Humanism vs. feminism?

Recently a rant of Secular Humanism forced me to look into what it really is. My understanding of Secular Humanism is that it has to do with equality, human rights, rational and skeptical thought, and was a basis upon which to build laws and regulations. So I did the first thing everyone does nowadays, I searched it's wikipedia entry.

"Secular Humanism, alternatively known as Humanism (often with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism), is a secular philosophy. It embraces human reason,ethics, and justice while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making."

Yeah, that pretty much explains my understanding of humanism being more of a rejection of God and theocracy rather then anything else. Well, what definition does the rant use?

A democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

This definition seems to focus on rejection of the supernatural and dogma as well, with focus on logic.
Let's move onto the first criticism of this concept:

Democracy, ethics, rationalism and the definitions of right and wrong in modern society have evolved through patriarchal mechanisms. When you think of justice, you think masculine. When you think of logic and rationalism, you don’t see a woman, you think of a man deep in thought. Debates, arguments and discussions are so structured as to make sure dominance plays a major factor, not equality of merit.

My first reaction to this was "so is everything else". But this isn't a criticism of Humanism itself, it appears to me to be an Ad hominem of ideas. These systems have evolved through patriarchal mechanisms. We know that the oppression of women by men is inherently wrong, so from this we can extrapolate that anything patriarchal in nature is wrong or something like that? To begin with, what is a patriarchal mechanism? It appears to be a system in which a man relegates orders to those below him. So ... uuummm ... because men were in power until recently, and there was a linear sort of power structure, therefore a patriarchal mechanism was in place which then contributed to the development of democracy, ethics, rationalism, the definitions of right and wrong, and therefore on that basis alone it is safe to simply discard it all out of hand?

So basically, it's like saying that there is something wrong with the ideology, I don't know what is wrong with it, just that something is wrong with it, because I don't trust the mechanisms used to arrive at it? Or at least, that appears to be the gist of it.

Why is justice supposedly defined as masculine? It never occurred to me that abstract concepts could have a gender. It's like giving cars, appliances, furniture, or art a gender. "That blender, isn't she just gorgeous. And that couch, don't you just love him." Seriously?

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/rodin/thinker.jpg.html

The logic and rationalism part, I can somewhat see where the writer is coming from there. Although I am not reminded of a gender from logic and rationalism merely the pose of the thinker.

Debates are competitive in nature and the objective is to persuade the crowd to your side. If you want a more passive medium of information distribution, there are seminars, lectures, and the like. The same with arguments. Technically it doesn't have to do with dominance as much as it has to do with presenting your case as best you can.

On the other hand, discussions aren't about dominance. It is about an open exchange of ideas. However, not all ideas hold equal merit. The idea of equality between the sexes is superior to the idea of men being superior to women. In a realm of competing ideologies, it is only natural that the weaker idea will be weeded out and binned because it could not survive.

Humanism is not an umbrella word for ‘Feminist+LGBT supporter+concerned with class disparity’. In that case, whom are you fighting for? Everyone has his or her reasons and their excuses. It is a blind spot. Where do you stand when it comes to transgender marginalization and prostitution? Or incest? What are your philosophies on that? Being a Humanist, you need to process these thoughts at a cortex level using the UN Human Rights as a benchmark and not along the post-conventional moral paradigm as postulated by the Humanistic philosophy.

I didn't realize that humanism actually had a specific reference list as to which materials you need to use to arrive at whatever moral standpoint you arrive at. Although it is true that being a humanist doesn't automatically disclose your viewpoint on issues other then skepticism and your position of theocracies and the like, that's not a bad thing. It is for this reason specifically that a person can be a humanist and a feminist and an LGBT supporter and concerned with class disparity. And suppose that we were to use the UN charter of rights as a basis for decision, the first article clearly states that "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." So it declares immediately that men and women are equal in rights, dignity, etc. which, if I recall correctly, is the basis of feminism. Although I suppose the brotherhood part would be off-putting to some. But that is not meant as a reference to gender as much as it is to reference endearment and social relations.

Humanism simply states that dogma and superstition will not be the basis of their decisions. Rational thought and logic will be. Last I checked, feminists arrived at the conclusion of equality through logic and rational thought, not dogma. But then, maybe that's just me.

Consider the universal set with many parameters interacting with each other. Each of these, while producing their own final expressions, makes sure of one thing. Woman comes after man. White, black, brown, rich, poor, upper caste, lower caste, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, whatever be. The woman withstands the worst of every cruelty heaped on her community. By empowering a woman, you empower the whole community.

Why is it decided that they make sure of one thing exactly? Who came to the decision that in all of them women will come last? Is it that difficult to imagine a scenario where women ditch men and form a matriarchy? Or that there was no inequality to begin with? I don't know about empowering the whole community, but I do know that by empowering women, you do indeed do away with a lot of social problems. Of course, not empowering women is in itself a social ill and immoral by nature. So this is like a point in favor of feminism but I still don't understand how feminism and humanism are at odds with each other.

