Featured | Factonista

Archive for the ‘Featured’ Category

Within Liberty

Saturday, August 8th, 2009

Introduction

The great John Milton, referring to American eloquence, said: “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” It seems that within the framework of what constitutes “liberty”, the lighted fire called “free-speech” is the greatest sight. The cracks and fissures in the monument we have to human solidarity – supported by the pillars Rights, Liberty, Freedom, Equality – is made to echo by simply the function of free-speech. In order to fix the problems, we must first identify them; this can only be done by the same tools that made them, that raised such a monument to the heights man has allowed himself. To such heights have we been able to gaze far into the future, deeply into grains of sand, and eloquently into our deepest selves. The problems we find – in the future, the grains and ourselves – are made apparent by the liberty to speak. Silence does not remove problems, it only covers them with a transparent veil. To fill the fissures, to smooth the sutures, we must open our eyes and minds and mouths and be prepared to engage with our own fallibility.

We dislike hearing of our own failings and here-in we must allow some support. None wants to be thought a failure. Yet, there is a vast chasm between missing a step and plummeting to the ground. People often mistake the latter for the former, their emotions matching the overzealous self-harm. Jane has forgotten her child at school, thus she is a failure as a mother. She feels the brunt and punishes herself emotionally even when she picks up her child two hours later. But she is not a failure, she is a fallible human. Yes, she has made a mistake. We do not aid Jane by mocking her, though we silently rebuke her to each other. As Bertrand Russell said, we do not gossip about each other’s virtues. The point remains however that she is not a complete failure, though her emotions are dictating as such.

Many will argue that such strong emotions prevent the recurrence of such a mistake. The punishment is done for the benefit of both Jane and her child. This is certainly true, but the problem remains to what extent do we allow such cross-firing to take in collateral damage. That is, how far do we take such a loathing of failing into the public sphere?

The Loathing of Failing and Berlin’s Concepts of Freedom

Jane is not a failure as human being to forget her child, though her actions are examples of what a terrible mother would do. However, it was not Jane’s intention to forget or leave her child (how does one deliberately forget anyway?). She made a mistake and, as a human being, this will happen. No one, not even Megan Fox, is perfect (though in the looks department, she comes “close”). Thus Jane must forgive herself and continue, trying harder. This is a healthy way to progress and better herself. Mistakes are not wooden-planks to produce our own crucifix, but to take higher steps toward an intended destination. This false-dichotomy plays out when it sets it sights on the freedom of others.

The reason to restrict anything within a society, that is curb liberty, is a form of coercion. This might be under the archway of what Isaiah Berlin calls “negative liberty”. To better understand “negative” notions of freedom (within Berlin’s context, freedom and liberty are interchangeable), we can also focus on its corollary.

Berlin states, in his famous essay Two Concepts of Liberty, that negative freedom is defined by the absence of coercion. As Nigel Warburton has succinctly stated: “Coercion is when other people force you to behave in a particular way, or force you to stop behaving in a particular way. If no one is coercing you then you are free in this negative sense of freedom.” An example might be that no curfew prevents one being on the streets, no police force prevents one from driving down to see friends, and so on. If one was prevented because of a curfew, police presence, threats of violence, then one would not be free (in this negative sense).

Berlin then goes on to define a positive conception of freedom. This is the freedom to do as one wants with one’s life, within that life’s context. As Berlin puts it with his usual beautiful phrasing: ” ‘positive freedom’ – the doctrine of self-adjustment to the unalterable pattern of reality in order to avoid being destroyed by it.” The big concept is self-realisation and the actions toward exercising control over one’s life – rescinding such rights is absolving one’s positive freedom. The point is to help people realise their best virtues, their greatest strengths, their abilities. An example is someone who is stuck in a relationship with an abusive partner – no one is forcing her to stay in the relationship. The partner has told her to leave and abuses her emotionally and sometimes physically. Though the abusive partner is telling her to leave, she keeps telling herself she “loves” him. Her friends and family know this relationship is bad for her and if she could learn to love and appreciate herself more, she would realise she deserves better. In this context, she is not free – even though no one is stopping her from leaving this terrible relationship.

Thus, positive freedom is freedom to do something, as opposed to negative which is freedom from something. Positive freedom might be thought of under the domain of “rights”. This means the allowance of slight paternalistic interferences – such that, someone who is wasting their life would be put on a better path. However, if the former part of the previous paragraph is troubling – talk of what’s best for the citizen, making them better people – then one is not in solitary company. Berlin himself maintains a heightened suspicion of positive freedom. Throughout history we have seen governments do the most horrid actions in the name of bettering themselves and their citizens.

So, positive freedom is the way one’s freedom is outlined – as outlined perhaps by declaration of rights and constitutions – and negative freedom is lack of coercion when performing certain actions.

Free speech is the ability to speak or express oneself without fear of being “coerced” into silence or violence. Thus, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also states, freedom of speech is a negative freedom. Curbing it thus rescinds liberty, not so much bending as breaking it.

Removing freedom of speech is done out of this hatred or loathing of failure (and perhaps other reasons, though I won’t be addressing those here, since I am dealing with freedom of speech in a societal framework). People do not want to hear contradictory remarks about their most deeply held beliefs. The important point here is that the very existence of a challenge to conventional views is evidence of liberty and freedom. It was of course the Greeks who started this idea that one should challenge tradition (what the classicist Peter Jones calls “the tradition of challenging tradition”), basing thought and inquiry into and, more importantly, from the human realm, since this is the only realm that has utility. Even if one is completely wrong to speak out against evolution or Darwinism or cosmology, the fact remains that the established view is forced to cement itself within a stronger foundation. This means more of those who accept the established views within a framework – so the majority of scientists and Darwinism, the majority of liberals and freedom – must almost relearn their views, express them eloquently and understand why their views are better than their opponents’. Notice: I did not say their views are “true” or “perfect”. According to Karl Popper, we should work with ideas that are strongest against its counter-theories. We have ideas that withstood the onslaught of prevailing criticisms. Beneath the storm of outrage, these are the ideas that bloom even in the fog of obscurity, the rain of anger and thunder of discontent.

But these ideas only come to fruition with the ability to express them. Hating an opponent’s view, simply because it upsets or hurts one’s feelings, is not reason enough to rescind freedom of speech.

Religions are often the groups responsible for demanding censorship, banning and burning. Throughout modern history, it has been the policy of papal instruction to burn books that speak out against god, to restrict scientific inquiries which upset the geocentric world-view, and the demand from an Iranian leader to kill a man who lives in London for writing a work of fiction. Unfortunately, religions have been granted so much freedom within a liberal and secular framework that it has poisoned the well of freedom for all. The religions have taken hold of the bucket and laugh as we flail for our fingertips to touch the water’s surface. Instead, our wavering reflections on the water mock us and the bucket is punctured by the religions’ thorny retribution. Now, whenever we reach in to drink from freedom, most of it drains out because of the loopholes driven in by the religions.

This is not meant to sound extreme or to highlight that we have lost this battle. It is true that talking of liberty is hardly ever done in the context of praising it – it is usually done to defend it.

So to be able to express views, within the framework of rescinded coercion, is the most important element of any form of liberty. To encroach upon that fundamental framework for the purposes of avoiding hurt feelings is to ignore that one is rendering the framework hollow. The religious tend to forget that freedom of speech to criticise should be met by freedom to criticise back. In most other areas, it seems that many religious people share the fundamental principles of a liberal society. Yet it is no irony that we often hear about protestations (from where, ironically but unsurprisingly, Protestants derive their name), from religious groups, against the most important value within a free society: free-speech.

