Thursday, December 22, 2016

Beyond All Belief is exactly where we should be

HRH The Prince of Wales has missed the point spectacularly in his beautifully delivered Thought for the Day this morning.

His Royal Highness failed to notice that the very things he seeks to protect - namely, the various, mutually contradictory, incompatible, divisive claims made by the world's currently popular religions - form the root cause of the violence and persecution he finds so difficult to believe still go on. He reminds me of a typical American gun enthusiast, championing the right to bear arms as the corpses of mass shooting victims pile higher, year upon year.

Below is the full text of His Royal Highness' speech, italicised, with my responses in clear text.

In London recently I met a Jesuit priest from Syria. He gave me a graphic account of what life is like for those Christians he was forced to leave behind. He told me of mass kidnappings in parts of Syria and Iraq and how he feared that Christians will be driven en masse out of lands described in the Bible. He thought it quite possible there will be no Christians in Iraq within five years. Clearly, for such people, religious freedom is a daily, stark choice between life and death.

His Royal Highness speaks as though Christianity were an unalterable state of being, into which one is born and will so remain until one's dying day. His reference to the Bible implies that the aforementioned, man-made document is a title deed to a sovereign land, guaranteeing right of occupancy to members of the stipulated confession. Both these assumptions are foundation stones of conflict, leading to the very tragedies the Prince so eloquently bemoans. Give two or more sets of people different labels based on discrepant holy texts, each of which you've convinced its fans is the one true revelation of their deity, and watch them fight it out. It is hardly psychological rocket science. Does it cross the Prince's mind that education and rational thinking might place today's gods alongside Ra, Thor, Mithras, Baal, Odin, Neptune and hundreds of others, in the history books? Such a solution is achievable within a remarkably short time frame. Theoretically, it could be accomplished within a single generation. As a thought experiment, imagine a Roman baby, taken at birth and brought in a time machine to the 21st century. Would she automatically grow up worshipping Mars and Jupiter? Of course not. Likely, she would become infected with extant trending religious trivia in the household of her adoptive parents. If you still doubt the feasibility of the religious mind virus's rapid eradication, look to Scandinavia, where theists number one in twenty at best. I imagine the Ancient Egyptians were utterly convinced that belief in Horus and Seth would never die out.

The scale of religious persecution around the world is not widely appreciated. Nor is it limited to Christians in the troubled regions of the Middle East. A recent report suggests that attacks are increasing on Yazidis, Jews, Ahmadis, Baha’is and many other minority faiths. And in some countries even more insidious forms of extremism have recently surfaced, which aim to eliminate all types of religious diversity.

Religious diversity is the root cause of all of religious persecution. All of it. It is a central tenet of religious teaching that the religion one follows is the one true path. Every religion teaches that. Some liberal theists are, rather condescendingly, prepared to tolerate followers of other faiths, but it is logically impossible to accept that mutually contradictory beliefs can be simultaneously true, so tension inevitably prevails. Religion is emphatically not all about being nice to one another, despite the disturbingly prevalent opinion that it is.

We are also struggling to capture the immensity of the ripple effect of such persecution. According to the United Nations, 5.8 million MORE people abandoned their homes in 2015 than the year before, bringing the annual total to a staggering 65.3 million. That is almost equivalent to the entire population of the United Kingdom.

The Prince unwittingly underscores the point that the world has lost its sense of perspective. One's home and family are among the most important things in one's life, and one's life is all one has, the baseless claims of wily, manipulative clerics, seeking to use the gullible for their own ends (see the reference to Mohammed below), notwithstanding. If 65 million people have to give up some or all of that because of religious persecution, then religious persecution is a problem serious enough to warrant tackling through education. The spread of HIV and the inhuman horror of racism have both been reduced markedly through well-coordinated education programmes. Religious diversity, like drink-driving, is an indulgence society can ill afford. The cost is too great, whatever benefits may be falsely claimed.

And the suffering doesn’t end when they arrive seeking refuge in a foreign land. We are now seeing the rise of many populist groups across the world that are increasingly aggressive towards those who adhere to a minority faith.

In every single one of those cases, the aggressor himself is impelled to behave so by his own religious lights. That fact alone ought to convict religion, in the eyes of the public, as the source of an enormous amount of evil.