Humanism in itself is extremely imperialistic. We are asked to follow a Western world view which does not acknowledge the human diversity, to analyse in a cost-benefit manner and to use a just world hypothesis to introduce a paternalistic hierarchy with whom the West sees as less fortunate.

I'm sorry this point appears to be all over the place really. So secular humanism is a western import which the west would like implemented and therefore it is imperialistic in nature? Or does this have to do with theism? Many people out there, even though they aren't religious themselves want a sort of respect for the supernatural. So it's really about respecting ideas which can't be backed by evidence? I see, the west has done away with dealing with supernatural stories that can't be tested or substantiated and humanism is kind of an embodiment of that so importing that world view is akin to imperialism. "Imperialism, as defined by Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." Importing a specific kind of world view does not automatically place the importer in the position of subordination.

Feminism brings people together. In every region, religion and culture, the sectionalities interact and give a nuanced view of what the least privileged woman is going through. When we get that woman out of the trench, it means that we have successfully tackled every single issue in that community.

No, it doesn't. There are plenty of people out there who are quiet content with their level of privileged and would like to maintain the status quo even at the expense of a few lives. Also note that feminism isn't merely about women although plenty of people seem to have that misconception. Feminism started out as being about women because they were in a far worse state then men with respect to rights. Feminism is about equality of the sexes, that means that women aren't our only focus it is also men. Even if the last of the women is out of the trench, our work will not be over if there is even a single man down there because that is what equality is about. Our focus is primarily on women because they are subordinated in practically every community but there are class differences on top of gender differences and then there is racial discrimination and many other issues which plague men as well as women. To say that if we only help and empower women, all will be right with the world is a gross simplification of some very complex and real problems of this world.

I would say this rant created a strawperson argument and then proceeded to shred it but that's just me ...

A study in scarlet: my impression of Sherlock Holmes

Google search image

I recently watched the Sherlock Holmes movie that came out a while back and upon watching it, it occurred to me that I don't really know what the actual character of Sherlock Holmes is portrayed as in Arthur Conan Doyle's books. I haven't ever read any of his works, merely heard bits of pieces regarding his legendary fictional character. Reading the book "A study in scarlet", the first of the series (time wise anyway), I was very disappointed.
Sherlock Holmes was nothing like the character I had imagined. His approach to knowledge, although understandable, was much too bland and boring. In the very beginning it is established that he is not interested in knowledge that will not assist him in his work (detective counseling) through his dialogue with Watson. Watson brings up the Heliocentrism model where the planets orbit the sun and Sherlock reveals his ignorance in the matter and then arrogantly asserts that he will try his best to forget this fact because it is not useful and thereby shouldn't occupy his limited brain space. Acquiring knowledge for the sake of it is useless to him.
Then there was the matter of him being good at boxing and fencing (or sword fighting, I forget). Another blow to my image of a smart man who plans his way out of tough situations, using his brains over brawns. From the point of view of his pursuit of detective work, it makes sense though. So his detective work and instinct take precedence over intelligence. Sword fighting isn't all that bad actually but boxing doesn't fit with my image of an intelligent man. Some form of self defense, sure, but boxing?
Then there is his bitterness, or perhaps it is merely indifference with which he deals with the characters displayed as his rivals. But these side characters are represented in a rather absurd manner. Even I, as a lay person, would suspect poison as a potential cause of death if no wounds were found on the body but the detectives in the novel are much too stupid to deduce that? Were detectives of that century really that stupid or is the author purposeless presenting them as imbecilic to highlight Sherlock's intelligence? I can understand that they would not have been able to deduce the matter of the mans appearance or clothing but to not be able to predict poison as the reason for death is taking it too far. If Sherlock's competitors are purposely stolid, then that leaves an impression of how mentally weak Sherlock Holmes rather than the contrary. Of course, that is because I personally felt that the characters surrounding him were too incompetent. It is easy to give an impression of intelligence when surrounded by slow-wits, but a truly intelligent person will shine amongst their intellectual peers. Then again, this is just the first book and perhaps the following stories will be much better. I think after watching Kira and L match wits in death note, there isn't a single detective story that can outshine those too characters, with the exception of Ghost in the Shell and Code Geass, of course.
Sherlock Holmes also appears to lack passion and motivation. Then again, he becomes passionate when he discovers something that is important and fascinating in his view so the major point would be motivation. I suppose he lacks passion when it comes to doing a deed simply because it is good and should be done to put peoples minds at ease (or something of the sort) instead of dismissing something because it appears boorish.

All in all I discovered that the character of Sherlock Holmes that I had romantized was a far cry from the one presented in Arthur Conan Doyle's narration, at least it is, by reference to the first novel. Perhaps it (the character in question) will evolve in the following scripts to one that I can recognize.

Of course this is not a comment on the book or the story line as much as it is on the character. I was merely comparing him to what I had anticipated him to be like and found his character to be somewhat deficient. The mystery was compelling but my impression of it was slightly tarnished by my disappointing discovery of Holme's actual character.

Back to this argument again?

