j4 | The future is a bright?

Current Mood: ranty
Current Music: Rage Against the Machine: "Take the Power Back"

The future is a bright?

This has just irritated me mightily.

After the first paragraph, I was already gritting my teeth. The first flakes of enamel started fluttering down like dental dandruff onto my keyboard as I reached the third or fourth. By the time I got to "Children are too young to know their religious opinions" (ascribing a religion to a child is "child abuse", whereas writing them off as too immature to have an opinion is somehow not?) I was gnawing the table-edge and muttering "sorrel, sorrel" under my breath.

Despite the damage to my dental regions, I did manage to read as far as the point where Dawkins kindly decides to inform the "gay" community what connotations "gay", "homosexual", and "queer" have. No, I'm not about to be drawn into the deadly dance of self-identification; my objection is nothing to do with obsessive people-pigeonholing, much less poof-specific pedantry. (After all, I suppose it is understandable that he has failed to notice the Queer Rights movement, and thus still regards "queer" as unquestionably an "insult".) But to blithely limit the meaning of one set of words (and, like it or not, identities) while claiming to liberate his own smug subculture from the tyranny of being called a spade... well, I wonder what the current meaning of "double standards" is in Dawkins' ideolect?

Perhaps he is right, and "I am a bright" really does sound "too unfamiliar to be arrogant". Perhaps it really is "puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising", and will revolutionise the world with its daring and memetic (natch) approach to (a lack of) religion. Fortunately, his real message comes out wholly untainted (and unredeemed) by his religious bias, with the resounding familiarity of the shit hitting the bowl: "I am a self-satisfied waste of the planet's vital resources".

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I can give him six hundred pages by tomorrow morning on why 'Catholic' defines a great deal more (indeed other) than religious beliefs. Waffling nonsense about Northern Ireland seems to have come into vogue.

I presume the 'Children of Catholic Parents' will go to 'schools to which Catholic Parents send their children and where the teachers are of the Catholic faith, with Church representation on the governing body'. How about 'Catholic Schools'...

Meanwhile, no doubt the children in Derry, Belfast and Armagh who aren't allowed to be called Catholic will be allowed to be called British, unless we're going to abolish passports and birth certificates. Well done there, demand that a community with a historically justifiably paranoia about cultural oppression stop being allowed to express its identity.

I couldn't attend the RC primary school nearest my house because I was a 'bright' child. Since labels are so important, how about 'apartheid'?

Oh, my passport is an EU passport... (-:

Oh, my passport is an EU passport

Don't even get me started...

I think you should tell people the full story about the French government in your journal, jdc. It makes a very entertaining read. When, of course, it's happening to you and not e.g. me. If it were happening to me then it'd be annoying and horrible and Kafkaesque. Can I say Kafkaesque? Good.

You're right, it is annoying and smug.

I'm wondering, though, about his point about children and religion. There must be a debate on this, but I don't know how it would go. Maybe I'm just being prodded by RD into seeing an issue where no issue exists. If my parents had been prevented from teaching me about their beliefs it would have been an unthinkable omission for them, because, obviously, their beliefs are a central anchor-point for their entire lives. I don't know. It's possible to be brought up in a religion without formally assigning the child to it until an age where it can understand the commitment it is making. I think I *do* think that should be more widespread - as opposed to the Catholic system where you are in from day one (baptism) and you make your first 'voluntary' act of assent to that belief-system at about 7. But once again, in that system of beliefs it is important that children be brought into the fold of the church. It's inescapable.

Hmm. No easy answers, perhaps.

Hmm. No easy answers, perhaps.

There are if you don't accept the validity of that system of beliefs :-)

I don't actually see any huge issue with the "commitment" aspects, since as an adult you can choose to renounce those commitments without any negative consequences - indeed, for someone that doesn't believe, they have no meaning. It's like when my aunt tells me she's praying for me - it irritates me, but it doesn't actually have any impact on me.

On the other hand, for a Muslim, to abandon your faith is apostasy, and renders you liable to being killed and your possessions taken (according to the Koran or Sharia law or both, AIUI). I think in some Muslim countries this is actually enforced. This might be considered a bit of an issue if you were such a person and wanted to visit such a country.