All of this has deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days of the 1930s. I was born in 1948 – just after the end of World War II in which my parents' generation had fought, and died, in a battle against intolerance, monstrous extremism and an inhuman attempt to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe. That, nearly seventy years later, we should still be seeing such evil persecution is, to me, beyond all belief. We owe it to those who suffered and died so horribly not to repeat the horrors of the past.

His Royal Highness is undoubtedly referring to the barbaric acts of Hitler, a self-professed Roman Catholic who claimed repeatedy, along with his followers, that Nazi Germany had a divine mandate to win the second world war and seek global domination. 'Beyond all belief' is exactly where the civilized world should be in the 21st century, freed from the shackles of millennia of misguided, stultifying religious repression, throughout much of which it was mortally dangerous to utter a dissenting thought.

Normally, at Christmas, we think of the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I wonder, though, if this year we might remember how the story of the Nativity unfolds – with the fleeing of the Holy Family to escape violent persecution. And we might also remember that when the Prophet Mohammed migrated from Mecca to Medina, he did so because he, too, was seeking the freedom for himself and his followers to worship.

The Prophet Mohammed, in considerable personal danger from the exploitative polytheistic profiteers of Mecca, to whose livelihood he was a perceived threat, decamped to Medina to raise an army of cudgel-wielding ruffians, each convinced by him that they would be fast-tracked to paradise if they were fortunate enough to die in battle while fighting on his side. The said army returned to Mecca and massacred the polytheists who were, one assumes, pursuing freedom for themselves and their followers to worship as they wished. As for the transparently confected account of the nativity, on whose sequence of events no two of the gospels remotely agree, one would have thought that an omnipotent god interested in redeeming mankind could have made a better plan, without the loose cannon of a piqued despot seeking to slay his potential rival, and the grim fate of the hundreds of infants who were consequently slaughtered.

Whichever religious path we follow, the destination is the same - to value and respect the other person, accepting their right to live out their peaceful response to the love of God.

Flatly, no. The destination may be the same, but it is the inevitability of irrational rivalry and divisive tribalism. The religion virus's master stroke is to convince us all that religion is all about being nice to one another, when it in fact sets us at one another's throats.

That’s what I saw when attending the consecration of the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral in London recently. Here were a people persecuted for their religion in their own country, but finding refuge in another land and freedom to practise their faith according to their conscience.
It is an example to inspire us all this Christmastime.

No ostentatious public display of exclusive religious fealty is likely to inspire peace nor harmony in the world. If theists genuinely fear persecution, their safest course of action is to worship quietly in private or in small groups. That way they are unlikely to attract the interest of potential persecutors, absent the red rag of holier-than-thou provocation.

Monday, July 18, 2016

Mass murder in Nice: ask the right questions


Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel killed 84 people and injured over a hundred others in Nice when he deliberately ran them down in his rented truck on Bastille Day, 2016. Since then, media speculation abounds - was he or was he not recruited or inspired by ISIS?

In pursuing such futile lines we risk missing the point by more than the 2km of Bouhlel's murderous drive. Whether or not there be a direct link between the leadership of ISIS and Bouhlel himself, there is no doubt that he and they share the same religion. That ought to lead us to two particularly pertinent questions.

1. Why is the world so reluctant to recognise that Islam is a violent, aggressive, domineering ideology?

Beheadings, honour killings, placards promising death to those who fail to kowtow to their bullying demands... the religion of peace pops up time and again as the principal common factor linking meat-cleaver-wielding murderers, suicide bombers, rage-boy demonstrators, clerics who defend wife-beating, and opponents of scientific truth in education. The undeserved respect which the accommodationist left falls over itself to heap upon Islam further legitimises all of the above in the eyes of its perpetrators. It is high time that we stopped pussyfooting around and declared Islam to be what it is - a 7th century ideology based on a desire to rule, conquer, kill and enslave. It does not deserve one iota of respect and it should become as socially unacceptable as drink-driving.

2. Why the hell didn't Bouhlel's religious beliefs stop him committing mass murder?

No-one - absolutely no-one - has asked why, if Bouhlel was motivated to commit his atrocity by some entirely secular influence (as the media imply, constantly repeating that no link has been proven between him and ISIS), his peaceful religion and consequent love and respect for his fellow humans did not empower him to shun his destructive urge and follow the true path of righteous brotherly coexistence with his fellow citizens? If a Muslim can be persuaded by some means unconnected with religion to go out on a random mass killing spree, then what the hell use is his religion? He would certainly be no worse off without it. And neither would the rest of the world.

