to the pleasure he derives from sending people to hell. If the pleasure is equal, then there is no functional difference for God between sending people to hell and sending them to heaven. We are left with the conclusion that only malevolence would lead God to send anyone to hell under these circumstances. If there is a difference, we should expect that God would not bother sending anyone to the place which provides him less pleasure. If he does anyway, we can only conclude that his decisions are arbitrary and inscrutable.
In short, the existence of hell logically dictates a God that does not conform to any possible definition of “good.” This in turn dictates that humans can literally have no confidence in any decision they make during this life. Either they will go to hell or they will go to heaven, and there is absolutely nothing they can do to alter this fact, nor is there any way they can hope to ensure themselves a spot in one or the other. In other words, if hell exists, then our knowledge of it is completely and utterly irrelevant to our lives. Even if we believe in hell, we can rest easy at night knowing that we are utterly helpless to determine our own fate. What will happen will happen, and there’s nothing we can do to change it.
Of course, if we are going to believe that, we might as well believe that hell does not exist, for the outcome will be the same, and we shall be happier not believing. I suggest to you, gentle reader, that the absurdity of the paradox is enough evidence that we can reasonably conclude that neither hell nor a God who would create hell exist. This certainly doesn’t prove that some other afterlife does or does not exist, but it does allow us to eliminate the Christian God and the Christian hell from our list of possibilities and move on to a more pleasant topic.
Secular societies enjoy better quality of life
Religious leaders constantly assert without religion to both guide and rule people there will be chaos, so in order for their to BE order, religion of some sort is practically a societal requirement. This is one of the most pernicious myths that organized religion insists on promoting despite overwhelming evidence that secular societies are the most well off along a range of social indicators. I have made the case that the advanced secular democratic societies all enjoy a better quality of life.
“>Journal of Religion and Society: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Excerpt: “The data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.”
“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”
According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.
The problem is that believers are innoculated against listening to anyone who is apostate or advancing the secular position. Radio mouths have incessantly harped on the imagined evils of secular society.
Believers continue to hold to their propaganda that religion is all good all the time. Well, 9/11 should have disabused everyone that this is not the case. The homicidal maniacs that took over 3,500 innocent lives on a bright and sunny fall day would not have been able to sacrifice their own lives but for the ruinous dogma of an afterlife and worse the promise of a reward for defending their faith in such a wanton cruel fashion.
Secular people make no demands on their supporters to defend secular belief with their lives. They make no false promises of a blissful afterlife that soothes the pain of thinking about death. They make no appeals to supernatural agencies.
American Sociologist Phil Zuckerman spent several years living in Scandinavia to research his new book:
Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment
Here is a positive review of the book.
Spot on! From a Scandinavian perspective., December 25, 2008
By Bo Kristoffersson “BoHenry” (Stockholm, Sweden) – See all my reviewsI’m a Scandinavian, living and working in Stockholm, Sweden, and I read Mr. Zuckerman’s book from that perspective.
Obviously he is very well read on the issues of Scandinavian societies and on religion in general, but I have to say that given that he only spent a year or so in Scandinavia, I’m very impressed with his thorough understanding of the finer nuances of the Nordic countries and the mentality of its people (he mainly deals with Denmark and Sweden) – and his descriptions and analysis of people’s attitudes to religious and societal matters are interesting.
In his book he shows that societies can be sane, prosperous and humane without people having a God-fearing approach to life, and he also presents some interesting ideas and explanations as to why the Scandinavian societies have become so secular, and reversely, why the USA has become so religious.
His book and studies are clearly built on sociological research methods, but he carries a personal tone throughout the book which makes it very pleasant to read. And although some of the interviews in the book can be a bit lengthy at times, they provide a direct and valuable insight into the way the common Dane or Swede thinks on matters of religion, the church, life, death, etc.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in society and religion. And I also think it’s a valuable read for us Scandinavians, to gain a deeper understanding of ourselves on the matter of religion.
There is compelling evidence that income inequality may be the root cause of most societal problems. How inequality might tie into religiosity could lead to more answers. My speculative theory is that religion has a long and storied history of being a palliative for people, a way to keep them from rising up against their overlords. Karl Marx famously said that religion is the opium of the masses. In America during the days of slavery the churches tamped down Black discontent by promising the future reward of heaven for “good” behavior. Meaning behavior the slave lords approved of. Blacks were actually prohibited from learning how to read or trying to improve themselves. The evil ignorant people who owned them meant to keep them in ignorance and slavery forever. But, these same people considered themselves righteous Christians and met each Sunday to congratulate themselves on their wholesome attitudes.