Ideally (in my view) children wouldn't be "brainwashed", but how do you define or enforce that? Where does it stop? It's clearly completely impractical, even if society as a whole wanted to. OTOH, teaching in schools _should_ be religion neutral.

Hmm. No easy answers, perhaps.

There are if you don't accept the validity of that system of beliefs :-)

Argh. No, no, no. Listen: SOME PEOPLE DO ACCEPT THE VALIDITY OF THAT SYSTEM OF BELIEFS. Given that situation (which, like it or not, IS THE CASE) there are very few "easy" answers.

I don't actually see any huge issue with the "commitment" aspects, since as an adult you can choose to renounce those commitments without any negative consequences

Have you ever held any religious beliefs?

Some things to think about:

1. It's not always as black-and-white as "I believe all of this" and "I believe none of this". If you've always believed something but suddenly you find that those beliefs conflict with other things you discover/learn/begin to believe/etc., then you may struggle to reconcile the old belief system with the new data. Or else you may simply find yourself questioning some aspects of the belief system, and struggling to reconcile the doubts in one area with the still-strong beliefs in another area. For some people, these inward struggles can be extremely traumatic.

2. The loss of belief can in itself feel like a negative consequence to someone who's used to having a faith -- imagine that all your childhood you've firmly believed that there was a loving God, and the "point" of life (insofar as you thought about such things) was to be good so that you'd go to Heaven. (Grossly oversimplified, but run with the example for now.) As a teenager, you start doubting this; perhaps you can no longer reconcile the idea of "a loving God" with the fact that Bad Things Happen To Good People (more gross oversimplification). Suddenly, you're faced with other options: perhaps God *isn't* loving? (If you've never believed in any higher power, obviously this won't bother you -- try imagining that you're suddenly faced with the possibility that your parents are murderers.) Perhaps God doesn't exist at all? If that's the case, what (you may ask yourself) is the point of life? For some people, coming to that sort of question and -- for the first time -- not being able to answer it is unsettling, upsetting, traumatic.

In summary, if you put your faith in something -- anything -- and then you lose that faith, it will have an effect. Think of losing trust in a friend or a family member; think of the PhD student realising halfway through their thesis that the subject they're researching is irrelevant and benefits nobody. It's as though a bit of mental ground which you believed to be solid suddenly turns out to be quicksand. And if the mental ground underpins every single facet of your life -- as religions tend to do -- then the effect may well be far-reaching.

2. If your belief system is one which you previously accepted without question from your parents/friends/teachers/elders/etc., then beginning to question that belief may result in rejection by the people who previously acted as your family/mentors/friends. Are you really saying that (to take an extreme example) being disowned by one's parents would count as "no negative consequences" -- even for an adult? Would you shrug and carry on regardless if former friends suddenly turned against you? (Have you ever felt emotional attachments to another human being?)

And even if their reaction is still accepting, you may feel that you can no longer relate to them, or even no longer trust them, since they are still running their lives according to a system of beliefs which you now believe to be false. And this (I shouldn't need to explain this, but given your post I feel I do) can be upsetting.

Argh. No, no, no. Listen: SOME PEOPLE DO ACCEPT THE VALIDITY OF THAT SYSTEM OF BELIEFS. Given that situation (which, like it or not, IS THE CASE) there are very few "easy" answers.

There are plenty of easy answers for me - with regard to myself, had I been baptised it would be of no particular consequence to me (although I might have filled out a "Certificate of Debaptisement" to make a point).

With regard to others, I feel sorry for those whose lives have been negatively tainted by religion in the way you describe, and I am strongly in favour of practical efforts to reduce the chances of this kind of thing happening (e.g. by ensuring that schools do make it clear to children that alternatives exist). But in the end, the answer for me is that systems of belief that lead to that kind of effect are fundamentally abusive and should be condemned as such. There's no easy *solution*, however.

Have you ever held any religious beliefs?

Yes, but only because my teachers up till the age of 11 taught the Bible as an established fact. So through ignorance, not faith.

There are plenty of easy answers for me

You missed the smug smiley this time.

But in the end, the answer for me is that systems of belief that lead to that kind of effect are fundamentally abusive and should be condemned as such.