The Silencing of Mankind – Why Free Speech Matters

Consider any other fundamental right or important element of freedom – such as equality, justice, and avoidance of harm. All these would be close to nothing if freedom of speech was eliminated, undermined or restricted. Indeed, though freedom of speech is fourteen shades of grey, it is grey nonetheless – not black and white. We can only talk about freedom of speech with freedom of speech; we can only highlight restrictions to our rights with free-speech; we can only find power in numbers to eliminate despotism with free speech. The first mark of a society that is ruled by a totalitarian regime is when there is no freedom of speech (this does not mean that all totalitarian regimes did not allow free-speech, only that it is a clear indication of a violation of an important freedom).

If we arbitrarily demarcate lines based on nothing but the “tyranny” of “majority” opinion, as Mill viewed it, then we have got no closer to doing best for mankind. All we have done is catered to the feelings of one group – even if it is the majority. Even if the whole of mankind believes the earth flat, the planet remains stubbornly spherical. A better writer than myself, John Stuart Mill, put it like this:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. (”On Liberty”, Chapter II. Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, 1869 – Italics mine.)

“Silencing mankind”. The power of Mill’s image is a resounding call to prevent a gag being placed in the mouth of humanity. Mill’s point on the censor himself runs further. The censor must assume infallibility when censoring a work, since he must know beyond all doubt that a work is better off being censored. But this is blatantly incorrect since no one can be absolutely correct in their judgements. The difficulty of course could be shifted to the other extreme: allowing a work to be published which causes harm. The point however that we need to address is that people must be given the choice. When a work is banned, restricted or pulled from distribution, a censor has taken it upon himself to read a work for a whole society. This is paternalism of the worst kind, grinding our emotional maturity into a fine powder of obedience. It seems that on the whole it would be better that a work is presented, even if it does cause harm, as this leads to the overarching growth of maturity in our species. Censoring seems to only allow for juvenile and loud voices to find support for their views: for example, a work is censored, a few “liberals” cry out. No one is hurt. A work is not censored and someone is killed by fanatics who are offended by it. The latter of course we have seen occur to the Japanese translator of The Satanic Verse. Whilst it might appear harsh that we should risk our lives for the sake of some ideal, like freedom, it seems we risk our lives and freedom by not standing up for it. The allowance of religious arrogance threatens every aspect of freedom one can name: personal autonomy, sexuality, friendship, fashion, careers.

Yet some things should be contentious for the liberal agenda, such as racist or misogynist writings. But then, they should be rejected from publication not because it hurts people’s feelings, but because of poor scholarship. I for example would be very interested to read a case, based on reason, evidence and good logic, that states we are better off denigrating women, treating them like cattle, and reducing their minds to dull throbs of rhythmic idiocy. I would like to read this because I know – as far as I know anything – that I never will. The case for the equality of humanity and the emancipation of women is so strong, in terms of a Popperian paradigm, that we can easily backhand arguments against it.

Thus it seems the censor is useless. Who is this person reading works for society? Who is deciding for the average citizen that material is too harsh?

Progress in terms of equality comes about through discussion. Limiting access to the public domain of ideas is to prevent the growth of these ideas toward the betterment of society. Before we can allow the ideas to come to fruition, we must have a foundation open to the light of reason and comprehension. Lucidity, ease of access and an understanding that ideas are fallible and to be contested should be the benchmark for policies that we decide for ourselves. Arbitrarily limiting or restricting certain forms of information assumes, as previously said, infallibility from the censor and as Mill also highlighted, the problem that the restricted document could contain the truth we seek.

The final problem in limiting free speech or censoring a work is the assumption that: only one group is harmed, or, if the whole of society is harmed, that no one benefits. Both are wrong. If, as constantly occurs, Muslims are offended by a work of art or fiction or the way someone scratches their nose, those targets are censored to placate Muslims (similarly when other religious groups cry out that they are offended). Now, that work of art is gone completely and the Muslims are satisfied. But what about the artist, the producer, the audience, and so on, who do appreciate it? Their concerns are swept aside to placate one group because they are religious as opposed to artistic or academic. Religions should not have a moral high ground but should be on the plateau of equality with the rest of us. Then we can speak of judging something; not because the religious groups hanker over us, but because we are all equally horrified at a dog being tortured to death as a work of art, equally dissatisfied with publication of some poor novel. This would mean that religions are taken seriously, not because they are religious people, but because they are people. Mature people, treated as such to show that we want to put them in line with ourselves, as adults dealing with a chaotic world. Not as children who have loud voices and toys of mass destruction they throw out their cot of platitude.

And the second point, that no one benefits is also wrong. By a group censoring or crying for a limit to the free speech in this instance, they prevent themselves from judging it. How many Muslims read The Satantic Verses before deciding Rushdie & Co. should die? How many people bothered to see the cartoons made by Jyllends-Posten before they marched in the streets, demanding death and blood of those who mocked Islam? In these instances, the groups would have benefited by simply engaging with the work. They then have a choice: ignore the silly infidels who just do not understand the power of Allah or retaliate by drawing satirical pictures of the cartoonists, writing a strongly-worded letter (minus death-threats) and so on. There are ways of “retaliating” that do not cross the bounds of discourse to enter the minefield of violence. Muslims reacting in such brash, harmful and violent ways are not making Islam any more a “religion of peace” or their faith any more acceptable by behaving in such stupid, childish ways. If religions want to be taken seriously, they must accept the rules of adult discussion which govern our growth and not the monkey-bars of juvenile delinquency that lets them leap over the lines of conduct we have in place.

This even before equality, justice, and equal suffrage. This before the inducing of minds toward intellectual adventure and fulfilment regardless of race, sex and ethnicity. This all before we decide on how create a path to glory, unifying our shaking hands and raising a platform toward peace. Freedom of speech is itself the decider in what should be free. Not everything should be said or spoken but the decision as to what we shall say, read or publish can only be decided on an open platform, using reason and not emotion as the yardstick. All this can only occur with the freedom to speak, ideas flying across the mental landscape like a flock of migrant birds blackening the ground with their shadows. Freedom starts with the first flap of wings and the dilation of the pupil toward the horizon. Now we can set off and take our wings toward a more peaceful horizon.

Tags: free speech, ideas, John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper, religion, salman rushdie
Posted in Feature, Featured | No Comments »

Dear Universe of 2008,

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

A few weeks ago, Rodrigo wrote a powerful and beautiful little composition that reflected on his experiences and his relationship with secularism, and it (along with the end of 2008) inspired me to think and write about this myself.

My life as a skeptic, a secular humanist and an atheist has been short. As a young child, I was raised a moderate Catholic, but I’ve never found that it had much of a direct impact of my life. I was swayed from it by one of my best friends a few years ago. But it’s only been over the course of the past year that I can really say that my beliefs have been defined. I was introduced to Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene by said friend in early 2008, and it is that which I have to thank for a great deal of where I’m at right now.

I fell in love with biology from that book, but more importantly, I learned about logic.

This year I realized that logic is a skill that takes practice just like any other. At least, I certainly wasn’t born with it. This has been an important thing for me to understand. Between the time when I stopped going to church for the better (I was eleven or so) and the point where I finally began to grasp what it meant to be an atheist (beginning of 2008), there was a void. Although I was glad to be free of the church, I didn’t understand anything any better. I was confused, and I tried searching for answers in alternative religions (Wicca, Buddhism, Scientology) but I couldn’t ever make up my mind. I wanted to make my own decisions about what I thought, but at eleven I was terribly helpless about how to do it.