Today, fundamentalist religion aims to keep children in ignorance. Children raised by despotic religious parents are to seek answers only in the bible. Childhood religious indoctrination produces a permanent underclass of ignorant people kept in a state of menial serfdom and easily manipulated by cults and extreme political ideologues, such as the Tea Party. Children have obedience and unquestioning respect for authority drummed into them. This fact has not been lost on unsavory clerics, politicians and corporations all grasping for money and power.
For compelling data about the effects of income equality read the work of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their book, The Spirit Level published by Penguin Books. They will be appearing at the Edinburgh book Festival later this August.
“The rich developed societies have reached a turning point in human history. Politics should now be about the quality of social relations, how we can develop harmonious and sustainable societies.” Richard Wilkinson
Related articles by Zemanta
- Denmark, the very best place to grow old (thestar.com)
- In Lebanon, a Campaign to Get God Out of Politics (time.com)
- Phil Zuckerman: Imagine No Religion: Can a Society Be Successful Without It? (huffingtonpost.com)
- More Proof Atheists Are Smarter Than Theists… (anatheist.net)
Kin Selection and Favoritism
Image via Wikipedia
The thing is, it’s not quite that simple. Parental certainty in humans is asymmetrical. That is, both parents are not equally certain of their parenthood. Females are always certain their child is their own. It literally came from their body as a child, and so there is no doubt.** Males, on the other hand, might be certain that they donated sperm, but they can never be completely certain that some other man didn’t also donate sperm. The ferocious male jealousy we’re all familiar with is largely hypothesized as a genetic adaptation designed to create as much certainty as possible in males. After all, a male who spends all his resources on someone else’s child is not going to pass his own genes on. Those who jealously guard their females after insemination are far more likely to be the father, and therefore, far more likely to have their genes survive.
Given this knowledge, it ought to stand to reason that there would be a hierarchy of investment in offspring. The mother should be the most devoted, and the father should be somewhat prone to abandonment, particularly if there are other indicators that his parenthood is in doubt. Anecdotally, we can all see that this is true. There simply aren’t any movies on Lifetime (Television for Victims) about asshole mothers who abandon their children, leaving their father to work two jobs. ”Deadbeat Mom” simply isn’t in our vocabulary, while everyone has heard of “deadbeat dads.” To be sure, there are mothers who abandon their children, but it’s extremely rare compared to the number of males.
Beyond the anecdotal evidence are numerous studies which line up very nicely with the prediction. (Remember, in science, the ability of a theory to make precise predictions is one of the most reliable indicators of its accuracy.) Mothers do invest significantly more in their children than fathers, across all cultures, and across history.*** Fathers are significantly more likely to abandon offspring.
While this is compelling, if the theory of kin selection is true, we ought to see the pattern continue. Grandparents ought to show a marked preference for grandchildren whose parentage is certain. Here is where a certain amount of cognitive dissonance might set in. We all know that if you ask any grandparent, they will tell you that they love all their grandchildren equally. It’s part of the Grandparent’s Handbook. But before we toss the hypothesis to the curb, we need to remind ourselves that our genes don’t care if what we believe about ourselves is true. They only care if what we do is conducive to reproductive success. From the point of view of a gene, it would make sense for a grandparent to believe one thing and do another. For the purpose of social unity and family harmony, the appearance of impartial grandparents would be a great benefit. However, for the purpose of carrying on individual genes, there should be a marked difference in affection and altruism.
A new study by David Bishop, et al, has given new force to this explanation. Interviews with grandparents did indeed give the impression that grandparental investment was equal among all grandchildren. However, when it was examined from the point of view of grandchildren, a clear linear relationship became apparent, and it lined up very nicely with the prediction of kin selection theory. Where parenthood was certain, grandparental prosocial behaviors were the highest. In other words, your mother’s mother is most likely the most altruistic of your grandparents, while your father’s father is the least. (Your mother’s mother is certain that her daughter is hers, and your mother is certain that you are hers. Your father’s father is uncertain that your father is his, and your father is uncertain that you are his.) In fact, the results lined up exactly with the expected progression – MoMo, MoFa, FaMo, FaFa, for Mother’s Mother, Mother’s Father, Father’s Mother, and Father’s Father, respectively. This is precisely the descending line of parental certainty.
Once again, we see with vivid clarity that our concept of free will is not as defensible as it initially seems. Sure, grandparents believe they love their grandchildren equally. Sure, they want to be fair. But they aren’t. Our natures are just as ingrained in us as those of any other animal. All the philosophy in the world can’t change the fact that we believe things about ourselves that simply aren’t true, and we act in accordance with our genes, whether we are aware of it or not.