Are relationships also "fundamentally abusive" because people get hurt when they fall apart?

You missed the smug smiley this time.

Correct.

Are relationships also "fundamentally abusive" because people get hurt when they fall apart?

People enter into relationships when adults or at least heading towards adulthood.

People enter into relationships when adults or at least heading towards adulthood.

I'm talking about "relationships" in the broadest sense: engaging with other people on any kind of personal, social and/or emotional level.

Are families and friendships "fundamentally abusive" because people get hurt when they fall apart?

Friendships are also entered into voluntarily and for the most part (perhaps excluding very young children) by people who are competent to make the decision.

Families - yes, there's an element of compulsion about such relationships for children, but the alternative is far worse, so there's a clear benefit in having them that outweighs that. Parents have to make _some_ decisions on behalf of their children.

Tough.

The potential for emotional upset is precisely why one should think twice before assuming that children will follow the faith of their parents, which is a point Dawkins often makes.

Life is complicated. Data do not fit our assumptions. We do the best we can with working models of morality and psychology.

The belief system of several million people was lost when communism collapsed. Tough. Why the fuck should we pussyfoot around religion?

Dear me, I expected better reading comprehension from you! Of course, while atheism may not "count" as a "religion", it has just as much power to make its adherents lose their intellectual faculties.

Quick recap. for the sor(r)el(l)y challenged:

Ganesh said (and I paraphrase) "Bringing kids up religious isn't a problem because adults can just forget about all that religious nonsense when they grow up."

I argued that this reasoning was flawed; that imposing faith on people affects them deeply, even if (perhaps especially if?) they later reject that faith, and that therefore imposing one's faith on one's offspring (or students, etc.) was potentially "a problem", and was to be avoided.

You, apparently, agree that it's a bad idea to assume that children will follow the faith of the parents.

... You know, if you want to pick a fight with somebody on usenet^H^H^H^H^H^Hlivejournal, it works better if you can choose something where you disagree with them.

* * *

Ultimately, though, yes, it's "tough" if people are emotionally scarred by their parents' (or schools', or whatever's) misguided attempts to bring them up in a faith (or indeed absence of faith) which they later resent and/or reject. (They may not mean to, etc.) Worse things, as they say, happen at sea.

Clearly we need to strike at the root of the problem: accordingly, I propose that we move to legislate against "promoting" emotions in schools.

Ganesh said (and I paraphrase) "Bringing kids up religious isn't a problem because adults can just forget about all that religious nonsense when they grow up."

You paraphrase badly. What I said was that religiously symbolic acts (baptism, confirmation etc) are generally of no relevance to an unbeliever. I never suggested that the transition from believer to unbeliever was easy.

Ah, gotcha.

I propose that we move to legislate against "promoting" emotions in schools.

Is that satire? Because I think it's a bloody good idea.

I don't think emotions should be "promoted" any more than homosexuality. Does that answer your question? (Look at it this way: if everybody gets irrationally weepy over Judy Garland, we'll all drown.)

and furthermore:

Ideally (in my view) children wouldn't be "brainwashed", but how do you define or enforce that? Where does it stop? It's clearly completely impractical, even if society as a whole wanted to. OTOH, teaching in schools _should_ be religion neutral.

And what do you mean by "religion neutral"? Do you mean that teachers should not be allowed to mention their own religion? Should not be allowed to mention any religion? (Does "any religion" include atheism for the purposes of this argument?) Or if one religion is mentioned, do all others also have to be mentioned in the same breath? Think how impractical trying to implement (never mind trying to enforce) any of these options would be.

Er, no. There shouldn't be any school-organised religious worship, given the impossibility of catering to everyone's beliefs. People should be taught *about* religion (and the alternatives), rather than to be religious.

I agree that school is not the place for organised worship.

(You said "teaching in schools should be religion neutral", so, er, I thought you meant teaching rather than worship.)

Well, I did mean teaching. My RE lessons up until the age of 11 or so were essentially treating the Bible as a history textbook, so "lessons" certainly can be entirely biased (I'm not sure if that would happen now, though).

But I'd view an organised act of worship led by teachers as a (subtle) form of teaching, too.