Fast forward a bit to the time right before I first opened The Selfish Gene. I was still just as lost, but I had long given up attempting to fix it. Really, I think that looking back on my eleven-year old state, all I needed was more education. By the time I started reading the book, I already had a small interest in science and far more knowledge on the subject (and in general). So I was just able to get through it, and what I read amazed me. For those who haven’t read the book, it really has little to do with logic (directly). It’s about biology and natural selection. But the thing was, I’d never really understood evolution. My memories of science class lessons about the subject include picking up camouflaged colorful confetti on a multicolor piece of paper, which is an accurate demonstration but astonishingly uninformative.

And then there was Richard Dawkins, in a book obviously written for adults, explaining to me in perfect, clear language what I had always struggled to grasp in middle school. I understood him so astoundingly well… and in an unexplainable way, I saw what it was to be logical. If there’s any time in my life where I’ve ever experienced a eureka moment, that would be it.

Basically, this experience ultimately threw me into atheism and skepticism. Attending the Center for Inquiry student leadership conference this past summer was the second event that changed me. I had just turned fifteen when I went. I met all kinds of people. Fascinating, incredibly marvelous people. It was worlds apart from my high school biology class, and the discussions that we had during that conference were far beyond anything that happened in the little debates in my freshman English class with twenty other kids. Everyone I talked to was someone new, and it was so refreshing. I don’t think I can ever forget that weekend with those people. I learned and grew so much. That was the weekend I really fell in love with inquiry, and skepticism and the universe. Biology had only been the beginning. I’m even more passionate about those things now, and it sincerely overwhelms me beyond anything else I can imagine.

The reactions I get from people about it are pretty predictable and they usually have to do with my age. But surprisingly, most of them are from the people I go to school with, who are about the same age I am. When I mention things like Edger and what it means to me, I’m met with confusion a lot of the time. It really forces me to consider how lucky I am. I’m incredibly grateful to have people I can go to who think like I do. They’re not only my friends, but something else, even though I’m not really sure what to call them. I owe so much to them either way.

Speaking of Edger, it’s really been a gift to me. Everyone who works on it is seriously talented and fantastic, and even though I have no idea how I ended up in the middle of it all, I’m so glad I did. And as the new year comes in, I think about where I’d be without it. Because despite the differences in age I have with everyone else, at the end of the day we are all thinking about the same thing in like-minded ways.

So after all, I guess this turned out to be a thank you letter to everything and everyone who helped me get where I am this year, especially the folks at the Center for Inquiry and especially especially everyone at Edger.

I feel like I belong here, with secularism and skepticism and science. I really wouldn’t trade it for anything else in the world, and it’s the most comfortable feeling.

Thanks for 2008,

Cheers

Tags: Center for Inquiry, edger, skepticism, thank you, universe
Posted in Featured | 3 Comments »

On the 60th Annivesary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Wednesday, December 10th, 2008

The word “human” sends out shockwaves; reverberations that quiver with expectations and disappointments. “To err is human,” Alexander Pope wrote in his Essay on Criticism, “to forgive divine.” But just before this often (mis)quoted line, Pope says more fully:

To what base Ends, and by what abject Ways,
Are Mortals urg’d thro’ Sacred Lust of praise!
Ah ne’er so dire a Thirst of Glory boast,
Nor in the Critick let the Man be lost!
Good-Nature and Good-Sense must ever join;
To err is Human; to Forgive, Divine.

Pope could not have been more wrong. It is not “divine” to forgive – there is no celestial force needed to warrant forgiveness. To err and forgive are both human and only human. Of course, in this context Pope was referring to the great power of forgiveness, as “great power” could be synonymous with “divine”. It is in this way, and only this way, that forgiveness receives the mantle of divinity. And nowhere is this “great power” of human interaction and fraternity so boldly put forward, so beautifully contended, and so carefully laid out than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHH).

Today is its 60th birthday and seems as good a time as any to reflect on its articles, its implications and its necessity for living. This is worthy of a book and the great AC Grayling^* has done just that (for most of his publishing career). It is a sad reflection that people do not have or know the UDHH. Of course, we all know of it, but how many realise its importance? As a suggestion, I would ask all those to follow the links I’ve given above and print out the UDHH, stick on the wall and to quietly reflect on it.

Let us briefly see why it is important. The Preamble begins in the steadfast gleam against the bullying of divine and political tyrannies from our past:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Humans first before words, ideas and opinions. There is no propitiation toward a totalitarian dictatorship in the sky; there is no grovelling at the feet of men or gods or statues; there is no discrimination or rejection of these rights to others, based on colour, creed or country. “All members of the human family” only stresses everyone and the inherent fraternity of human beings (and scientifically provable relation of all living things to a common ancestor).

Here’s the beautiful thing: These Articles can be contested (Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”; Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”). These are not resolute, divinely given rights – they are, by definition, human rights. We may contend on each article, we may perhaps find some ambiguous – perhaps we may not fully condone others.

For example, Part 3, of Article 26 states: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” Yet, when we consider the resolute poison that can be fed to children, given their credulity and trust in elders; when we see the damage done to those who suffer from psychological disorders from “hell” and neuroses passed down from the Bronze-Age; when we consider, for example, that private schools can teach that “Evolution is just a theory” or “Evolution is wrong!”, does this Article really sound appropriate? Should this Article really be adopted universally? In Africa, children are still taught to see witches and to be viewed as witches (and then murdered out of fear). Thus, in this light we may question and be sceptical.

Indeed, my hope is that we scan this document for ideas we find unsuitable. Taking this example of Article 26, Part 3, there may be good and bad reasons for employing it. We may discuss and debate, be open to change of policies. This seems perfectly reasonable and at least we can all agree on this process, if not the Article’s stipulation itself. (A good case could be made, using the other Articles to justify Article 26. For example, the right of every individual to be free from oppression.) The beautiful thing is just this: It is a human declaration and we all know it. By being human, we easily sit with it and can shift the gates of appraisal, when Articles find favour or dismissal.

By contrast, a declaration given by a god, numbering only 10 is not amenable to change. The 10 Commandments, or Decalogue, is found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy (of the “stone the non-virgin on her wedding night” fame). There are sometimes noted to be more than 10 but that is beside the point. The 10 Commandments demand the worship of this god, Yahweh. This command to worship and grovelling takes up large parts of the commandments:

1. I am the Lord your God

2. You shall have no other gods before me

3. You shall not make for yourself an idol

4. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

Correctly described by Christopher Hitchens as the “throat clearing” part of the commandments, it then launches into a self-righteous expose on the idiocy of human sensibility. As if to say, “by the way, murder is wrong”, “by the way, stealing is wrong”, “by the way, respect your parents.” There is nothing incredible, beautiful or revolutionary in the Decalogue and, nowadays, quite insulting to the majority of people. Yet, it finds its place in many important arenas and public places. Nowhere in the Decalogue, by the way, is there any mention of compassion or respect (I’m not focusing on the New Testament in this article and using the Decalogue simply as a contrast to the UDHH. I expect critics will mention Jesus and his lovely message).

One list, from a random desert god, from a pantheon of others, who chose a group of people, who weren’t in Egypt, to escape from Egypt, demanding to worship “Him” who helped them escape from a land they were never captive in the first place. It seems perfectly silly to me. Yet it is “divine”, it is not “human” and – instead of being rejected or, at least, changed – it is held to be perfect because it is divine. This is backwards and illogical. It seems no fault that the Decalogue is exactly what Joseph Kony’s The Lord’s Resistance Army uses as its basis for child-soldiers and zombie factories; its disgusting affront to human rights.