At this point, clever readers might stumble upon a rather odd notion. Many ad hoc explanations for human morality don’t make a lot of sense when it comes to children’s welfare. Let’s take evolution out of the equation for a moment. We all just take for granted that parents love their own children more than other people’s children, but why should that be so? This is actually a very hard question to even ask, for it is so “obvious” to us that it’s hard for us to step outside the box. Let’s try a thought experiment to see if we can make it more clear. Suppose for a moment that you were going to design a group of self-replicating robots, and your goal was to grant each individual robot the best possible life. (Wouldn’t a loving creator do this?) Suppose you had a hundred robots, and they could each make one copy of themselves in their own lifetime. If you took parentage out of the equation, and designed them so that each of the hundred robots cared equally for all the offspring, you would ensure that there would be no favoritism, and it would be in the best interest of each “parent” to make sure that resources were divided exactly equally among all the “children.” On the other hand, if you made each parent solely responsible for its own offspring, it would pay each parent to acquire as many resources as possible for its own offspring, even if it meant stealing from or even killing rivals to acquire their resources. The result would be great inequality.
Now, can you see how this works for humans? If there is some magical “human morality” that is separate from us, why are we so fiercely loyal to our own children? Why don’t the richest parents give equally to all the other poor children in town? Again, it seems so patently obvious that we love our own children because they’re ours that it never occurs to us to ask why that should even matter! The only answer that makes any sense is that it’s our genetic legacy that matters. In protecting our children, we are literally protecting ourselves, for we are our genes.
What does all this mean? To be honest, I’m finding this a difficult question to answer. It’s one thing to find practical use for some aspects of evolutionary psychology. For this, it’s not as clear cut to me. Perhaps this knowledge could potentially help ease conflict between grandchildren, or between parents who are angry with their inlaws. Maybe it will help some people to come to grips with the discrepancy between the children’s stories and the reality of their lives. I really don’t know. What I do know is that true knowledge is power, and even if we don’t immediately see where it fits into the whole puzzle, it’s better to know than not, and more knowledge is never a bad thing. If nothing else, perhaps it has been helpful to step outside of the human box for a moment and see just how strange some of our most “obvious truths” are when we take our own instincts out of the equation. Perhaps more important is that we can see yet again how ridiculous are the claims of the religious when compared to the genuine explanations offered by science.
* Actually, it’s not. Incest can create a larger than 50% genetic investment in offspring, but the detrimental effects of incest far outweigh the ad hoc benefit of creating greater parental investment, so the point is largely irrelevant.
** Of course, modern medicine has introduced a degree of doubt with various fertilization procedures, but this too is irrelevant to our evolutionary drives, as the incidence of true uncertainty have been so infrequent, and have only occurred within the past several generations — not nearly enough time for evolutionary adaptation.
*** The reader must be cautioned against suggesting that evolutionary anomolies such as enormous harems and baby farms are proof against the hypothesis. Remember that human history spans hundreds of thousands of years, and the most vibrant of these institutions lasted for a few generations.
Related articles
- Harvard’s Edward O. Wilson tries to upend biology, again (boston.com)
- “Where Does Good Come From? – Edward O. Wilson Upends Biology, Again” and related posts (integral-options.blogspot.com)
When Parents Call God Instead of the Doctor
By Deena Guzder Thursday, Feb. 05, 2009
On Easter Sunday of 2008, 11-year-old Kara Neumann of Weston, Wisconsin, suffered waves of nausea as she lay motionless on her deathbed, too weak to walk or speak. Kara’s parents — both followers of the Unleavened Bread Ministries, an online church that shuns medical intervention — knelt in prayer beside their dying daughter. They did not call a doctor for help. A few hours later, Kara died of diabetes, a relatively common — and treatable — condition.
Within weeks, a Wisconsin state attorney brought charges of reckless endangerment against Kara’s parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. The couple protested on grounds of religious freedom, but Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Mr. and Mrs. Neumann to stand trial this spring. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison. Unleavened Bread Ministries immediately released a statement saying the couple is being unfairly punished for the “crime of praying.”
The Neumanns’ highly anticipated trial has sparked new debate in a long-running battle over faith healing in the United States. Under current Wisconsin law, a parent cannot be convicted of child abuse or negligent homicide if they can prove they genuinely believed that calling God, instead of a doctor, was the best option available for their child. The law is part of the legacy of the 1996 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which included a landmark exemption for parents who do not seek medical care for their children for religious purposes. While all states give social service authorities the right to intervene in cases of child neglect, criminal codes in 29 other states also provide additional protection for parents who forgo mainstream medical treatment….
Read the full Time.com Article…
Related articles by Zemanta
- Trials for Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine (nytimes.com)
- Child deaths test faith-healing exemptions (msnbc.msn.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b5065981-80ec-486f-9c3e-49f65170b13e)
« Newer Posts — Older Posts »