Shame that schools are required (http://www.humanism.org.uk/educationresources/forteachers/collectiveworship.shtml) to organise worship (and nominally non-religious schools must organise worship a majority of which has a 'broadly Christian' character).

Yeah. And on this thread, I think it would be really dangerous to have some kind of religious version of Clause 28, where teachers aren't allowed to "promote" any kind of religion.

Well, the whole idea that people were "promoting" homosexuality was ridiculous anyway. As far as I can see, the problem with Clause 28 were the negative vibes it caused by singling out homosexuality, and that it created a risk of people going over the top in trying to comply.

I think this is really a question of professional ethics, rather than anything else. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that you're a Christian, but trying to suggest to pupils that they should go to church is completely unacceptable (except possibly if it was in response to a request for advice about Christianity or something). Same as for a teacher with political views - discussing them is fine, persuading pupils to join their party isn't. And obviously you have to have some regard for the age/maturity of the people you're dealing with.

Well, the whole idea that people were "promoting" homosexuality was ridiculous anyway.

That's what I was trying to say; that having a law against "promoting" something may well result in people being afraid to even mention it. And a lot of teachers did go over the top, as you put it, to the extent of ignoring homophobic bullying, etc. I'm afraid that a similar law against "promoting" religion in schools would indirectly result in racist bullying.

I think this is really a question of professional ethics, rather than anything else.

I think you're absolutely right.

Yes, we all know that, and I suspect most of the people who are bothering to read this agree that it's a bad idea & should be abolished, etc. etc.

Can we move on to something more interesting now, please?

Yes, we all know that, and I suspect most of the people who are bothering to read this agree that it's a bad idea & should be abolished, etc. etc.

Can we move on to something more interesting now, please?

Are you talking to me? - I'm sorry I joined in stating the obvious. But I was trying to stay away from the subtle and satirical because it didn't fit in with the general tone of earnestness, and I just really didn't feel like making jokes and having them heavily and slowly misinterpreted.

Are you talking to me?

No, I was talking to

addedentry, who Should Know Better. I mean, not that you shouldn't know better, more that you already do know better, so I didn't need to talk to you. Except in a Venusian sense of conversation-as-bonding rather than conversation-as-transmission of-road-names. ... Hi!

I just really didn't feel like making jokes and having them heavily and slowly misinterpreted.

I know the feeling. As the nun said to the Nazi. Ho ho! Only kidding. Mary, Mary (virgin, mother, CRONE, WHORE), quite contrary (because that's the only way to FIGHT THE PATRIARCHY), how does your sorrel grow? Not to say, of course, that women should be gardening instead of FIGHTING and DRINKING.

Talking of w(h)i(t)ch... I'll never drink again.

a Venusian sense of conversation-as-bonding rather than conversation-as-transmission of-road-names.

Phatic communion, tap it with a spoon-y-un. Sharing of experience through lower-class song.
Chastity as moon-y-un, ymdidanwreic's a boon-y-un, how to make it right when it FEELS ALL WRONG.

By which, of course, I meant:

"I don't recall reading that people on Venus talk differently; in point of fact, I was not aware that people on Venus talk at all, or indeed that there were people on Venus to do the aforementioned speaking. Correct me if I am in error, however.
I believe you are correct about the fact that I don't need to know better, but you are actually illustrating your own tautology by saying that that's because I already know better. Surely the very fact that I do know better is evidence of the fact that I need to know better? Often we already have the things we need, you see. To give an example of the above theory - I need air, and get to breathe it every day."

TOO REAL! I preferred the version with the spoon in it.

As the bishop said to the flesh-as-cutlery supplier. I'm afraid I was very, very drunk.

Forgive me; not being in Cambridge, I haven't had a Great God Debate for a couple of years, so I didn't know what counted as a Frequently Debunked Position, a Flammable Straw Man or a Fucking Obvious Fact.

Anyway, I'm backing down because J-P is cleverer than me.

From our perspective, it is annoying, but you have to remember that being an atheist in America is REALLY WEIRD. There seems to be the same sort of stigma attached to it that there was to being gay in Britain maybe, ooh, 10 or 15 years ago.