Kony is of course a soft target. But think of a scenario where someone using the UDHH, the basis of which stems from the writings of Jefferson, Paine, the intense fraternity explained by Russell, Kurtz and Mandela and Desmond Tutu, is going to turn tyrannical and bloodthirsty. It is not impossible, but it seems unlikely. Why then this paradox: the blatantly human declaration receives openness to change, discussions, and dismissals but finds little to no acceptance amongst tyrants – But one that is “divine” from a “loving god” can easily be imagined in the hands of any raging warlord (as the examples of any theocratic regime show).

It is the acceptance of humanity, first and forthright, that is important now. It is more important than whose theology is more correct or can prove the existence of a god. First, let us establish the peace we all want. Let the world allow the ash of war to settle. Let us help our fellow men and women (and especially children), wherever they are, to liberate them from oppression. It is not charities that will help, but the charitable spirit that keeps charities alive. But that spirit must be fostered into organisations and movements that will actualise the human behind the beggar, that will liberate the human from the “untouchable” he or she is. This, and not giving them money or constant supplies of food, will help more (indeed, charities are needed for the basic living but the long term goal of human restoration will be alongside and not despite charitable organisations. Just in case the reader thinks me too sceptical of charity!).

Russell said “The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.” And this ghost smiles over the echoes of UDHH. It is a sense of hope, a sense of gratitude that we gaze onto the lines of UDHH. Six decades has passed since its appearance and still we are nowhere close to liberating our fellow man. But I am optimistic it will happen: We are, by our very nature, compassionate beings, I sincerely believe that. We must begin by allowing us to channel such reserves of hope and love and compassion as we have, into arenas which are barren of such qualities. Guided by knowledge, we will get there and with the spur of, if not love, then empathy. Even if there is a god, it seems he would be more proud of us creating a “brotherhood of man” for the sake of them being fellow beings than forcing them into the shadow of worship.

On both levels, every one wins. And it is this notion of the liberated human that is the undercurrent for longstanding Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

* – Grayling has a beautiful series of blogs, concerning the different articles of the UDHH, avalaible at The Guardian.

Tags: anniversary, fear, freedom, Humanism, liberty, religion, terror, UN, universal declaration of human rights
Posted in Featured | 2 Comments »

The Barbarism of Islam

Friday, December 5th, 2008

This is the third part in an ongoing espousing on the rejection of Islam and why it outrages reason to ascribe to this brand of faith.

It is no simple matter.

Forged by steel and moulded by conquest, the once conquered lands of Islam are not easily bracketed off into obscurity. As much as apologists want, we know a great deal about them. The rosy-speckled history the apologists paint of dhimmis is not true: The conquered ahl al-kitab (Christians and Jews) were not bedfellows of Muslims; nor on friendly terms with their Muslim overlords. A casual glance through any history of Constantinople, Iran, Iraq, and so on will reveal cultures already in place; cultures that were thriving, accentuating their identities. Islam has made of itself a new garb of pride – that before its installation into the minds of its bloodthirsty warlords, the peoples were “godless pagans”. Any Imam will tell his flock these people were barbarous, “naked”, murderous, mad and unforgiving. I have heard this from pulpits and daises from many mosques. It is patently wrong and arrogant that without Islam people were (or are!) unforgiving tyrants of puritanical evil.

However, one of the many the many trenches between reason and ignorance, was (and is) dug from Islam’s condemnation of anything pre-Islamic. Muslims are taught to relish in how powerful the Islamic warriors were: unstoppable, unthinking, conquering machines. Indeed, we may be in awe at their power and might but by today’s standards we do not unflinchingly appraise such crass abandonment of human rights. No “Briton” that I know is proud of the many colonised lands that Britain managed to usurp; I hardly think colonial powers today are proud of their forefathers inclination to make the rest of the world fall under their dominance. We look, we relent and we learn. Why not so for Islam, then? It is nothing to be proud of and quite shocking to love such carnage from that time.

Most readers who are not Muslim will not understand the previous point. But it is a serious one: Islam really teaches its followers to be proud of its conquering mindset, its history of brutality, its dismissal of “pagans” and their idols, because they did not worship the “true god”. Yes, we can point the finger also at other theisms, but the level of pride that is thrust toward Muslims, like a crown of thorns, is one that would make anyone else flinch when grabbing – yet Muslims’ hands would bleed with eagerness to clutch such thorny accomplishments. The easy dismissal in the Quran of pagans is horrid to contemplate: these were humans, worthy of respect and rights. The crass dismissal to hellfire, under the solitarist “pagan” approach, is horrid to contemplate and quite sickening.

There is nothing Muslims can be proud of in their history of war. There is nothing any of us should be proud of in our cultures’ histories of war. That may be for another argument, but at no time can I see advocating bloodshed as good, as a source of pride.

My reasons for raising the history of Islam are twofold: It needs to be understood and it leads me to my second point.

The Quran (or at least the one we have now, chosen from amongst others and out of arrogance by Uthman) is said to be eternal, perfect, the “Word of God”, unalterable, unchanging and unchanged through the centuries. It apparently holds all the truths of the world inside it: Science, politics, ethics, prophecy. People truly believe this to be a “magic book”, to use the great Sam Harris’ phrase. Yet when you point out any of this to Muslims, they will reply with the horrid doctrine of “abrogation” or it was “part of the times”. Yet, if god’s word is eternal how can it be part of “those times”? And why did this god need abrogation (i.e. when a verse trumps what a previous verse says, as it is now no longer applicable), and not simply give the better command in the first place? Either he is stupid, or he is imperfect, or he is not omnipotent.

Nonetheless, Muslims can not escape the fact that their past is made of bloody conquests, in the name of their god. But it is now time to realise, this is not something a normal human being would lay their pride in.

The slaughter and massacring, the acquisition of slaves, the destruction of temples, idols and all forms of a culture’s identity were and are thrust into the darkness of oncoming faith. Those who are fans of Allah, no doubt feel some great passion and love and equate the two in the conquering of lands.

No doubt they praised god when they won and cursed their enemies when they lost. In contemplating this two-fold notion of love, projected onto a person or idea (or deity), WB Yeats wrote a series of poems giving the Blakean notion of the Rose. Many critics have called William Blake’s poem The Serpent & The Rose the most “perfect” poem, as it encapsulates all ideas and every story we will tell as a species. But in understanding this passion, this parallel of ensconced ideas, twirled together like a self-eating serpent, Yeats gave a cry which no doubt echoes many extremist Muslims:

… I, too, await,
The hour of thy great wind of love and hate.
When shall the stars be blown about the sky,
Like the sparks blown out of a smithy, and die?
Surely thine hour has come, thy great wind blows,
Far-off, most secret, and inviolate Rose?
- The Secret Rose

The relations of smithy and fires to terrorist bombings should be ignored to a certain degree: But truly, this could be the dying words of any martyr for Islam. Perhaps not so eloquently, but in its eloquence I hope it conveys the two-fold passion of love for something powerful.

Underlying the arrogant notion that the Divine loves you, cares about you and answers your prayers, there is the idea of reciprocity. The amount of passion shown and the desire for that beloved god’s hour to finally arise, underpins all atrocities committed in his name. This might be linked to the “death wish” or “death instinct” or thanatos identified by Freud – along with eros.