Monday, July 11, 2016

Inverted morality

Having just read a stimulating blog post on the uselessness of the god hypothesis, written by @MrOzAtheist, I'd like to add another facet of this worryingly persistent meme, together with a possible explanation for its persistence. 

When theists advance the god explanation for one of their favourite phenomena (usually chosen from abiogenesis, morality, ethics or some fictitious non-event such as resurrection) they invariably do so with a condescending, holier-than-thou tone. Even those honest enough to admit that their belief arises from a childish fear of death adopt the same patronising voice, resorting to ad hominem diversions and challenging atheists to prove 'naturalism' or some other made-up straw man standpoint.

I say that the god hypothesis provides a scapegoat for their arrogant, snide tone.

It releases them from the normal social obligation to speak politely with due regard to the person being addressed. Too often I have seen and heard self-professed god fearing folk do and say the most awful things, but to them it's OK because they speak and act on the authority of their all-powerful big brother, so they don't need to monitor their conscience as the rest of us do. Moreover, having declared themselves religious and therefore of a high moral standing, they assume that anything they say or do must me morally fine, simply on account of the first assumption.

Theists, when putting forward an argument or asserting an opinion, please have the decency to do so on your own account, and be prepared to have your assertions questioned robustly. If your arguments do not stand up on their own merits, be assured that religion grants you no automatic trump card. Your thesis does not deserve special respect simply because it is made on your god's behalf. 

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Praying for Richard Dawkins

The Twittersphere and blogosphere resound with confused nonsense about how to respond to theists' exhortations to pray for Richard Dawkins' health following his recent stroke.

First off, I have absolutely no problem with people praying for people, provided such action does not impede or detract from actual help or treatment offered to the sufferer. In other words, a bystander or cleric intoning a few sympathetic words in prayerful seclusion, or amid a gathering of like-minded folk, does not cause an issue. If, however, an emergency paramedic were to kneel passively with clasped hands while their patient lay suffering and unaided, that would very definitely cause an issue.

For all I care, let every theist on Twitter pray their backsides off for Richard Dawkins and for every other human with a significant ailment. It is no skin off my nose and (subject to the above considerations) causes no harm. If a theist believes that his/her prayers will have a beneficial effect on the person being prayed for, that is all well and good, provided that belief does not lead, directly or indirectly, to any otherwise avoidable action or inaction detrimental to anyone's welfare.

I start to see problems when theists feel the need to declare in public that they are praying for someone. Surely their almighty god can hear and respond to their prayers whether or not those prayers are shouted from the rooftops or trumpeted over social media. An omniscient, omnipresent god would hardly need a million retweets to bring a prayerful request for help to his attention.

"Ah," the theists respond, "you've missed the point. Retweets are not to get God's attention; they're to get the attention of other humans who can then join the prayers." But if that were a point worth making, it would presuppose that god's interest in and response to prayers depend on how many votes each prayer gets, rather than on the intrinsic merit of whatever is being prayed for.

I submit that public prayer is a disturbing form of sanctimonious and narcissistic exhibitionism. When such public prayer is aimed at a well-known and self-declared atheist such as Professor Dawkins, an element of irony is added into the mix, of which the theists themselves are definitely aware, for they are most certainly not stupid. They know that Professor Dawkins does not believe prayer has the slightest beneficial effect. If they believe otherwise, let them pray quietly, and let their god's consequent intervention serve as vindication of their belief.

The least helpful stance for the atheist community to adopt is to say, "Well, let them pray publicly; it's their way, after all, and it's nice to know that they are thinking of him." Yes, it is lovely to know that they are thinking (positively and helpfully) about Professor Dawkins, but it is not at all lovely to be forced into the dichotomy of (a) humour them quietly (a disingenuous, condescending standpoint) or (b) appear uncharitable by pointing out that their actions mean, at best, nothing to us.

I firmly believe that the majority of prayer-tweeting theists know fine and well that their assertions are as a red rag to many a bullish atheist, and thus are seen as a thinly veiled, ironic jibe at Professor Dawkins. As I say, pray in private, and let the outcome be your reward.