(Really, it sounds amazing, but I've heard conversations along the lines of:
Euorpean San Francisco visitor: Wow! This place is so nice, everyone's really accepting and it's great!
American SF resident: Yeah, but try saying you're an athiest, you'll get beaten up.)

So partly the annoyingness comes from him trying to hammer home something to middle America which seems obvious to us (and partly I think it comes from the horrible American feel-good-aren't-we-great? way of doing everything).

So, yes, in Britain it's silly self-satisfied playing with words, but in America it's something very important that really needs doing and I'm with them all the way.

From our perspective, it is annoying, but you have to remember that being an atheist in America is REALLY WEIRD.

I always find it (on the surface) really strange that the US has this completely secularised constitution that forbids state involvement in religion, and yet a huge majority of the population is Christian and government representatives keep going on about their own faith (and trying to bend the constitution).

[I do understand the historic reasons for it - the US was founded by people fleeing persecution for being the wrong kind of Christians in England, and wanted to avoid the same thing happening here. I suspect they didn't even consider the possibility of non-Christians, though I could be wrong.]

What I want, better than a new label which makes me self-conscious, is a damn good t-shirt logo.

"THIS WOULD MAKE A GREAT T-SHIRT SLOGAN"

(Quidity (http://www.livejournal.com/users/quidity/)) "THIS WOULD NOT".

trying to hammer home something to middle America which seems obvious to us

Which is probably why the Dennett article (the middle of the three) comes across as much less ... "posturing" for want of a better word. It's something that affects Dennett, his students, his country on a day-to-day basis, whereas for Dawkins it's just social engineering towards his hyper-rationalist utopia.

There seems to be the same sort of stigma attached to it that there was to being gay in Britain maybe, ooh, 10 or 15 years ago.

Which makes it all the more ironic that Dawkins is blithely making statements about what labels gay people want for themselves, while trying to stop people giving him and his cronies a label that they don't want.

So, yes, in Britain it's silly self-satisfied playing with words, but in America it's something very important that really needs doing and I'm with them all the way.

I see your point, but I still think that the way they're going about it is just dismissing one set of labels only to replace them with another -- only the new set is more insidious because they claim to be moving beyond the need to label people like that.

Which makes it all the more ironic that Dawkins is blithely making statements about what labels gay people want for themselves, while trying to stop people giving him and his cronies a label that they don't want.

And, moreover, he is implying (in his typically patronising and playschool-speak way) a thoroughly insulting label for people with religions other than his own---and nobody can say Dawkins doesn't have a religion. Suggesting that adherents to theistic faiths should be called "darks", "morons" or "dulls" (whichever antonym he has in mind) makes one guilty of the same sort of intolerance that Dawkins claims to be railing against. And when Dennett compares God to the Easter Bunny you can see he's sort of thinking the same thing. Such comparisons have been considered unsound for years and years, and I'm amazed that an "intellectual" would still be making them. Now if Dawkins rather than Dennett had said it, of course....

I'd probably be happy enough being classified with the "brights", especially if it provided enough lobbying weight to avoid the poison evis taking over the White House all over again. But I don't want to join any club that has as its members the scientism-zealot Dawkins (who hasn't read a scrap of philosophy in his life, isn't employed to comment on philosophy or theology, but keeps publicly sticking his thick-fuck oar in) and the reductionist Dennett (who probably has read a good deal of philosophy, especially concerning consciousness, but I imagine reads the more mystical philosophers, chuckles wisely, and considers them to be a trick played on everyone except wise AI/compsci students). It's like these people have just read Occam's Razor and are just dying to try it out without reading the instructions first.

Is it me, or does "brightist" sound very David Icke?

when Dennett compares God to the Easter Bunny

it's really quite surprising, because normally everybody confuses Him with Santa Claus. The way I remember it is that Father Christmas brings presents for all good boys and girls, unless they're poor, and God brings famine and pestilence. And when that gets too confusing, I write stuff on my hand.

... And when that gets too confusing, I write stuff on my hand.

"NEveR ANSweR thE PHONe."

Dennett's actually quite interesting when he's writing pop AI / Theory Of Mind stuff. Readable, like. I actually really enjoyed Brainchildren, though I did read it in the bath over a period of several months. There was an article on MPD which made me go "Oh! ... Cool. But, er... moo."