The bonus of arriving in paradise or Heaven to be greeted by many virgins (or, as recently translated, raisins!), seems to encapsulate the reciprocated love of any relationship. God just happens to be the most beloved of all things, above and beyond any “mere mortal” or, worse, “woman”. How are we meant to step between something which is regarded as “above and beyond” normal human reasoning; how are we to step in-between the Rose (that has become of Allah) and the twirled serpent of extremist Muslims, curled and licking the leaves of this bronze-aged myth?

I call that serpent “faith” and I call that rose “religious belief”. That serpent will suck on the old, dry leaves, it will taste the bitter crackle of stale ideas. It will feel the thorns of humanity that plague every man-made thing; that serpent can not ignore the sharp-points as it coils lovingly around this concept of god. That rose is long dead and we critics, we ex-Muslims, are calling it for what it is: Unnecessary, unhelpful, untrue. We want all these serpents to release the hold of that rose, to let it fall softly to the ground and gaze above the long grass of obscurity. “Above and beyond” should not be applied to human reasoning, but to human superstitions! Above and beyond all notions lies the plain mortality and humanity and sequestered fallibility that repudiates all concepts of perfection!

The sun still shines and the dew will come again. We hope that all humans might lower their hands and touch that dripping dew. We hope that you raise your eyes to the bearning sun and relish in the dimming of clouds. To look up, beyond the dying rose of old ideas. This must be humanity’s hour, come ‘round at last, slouching away from Bethlehem to be born.

Tags: dhimmis, extremism, faith, history, islam, past, Sam Harris
Posted in Featured | 5 Comments »

Open Minded, Open Sourced

Wednesday, November 5th, 2008

Imagine a world where all knowledge is free. Where absolutely anyone is welcome to learn the greatest or smallest secrets of the state. Where no knowledge is classified or off-limits. Where innovation and creativity are encouraged, and improvements always sought. This is where humanity can reach its zenith. This is where scientists, artists, technologists, and sociologists come together to utilize human knowledge to its best. There is only one kind that is unwelcome here, and that is the business type. The rule here is: take all the knowledge you want, twist or skewer it as you desire, but don’t profit from it. This utopian place is the open source world. Some of its children are Wikipedia, Wordpress, and Linux.

For those who are not very familiar with linux, wikipedia is a good anchoring point. As the wiki philosophy goes, any person of any qualification may contribute to a singular resource as long as they can backup their claims with credible sources. This is essentially the definition of rational thought. This way, no science/art goes stale by being constantly led in a linear direction. A communal effort always keeps a check on where things are headed, and reprimands the field if needed. This is also the birthplace of new ideas. The human mind produces new ideas by performing various logical operations between older ideas. The more data (relevant or not) you look at, the more new ideas you will produce. This is the process of ‘brainstorming’.

If we restrict a science/art to a laboratory or a corporate office, it will begin to go to stale. There will be little innovation and subsequently lesser yearning for innovation. On the other hand, you have different fingers!…lol no I’m joking. On the other hand, if we allow contributions from a wide variety of sources, the subject remains fresh and dynamic. The same philosophy is used by linux.

I’m not asking you to abandon your operating system and switch to Ubuntu right now. But I think it is important to realize what supporting proprietary software means. The end goal of Microsoft and Apple (love them or hate them) is not to improve computer technology, but to make money. I’m not referring to individuals like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Regardless of their personal intentions, the very nature of their corporate beasts prioritizes money over innovation. Look at the iPhone for example: enormously popular, its ‘terms and services’ gives the rights to any piece of software developed for it directly to Apple, along with permission to further use and distribution as they wish.

This might seem like something trivial, that someone makes a thermometer app that becomes popular, and Apple attaches a 99 cents price tag to it and makes a few thousand dollars of it. That, though objectionable, is not the central problem. The problem is that such a system hinders development. Apple forces all iPhone software to be downloaded only through the iTunes distribution system. Moreover, it has to be “digitally signed” to be installable. What this commercialization does is put money in the front, and development in the backseat. Since the product is commercial, it now comes with a “life-cycle” and various do-s and don’t do-s. Given the forced profit, its developer is now concerned with making money, over actual innovation.

There is another such problem that applies to both Microsoft and Apple. This is of cost. Most people in the first world can (though grudgingly) afford $300 – $600 for Vista, or pay excess of $1500 for a Mac laptop. Those who pirate their copies of OS have the benefit of high speed Internet (also expensive by global standards). The rest of the world – the developing world, cannot afford such prices, let alone the hardware. So in a world without linux, new generations of children in Africa, India and Brazil will have to be introduced to old, painfully bad software. This about insures they will not easily be able to secure a job in the IT industry, or make contributions to its growth. This is another reason the proprietary model is unsustainable. It is very unfriendly to a non-capitalistic market. If we imagine that computers are going to revolutionize humanity forever, and for the better, surely all humans have to be given a fairer chance.

If you’ve been using computers for at least the last 5 years, ask yourself this: why do you look forward to every periodic major release of a software to see new features? Aren’t your needs changing in those few years between the releases? Aren’t developers and artists maturing new ideas into features in that time? Is so, why wait long periods to get them all in one go? This way you’ll hardly use all the new features when they do come out, as most will be hidden behind the more prominent ones, and at least some of the work that had been put in by the developers will go to waste. If your thoughts are fluid, so should be research. The very nature of BIG software disallows this.

Linux is growing right now, yes, but it needs more users. With its current market-share, it is hardly taken seriously by software producers. If you want software/computers of the future to be capable of serving humanity better, for all the reasons listed above, give linux a try. The more attention it receives, more software will be developed for it. It will evolve faster, more humans will be able to add their input to it, and we will move towards a cheaper and more reliable computing model. This will open new technologies to us, which will help us achieve our long term goals on this planet.

I think this is a good time to introduce Ubuntu (Oo-buntu) to new users. It is a distribution of Debian (a distribution of linux) that was released in 2004. Its philosophy is everything written in this article and more. More specifically, it says “I am who I am because of those around me…”. Ubuntu itself comes from a Zulu word loosely translated to “humanity”. Ubuntu has been revolutionary because it makes linux easy for average users. All things required for general usage are automated, and more advanced users can customize every aspect of its functionality to suit themselves. Even the Wikimedia foundation runs off Ubuntu. Sure, your windows or mac might have a cool feature that Ubuntu does not have yet, but all you have to do is suggest it to the very large user community, and if feasible, you will get your wish in the next release (every 6 months).

Ubuntu has also been made ultra-easy to install for inexperienced users and after having used both Vista and Mac, I can’t imagine what a person would find lacking in it. Yeah, for the software you use at work, you would have to go back to your other OS, but again, no specialized software is going to be exported to linux unless there is a user base for it. So create the demand, and contribute to the society. Linux needs designers, artists, managers, testers, and new ideas as much as it needs programmers. So even if you know nothing about computer, explain your problems or ideas to the community, and you will certainly get some output from it. Even if you end up disliking linux, at least you’ll have learned something. Wiki Ubuntu to find out more or just check out their website. Also, if you went through this article with no understanding of the words “development” or “innovation”, give linux a shot, you’ll see what I mean.

Tags: apple, free market, linux, microsoft, open source, software, ubuntu
Posted in Featured | 33 Comments »

Friday Five

Friday, October 31st, 2008

Every Friday the crew here at Edger will rank the top five blog posts, videos, science news, and anything else of interest to the freethought community.

5. Richard Dawkins Embarrassed After Death and Subsequent Resurrection

The NewsBiscuit (which manages to publish news before it even happens!) comes in at number five this week with this TheOnion-esque peice on the Jesus-like death of Richard Dawkins. Further reports are informing me that several different news sources sent out very different press releases, some claiming that only one Mary found Dawkins resurrected, some claiming several, and some even claiming the presence of others.

“Dawkins suffered a shocking but ironic death on Friday having been seized by a mysterious gang of burly men dressed as Roman soldiers. They nailed him to a cross, and left him there until he died some hours later.”

4. Sarah Palin’s War on Science

Oh Hitchens, once again you’ve attacked someone with your impenetrable wit. Following in the footsteps of Jeffrey Sachs and Sam Harris, the Hitch rants about Palin’s anti-science and anti-elite agenda. And just for good measure he throws in some pokes at religion.

“With Palin, however, the contempt for science may be something a little more sinister than the bluff, empty-headed plain-man’s philistinism of McCain.”

3. Hell House XVIII, The Revenge: Welcome to Eternity

Light the Whacko-lanterns! The writers of Atheist Experience attended a Hell House in Cedar Hill, Texas and bring us a frightening tale of utter ignorance and contempt displayed by the Christian community who operate the Hell House.

Part 1

Part 2

2. Where’s Charlton Heston when you need him?

If you wrote a movie script for this incident it would be denied by Hollywood simply because it’s too unbelievable. Pharyngula gives some of the funniest commentary on this incident. Never has there been a better story to convey the concept of Poe’s law than Christians praying for the restoration of the economy by crowding around a golden calf!

“Just a clue: there’s this book called “the bible” that these people claim to follow, but I suspect they’ve never actually read it, or they might have seen Exodus 32.”

1. St. Louis Claims First Pregnant Catholic Priest

A Catholic Priestess (you don’t hear that often) named Jessica Rowley is due any day now and will become the first Catholic Priestess to give birth. I wonder what Bill Donahue will say about this. Better yet, I wonder what the Pope’s response will be.

“A little over a year ago, 26-year-old Jessica Rowley shattered the stained-glass ceiling, so to speak, by being ordained a Catholic priest. Now the St. Louisan is on the verge of giving birth to her first child, and a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates for women’s ordination says that makes Rowley the world’s first pregnant Catholic priest. “

This story took the number one spot this week simply because of the impact it should have on the rights of women within Roman Catholicism.

Tags: atheist experience, edger, hell house, Jessica Rowley, pharyngula, priestess, sarah palin, the edger
Posted in Featured | No Comments »

‘Hakani’ and paving a road to hell

Monday, September 29th, 2008

This is a special interview that I was asked to post by Survival International (SI). It discusses the film “Hakani” which tells a story about a Brazillian indian child, buried alive by her tribe. SI claims the film is faked by the American fundamentalist missionary organization Youth With a Mission. Personally, I don’t really know anything about this issue, but SI seems legit, and in the spirit of debate at least, I will post their interview here.

Over 100,000 people have seen the YouTube trailer for the film, ‘Hakani’, which is the cornerstone of a campaign supposedly opposing Indian infanticide in Brazil. Stephen Corry explains why it’s more complicated than that and why Survival International is against it.

You object to the film ‘Hakani’. Why?
Stephen Corry: It’s faked. It puts together footage from many different Indian tribes and uses trick photography to make its point. It wasn’t filmed in an Indian community, the earth covering the children’s faces is actually chocolate cake, and the Indians in the film were paid as actors.

The filmmakers say it’s a re-enactment, not a fake. How do you respond?
Stephen Corry: It’s presented as entirely real. The opening title of the complete film reads, ‘A true story’, and only at the very end is the viewer told it’s a re-enactment. The trailer,
which has been seen by far more people, doesn’t mention it at all. If it were broadcast here, that would be mandatory.

We don’t believe it’s real. The story is that because a storm blew some thatch off an Indian house, an ‘elder’, fearing evil spirits ordered two children to be killed. One was rescued by her brother and taken to a mission. Meanwhile, back at the tribe, another child is supposedly killed because he or she is
‘possessed’.

If it happened as portrayed, it’s an extraordinary isolated case. After decades of working in Amazonia, we know of no Indian peoples where parents are told to kill their children. It just doesn’t happen.

Who made the film?
Stephen Corry: It was directed by David Cunningham, who is accused of ‘a fictitious
rewriting of history’ in another film. He’s the son of the founder of the American evangelical organisation, Youth with a Mission, called JOCUM in Brazil. It’s one of the largest in the world. There is no mention on the trailer, or on its website, who produced it.

If you search the site more deeply, it says the scenes were faked, but nothing about who is behind it. You’re invited to give money to UNKF, but you aren’t told what the initials mean (it’s part of the mission). The evangelical involvement is not mentioned at all. Even if you download the full film, the credits are unreadable, so you can’t tell who is behind it.

Why do you think this is?
Stephen Corry: Evangelical missionaries have hidden their work for decades, particularly in places like South America which have a strong Roman Catholic background. Youth with a
Mission has been banned from some parts of Brazil, but remains there illegally.

But the film opposes infanticide, isn’t that good?
Stephen Corry: Infanticide is wrong, but we need to understand the background to see why these missionaries’ campaign is so dangerous. It’s also important to understand about
infanticide itself, which goes on all over the world.

OK, let’s look at that first. Isn’t it wrong to kill children?
Stephen Corry: Of course it is. Amazon Indians love their babies: to suggest they don’t is racist. Amazonian infanticide is rare. When it does happen, it almost always follows the
same pattern: it is the mother’s decision and isn’t taken lightly. It’s made privately and
secretly and is often thought shameful, certainly tragic.

Women usually give birth in the forest interior, alone or with only one or two other women. If
a baby is born severely deformed and so unlikely to survive – and sometimes for other reasons as well – it might not be brought back to the house, but left to die, even killed.

Babies are not really considered members of society, in a way they are not properly human, until they’ve been ‘recognised’, often through naming, for example. That’s the same in many societies, including our own until very recently.

How can you compare leaving babies to die with our society?
Stephen Corry: It’s terrible, but actually similar things happen here. Many babies born severely deformed in hospitals are made comfortable, but not fed. It happened to a relative of a friend of mine. The official medical notes just said, ‘All care given’, and the baby was allowed to die. The awful decision not to try and keep the baby alive is made, quietly and privately, by the parents and medical staff.

Obviously, like everything else, such practices are open to abuse, but the last thing anyone wants at that moment of agonising decision is for fundamentalists to barge in imposing their beliefs – no sensible society would allow that.

Just as terminally ill people may be helped along their way, allowing sick babies to die is never ‘official’ and would be hidden. Obviously, what counts as severely deformed in Amazonia is different to here, but the principle, the human tragedy, the despair and feelings of guilt and shame are the same. They
are bound to be: Indians are people too. As I say, they love their babies as much as we do.

I’m not defending infanticide: I am outlining the facts. Things might be different if these fundamentalists actually did believe one Bible teaching: that only those free of sin themselves should cast stones at others – ‘sinners’ maybe – who are trying to cope with life’s tragedies. But of course the nature of fundamentalism is to select which teachings to believe and which to reject.

The film claims Indian infanticide is widespread.
Stephen Corry: Most experts don’t believe that. No one can say it’s happened once or a hundred times in a year, though some pretend they can. It can’t be corroborated: research carried out on infanticide in Europe and North America is difficult to corroborate too, but has produced shocking results.

As I say, most Indian experts, at least those not driven to evangelise, believe it’s rare and fading away, and that’s what most Indians say. We believe it has not happened in many tribes for years.