So anyway, I'm so glad that three years in Cambridge hasn't dulled my critical faculties in any way. (But Dennett is SF!)

I now have a large stuffed towelling fish to serve as a bath-pillow, so I can read more rubbish without getting a crick in my neck. This is clearly an improvement.

and nobody can say Dawkins doesn't have a religion

Hmm, the only appropriate definition I can find in the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion) is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." - is that what you had in mind? I'd tend to view that definition as an extension/reflection of the primary meaning of religion ("belief ... in a supernatural power") in the same way as people talk about vi versus emacs as a religious war without really meaning that either is a "real" religion.

isn't employed to comment on philosophy or theology

I assume he would argue that the "public understanding of science" requires the refutation of non-scientific arguments and beliefs. Pity he's not much good at being understood the way he wants to be, really :-)

compares God to the Easter Bunny ... Such comparisons have been considered unsound for years and years

Could you explain why to this ignorant compsci, please?

and nobody can say Dawkins doesn't have a religion
Hmm, the only appropriate definition I can find in the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion) is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." - is that what you had in mind?

Gosh, I don't know. I don't generally check the dictionary before ploughing into my rhetorical devices, which is what makes me One Big Cabaret Act. I suppose I reasoned that Dawkins has a (rather noddy) belief system with regard to things outside the realm of science, which he pursues with more zeal than e.g. most Anglicans. I'd only got as far as that. Perhaps if I'd got involved in cataloguing and comparing dictionary definitions then, oh, heavens, I'd have found something better to do with my time. I can almost always recommend finding something better to do with one's time than arguing based on dictionary bloody definitions. Scratching my arse, say.

isn't employed to comment on philosophy or theology
I assume he would argue that the "public understanding of science" requires the refutation of non-scientific arguments and beliefs.

Which is why he should damn well read some philosophy or theology to find out why science and religion are completely independent, have been for years, and do not talk to each other at all.. Then maybe he wouldn't come across as an intolerant ignoramus. If you too want to understand why his comparisons are unsound then you could do worse than start with the discussions of the empirical/transcendental in Kant (Critique of Pure Reason, early on).

To sum it up less well than Kant did (and hence, rather than refuting my possibly holey summary with a big grin on your face you should read the original instead) an empirical study like science cannot comment either way on the nature of transcendental things. Kant says nothing about any given religion, but about what belief structures can and can't logically contain. By denying religion any ability to comment on the observed world he also is able to carve out a niche for it which science is unable to touch.

There is a difference between unscientific (e.g. homeopathy) and "a-scientific" (e.g. transcendental beliefs of any kind), which escapes those with all the subtlety of lump hammers, rotary engines or bilge pumps. The arguments have been known for perhaps three hundred years, for people who actually read any philosophy before going off on one. Have fun.

Gosh, compared to USENET and the web in general, LiveJournal truly is a foreign country: they do everything the same there.

Oh, sorry, your authoritative tone made me think you had something interesting to add.

It's all very well to point out that belief in a transcendental being is independent of science, but just as Dawkins has this nasty habit of straying into the entirely pointless argument about whether or not there is one, most religions stray into the empirical world in many many ways. It's true that science and religion are independent in theory, but they certainly aren't in practice. I thought this was all obvious, despite not having read any Kant.

Oh, sorry, your authoritative tone made me think you had something interesting to add.

He does. But neither J-P nor I can be bothered to do all the preliminary thinking for you. You barged into the argument blithely ignoring centuries of philosophical, religious and scientific thought; then when this was pointed out, instead of realising that actually this is one subject where a precocious ability to construct new autism spectrum disorders out of Lego doesn't really help you, you started shouting that the whole thing must be nonsense since you don't understand it.

Or, in layman's terms: fuck off.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The future is a bright?

no subject

no subject

no subject

Shooting Frenchmen

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

He knows it teases

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

better...

no subject

no subject

Smuggery

Re: Smuggery

Re: Smuggery

Re: Smuggery

Re: Smuggery

Re: Smuggery

Re: Smuggery

Re: Smuggery