Let’s be clear, you aren’t denying that some babies are killed in Amazonia?
Stephen Corry: Of course not. Babies are killed all over the world. As well as the
medically ‘sanctioned’ deaths I’ve mentioned, it’s also little-known that, for example, you’re more likely to be killed here (ie. the UK) in your first year of life than at any other time. In the USA, it’s thought that nearly a million babies are mistreated annually, and that no less than 20% die as a result.

Actually, in the US, it has been legal to allow disabled babies to be ‘denied care’ since 1986, something which the Anglican Church has also accepted more recently. In the Netherlands, researchers think about 10-20 babies each year are allowed to die after birth. In the US, the comparable figure is reckoned to be about 85 babies. The more one is aware of these figures, the more one wonders why the missionaries have picked on Brazilian Indians. For example, in the UK, one in ten of all child deaths is thought to be infanticide.

Barbaric practices of one sort or another – including allowing medieval levels of inequality which lead to immense suffering and death – are alive and well all over the world, no more in the Amazon than in the USA or UK. South American Indians I’ve met think that how we treat our old people is horrible.

So why oppose the film if it’s just trying to stop this kind of thing?
Stephen Corry: The film and its message are harmful. They focus on what they claim happens routinely in Indian communities, but it doesn’t. It incites feelings of hatred against
Indians. Look at the comments on the YouTube site, things like, ‘So get rid of these native tribes. They suck’, and, ‘Those amazon mother f—ers burrying (sic) little kids, kill them all’. The filmmakers should be ashamed of all the harm this film is doing to the people they are trying to help.

It’s propaganda to bolster the evangelical campaign for a very dangerous principle, the so-called Muwaji law, which has been presented to the Brazilian Congress.

What’s that?
Stephen Corry: The Muwaji law focuses on what it calls ‘traditional practices’ and says what the state and citizens must do about them. It says that if anyone thinks there is a risk of ‘harmful traditional practices’, they must report it. If they don’t, they are liable to imprisonment. The authorities must intervene and remove the children and/or their parents. All this because someone, anyone, a missionary for example, claims there is some risk.

Isn’t any law against killing children a just one?
Stephen Corry: It’s already illegal in Brazil to kill children: there is no need for new legislation. Tens of thousands more non-Indian Brazilian children are abused and killed than Indian children. Physical abuse is tragically not uncommon in some frontier areas and is regarded by the Indians as atrocious and unthinkable.

About 2 to 6 children are murdered in just one city, Rio, not every year, but each day! Add the estimate for children who die from lack of food, medical care and hygiene, and annually many thousands of Brazilian babies never see their first birthday.

A moment’s thought will show how this law could bring catastrophic social breakdown, with neighbour spying on neighbour, families split and lives destroyed. Local authorities are bound to err on the side of caution, and wade in, especially if they risk imprisonment themselves if they don’t act. All manner of
petty neighbourhood disputes risk escalating into appalling and irreversible action. Far from leading to less violence against children, it is more likely to induce more, as the state removes even tiny children from their parents and societies.

Suppose, for example, some disgruntled community member, or local missionary, reported his thoughts that everyone in a village knew about a risk of infanticide but hadn’t gone to the authorities. Under the proposed law, everyone except him should be imprisoned! It’s a law fostering witch-hunts.

Are such extremes likely?
Stephen Corry: Yes. Look at what happened in Australia for decades, right up until the 1970s, with Aboriginal children taken from their parents to get them away from their supposedly harmful culture, a policy often managed by missionaries. Such good intentions pave the road to hell: it resulted in generations of Aborigines suffering appalling social dislocation, leaving a legacy of catastrophically high levels of imprisonment, alcoholism, domestic violence, suicide and so on. The policy, which can now be seen to be self-righteously criminal, is brilliantly portrayed in the film, ‘Rabbit-proof fence’.

The Muwaji law rolls Brazil back centuries, to a time when the ‘heathen’ natives were attacked and destroyed by colonists relying on a religious belief which justified their own barbarism. Far from helping Brazilian Indian children, the law could really hurt them.

Haven’t the evangelical missionaries thought of this?
Stephen Corry: Most humane people would be astonished at the extremism shown by some evangelical missionaries. Some of them think that everyone who doesn’t share their beliefs is
ensnared by the devil, even if they are other Christian missionaries! Some believe it doesn’t matter if people die from their actions, because they are condemned to eternal damnation anyway, and one soul ‘saved’, makes other deaths worthwhile. Some missionaries are less interested in the welfare of the living than in the afterlife.

Indians have died, for example in Paraguay by being hunted to bring them into mission life.
One such contact expedition, organised by missionaries and resulting in death, can be heard in Survival’s film, ‘Uncontacted tribes’. This, by the way, is not a re-enactment but entirely real, recorded at the time it happened and completely unedited.

What would you say to those who might claim you are anti-missionary?
Stephen Corry: It’s not true. We, and I personally, have worked with countless missionaries. The best do an enormous amount for indigenous peoples, and stand in the very forefront of protecting them and their rights; the worst do great harm. Exactly the same can be said of anthropologists, conservationists, or anyone else for that matter.

What about those who say that Survival has criticized missionary organizations?
Stephen Corry: We’ve criticized organizations of all kinds, it’s part of our job, but we’ve also worked hand-in-hand with many others. About ten years ago, a senior member of a very large mission organization personally told me that our critiques published in the 1970s had stimulated change for the better within his organization.

Of course, the evangelical movement is extremely powerful, and embedded in some sectors of US politics and foreign policy. It tends to view all criticism as ‘communist’ or ‘anti-American’, both of which are thought to be, literally, devilish. This faction is not at all impressed by arguments which rely on what actually happens, least of all by principles about human rights, which are viewed as deeply suspect or to be manipulated for their own agenda.

What makes you right and them wrong?
Stephen Corry: The answer to that is in the effects on indigenous people’s lives and their ability to live well, today and tomorrow, and how we can really help them. Indians in Brazil are not damaged from a lack of laws condemning infanticide, which is already, rightly, illegal. Their problem is that their lands are being invaded by ranchers, loggers and miners and stolen from them, bringing terrible suffering and death. Those who want to help should devote their energies to opposing this, not in supporting a flawed law which is likely to harm Indian children more than help them.

Make no mistake: Indians will be hurt by this campaign. People are being taught to hate Indians, even wish them dead. You can’t blame the viewer for their hostility: few could watch ‘Hakani’ without being angry with the Indians.

That’s why we oppose it. If the filmmakers say that wasn’t the intention, it just shows their irresponsibility. Anyone could have predicted how viewers would react to the scenes they’ve faked. To allow such sentiments to force through a law to divide Indian families would be tragic beyond parody.

Tags: brazil, evangelicals, hakani, missionaries, natives, stephen corry, survival international
Posted in Featured | 10 Comments »

The omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, loving superintelligence drinking game

Sunday, September 7th, 2008

Most of my last few articles have been either essentially academic treatments of religion or politics, or they have been current events. But I, like most college students, do (somehow) eventually grow tired of engaging with the most complicated philosophical and metaphysical claims ever advanced by thinking primates, and so sometimes we have nothing better to do but sit back and creatively manipulate our subjective ontologies with a healthful dose of Hitch-juice. However, because I (as a good humanist) am acutely aware of and concerned by the tragedy and crude hilarity that often follows alcohol wherever it goes, I have devised a new drinking game that will (hopefully) leave you and your friends very, very sober.

So, next time it’s a Friday night, a slow Wednesday, a weekend, or any weekday whose name ends in ‘Y,’ break out the God drinking game and don’t worry about bringing your own flask. Here are the rules:

Every time a preternatural superintelligence who was born in flesh of a virgin, murdered on a cross after brutal torture by the men he died loving, and miraculously risen from the dead as a sacrifice for your sins finds a better way of proving his endless love to the world than by appearing on a piece of burned toast, take a drink (only after close inspection to make sure Jesus isn’t watching from within the glass).
Every time a principled violation of the laws of physics is vigorously proven to exhaust all competing and also all possible natural explanations, you might as well just drink yourself stupid because all rational descriptions of the universe relating effects with causes just got thrown out the window anyway.
Every time a broad, controlled, double-blind medical experiment proves that people of certain religious persuasions are completely immune to all known chemical toxins, sit down with your Christian friends and all take shots from a gallon jug of gasoline. Last one living is the most faithful.
Is God incapable of missing the cup, or does God simply choose not to miss the cup in every instance? Either way, drink it, because God can just transgress a shut-out on your ass whenever he thinks he could have.
But isn’t the real question “should you crack a Natty because God loves the harsh, salty taste of Natty, or does God love the harsh, salty taste of Natty because you should crack it?”
Every time any of your religious friends decides to bypass a lively public debate and go straight to a peer-reviewed scientific journal with his or her rigorous proof of the existence of God, ask them to lend you some of their Nobel Prize money to buy a keg. If you are an atheist, you will need the entire keg.
The next time you encounter a Holocaust survivor, take several drinks of liquid courage before you tell him or her that the Holocaust was not an instance of true moral evil because it gave the Jews the chance to act bravely before being butchered by a ruthless dictatorship. Believe me, without either several drinks or tenure at Oxford, this will seem like a profoundly stupid thing to do.
Tell your friend that, for any fine alcoholic beverage “P” that can actually obtain, God could always design a beverage “P+1″ that is sweeter and more refreshing, and a beverage “P+1+1″ and a beverage “P+1+1…+1,” therefore it is logically impossible for an omnipotent God to actually obtain a perfectly fine beverage (since any such beverage P could always be sweetened to a beverage P+1), therefore the property of omnipotence cannot ever be actualized (or even described) and is therefore absurd, and that therefore “an omnipotent being exists” is an absurd statement. If they resolve this problem, reward them with a beverage “P!” and watch their liver explode.
If God wants the beer to stay fresh and is willing but unable to keep it cold, take a shot. If God wants to beer to stay fresh and is able but not willing to keep it cold, take a shot. If God both wants the beer to stay fresh and is also able to do so, then why the hell are you taking shots in the first place?
Suppose you are walking through the New Hampshire Liquor Store and you happen upon a watch nestled between the rows upon rows of alcohol. If you conclude that the watch happened to fall into place by chance, you really need stop drinking. If you conclude that God, despite his omnipotent omnibenevolence, would design something so complex as a watch and then give it to the kind of person who would take off their watch in the New Hampshire Liquor Store and just leave it somewhere, you should probably take up drinking.
If you are still able to believe, despite all the ruthlessly materialistic conclusions of neuroscience, that your conscious experience is more than a mere epiphenomenon of the physical components of your brain and is instead its own, separate entity with a distinct ontological reality, take fifteen more shots and then try to convince yourself that Cartesian dualism is viable.
Remember, alcoholism “is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to drunken things, that is to say, things set apart and drawn all over with sharpies when they pass out at a party.” Do not ever, ever convert.

This article is not to be misconstrued as encouraging, promoting, or condoning process theology among minors.

Tags: alcohol, god
Posted in Featured | 11 Comments »

Subjectivity in Medicine

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

Every human being is biochemically unique. Yet the medicine that treats us is highly standardized. Side effects run rampant even in over the counter drugs, and much more catastrophic events have occurred in standard procedures. You can’t blame medical professionals for being so stringent to their habits; after all, a lot is at stake. But still, every now and then cases that demonstrate that perhaps subjective data is discarded much prematurely, do occur.

One such case occurred in 2001 to Dr. Allan Hobson, a Psychiatrist. He suffered a stroke and recorded its developments from a patient’s view. When he first registered at a hospital, the neurological consultant who diagnosed him declared “C’est classique!” – that Hobson had a typical case of Wallenberg syndrome. This was accompanied by atrial ﬁbrillation, an abnormal heart rhythm that is associated with strokes. Within the year, he also developed a severe case of pneumonia. With a host of other psychological and pharmacological problems, Hobson was at one point sitting at death’s doorstep.

With undoubtedly great medical care though, he recovered, and from what I know, wrote several books since and continued his research on dreams. But the experience he went through – the sleepless nights, the vivid hallucinations, the loss of various cognitive functions – made him realize that the typical understanding of such syndromes and the common prognosis that comes with it, could very much be misunderstood.

For example, the set of events as described by his doctors were as such: An arrhythmia causes interruptions of blood supply to his brain damaging his brain stem. Most of the symptoms that occur during the stroke are typical. These are:

* Movement difficulties (ataxia);
* Balance (vestibular) deﬁcits and postural instability;
* Double vision (diplopia);
* Pupillary inequality;
* Loss of sensation, and sensations of burning and tickling, on the right side of his face;
* Lip drooping on the right;
* Paralysis of the muscles of the pharynx on the right;
* Paralysis of the right vocal cord;
* Mildly decreased sensitivity to pain and markedly decreased sensitivity to temperature change of the left side of his body below the neck

But Hobson also suffers from total insomnia, which is apparently not described in Wallenberg’s syndrome. This is followed by further abnormal heart rhythm; the doctors cannot explain why. Then he develops pneumonia about seven months later. Again, thought to be unrelated by the medical staff.

Hobson’s own idea of what occurred is somewhat different. I cannot verify his side of the story since I am not a medical professional, but from layman’s terms, it does seem to make more sense. Hobson believes the initial fibrillation was caused by the stroke, rather than being an after effect. The stroke itself was caused by a clot in his vertebral artery (of the cerebellum). Destruction to the “pons” structure in the brain most likely affected the heart rate. This would also have caused an impairment in his pulmonary distribution system further reducing the effectiveness of his lungs in clearing out fluids and particles that come with food. Pneumonia would then easily pounce on this opportunity.

Hobson arrived at his conclusion based on many factors that I have not mentioned in this article, but clearly his diagnosis seems more complete. So how did Allan Hobson the patient do better than Allan Hobson the doctor? Probably because his accounts are much more in touch with the symptoms as they occur. Often doctors take the words of their patients lightly, predicting only what text books tell them, and just as often, medical “irregularities” occur.

Many common medical procedures have their roots in older traditions of healing, and clearly those developed subjectively. So while it would be total insanity to give up the scientific method in practice, it would probably be helpful to be a little more tolerant to sound subjective data. Personally I lean towards hard objectivity. In fact, a book by the title “Biology as Ideology” has been prescribed to me a number of times. But I can’t say I can argue with Hobson, not only because he knew much more about the subject than I do, but also because standardization was probably wrong in this case.

Luckily, no harm was done in this misdiagnosis, but who’s to say something like this doesn’t happen more often? We recently had an article titled “The fraud of homeopathy”, so at the risk of being misunderstood, I wish to make clear that I am not advocating such sciences, but simply asking for a less retaliatory, more rational system. I believe this is the job of many social scientists, to separate philosophy, culture, and science. I find that seldom I am not able to draw the line.

Hobsons’ wonderful article that became a hit when it was published can be found at http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=2860

Tags: Hobson, medicine, subjectivity
Posted in Featured | 2 Comments »

Welcome to Factonista.org