The Global Secular Humanist received this e-mail recently:

"Religion and atheism do not directly correlate with morality. If a religious asshole becomes an atheist, he's not necessarily going to stop being an asshole--and vice versa. There have been many immoral religious people (bin Laden,Saddam Hussein etc.), and there have been many immoral atheists (Stalin,Mao etc.). But there have also been many good religious and atheist people. So there's no point blaming one group over another for immorality. It all boils down to individual behavior."

It's a very common idea. What it in essence says (one possibility) is that "people will do really bad things and people will do really good things regardless of what they believe." But that isn't really true though is it?! Our beliefs influence our actions. It's the reason why four flower shops in Rhode Island refused to deliver flowers to Jessica Ahlquist's (the student who contested the legality of displaying a prayer banner in her public school) house. It's the reason why people feel that they have a right to deny other people their constitutional rights, for example, in the form of an archbishop arguing that if catholic enterprises (their spokesperson's and those in power anyway) think it morally wrong to provide abortion or contraceptive coverage in medical insurance, they shouldn't be forced to do so because they themselves think it is wrong and what the people who will be using the insurance feel is irrelevant (I know the link leads to a blog, follow the links there). It is the very same reason that a mother refused to give her adopted daughter a Plan B pill after the girl was raped because she didn't "believe" in "murder" but of course, nine months of labor followed by the rape are absolutely fine. So, this interpretation of this statement can't possibly be true.

So what other possible interpretations are there? Could is possibly be trying to imply that "people will believe in and do good things and bad things regardless of whether they are atheist or religious because neither influences their beliefs." Now that can't possibly be right either can it?! I mean I can see how atheism can't really influence your moral compass much because it doesn't come with a big book of instructions on how one should behave and what one should believe so you have to find other sources to build your knowledge base and moral compass. But is that really true for religion? Isn't conversion to any religion followed by a massive list of things to do and things to believe? I can't quite say for certainty with respect to obscure religions with very few followers but if you take the major three monotheistic religions, aren't there tons and tons of pages of instructions on what is moral, acceptable, immoral, forgivable, and unforgivable? Instructions that take the form of holy books; the Torah of Judaism, the Bible for Christianity, and the Quran for Islam? Do these books not influence theistic opinions at all? That can't possibly be right?! I mean, if people's opinions aren't influenced by these books at all, then why is there such a major fuss over contraceptives, comprehensive sexual education, female virginity, and Intelligent design as an alternative "theory"?
So clearly, religion influences it's adherents opinions, albeit to varying degrees, depending on how much of a person's critical faculties have been stunted. You see a person doesn't need to be religious to make use of religion. That is why Lucius Annaeus Seneca said that "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." (If I'm wrong in attributing this quote to the person mentioned, let me know.) The point is simple though. It is a lot easier to utilize and manipulate an already existing brainwashed group, then to start from scratch and religion provides this group on a silver platter. Not all religious people are susceptible to manipulation, of course, but I would argue that the past has shown plenty of examples where populations with a bankrupt education base has resulted in the majority being easy to manipulate. Then again, education does not breed wisdom even though it may facilitate it.

I personally think that this statement is an indirect way of saying atheism is a religion too, you don't believe atheism influences peoples' capability for evil, therefore religion doesn't either.

I think this quote is best suited to wrap up this topic.

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion. - Steven Weinbeg

Death, the afterlife, and reincarnation

Popular blogs sure do get a large variety of fun e-mails to post about. The Atheist Experience posted one recently which was a bit difficult to understand because the guy doesn't seem to be too sure about what he wants to get across. I'd do a break up of it point by point but it seems that commenter # 8 - JT(Generic) has it covered pretty well. But the letter is interesting, it brings up a lot of topics, albeit carelessly, the most visible of which is what happens after death. From the gist of the letter I got the feeling that this person is into reincarnation of some sort because even in the comments, under the handle of "space monkey", he again brought up the question of "how do you know that we didn't exist prior to our birth? Maybe our consciousness existed and simply decided to take on this body...". That is my understanding of his question. The first part of it you can probably dig through the entire thing and find word for word, the second part (consciousness taking over the current body) is only eluded to and not clearly stated.
The argument is that "how can you be so certain that there is nothing after death when you have no absolute proof?" and "you are just like religious people in this dogmatism because you are asserting certainty without proof". I don't think it needs to be said but asserting that there is an afterlife is not on par with the assertion that there is nothing after death.
According to our understanding of the human body, our consciousness is tied to the physical organ, the brain. One way to test this would be to see if changes to the brain can cause rifts/changes in consciousness. This is very visible in patients with brain damage whose entire personalities can change depending on the level or type of damage. So it can be argued that consciousness is tied to the brain and influenced by it. There is no way to claim with certainty that consciousness cannot exist without a brain. Certainly, poetically speaking, anything is possible but we have no evidence to suggest that consciousness can exist without a brain structure and until it is demonstrated to be the case, there is no rational reason to believe that this is the case.
So based on our current understanding of consciousness and it's ties to our biological functions, it is safe to assume, reasonable even, that once our biological functions cease to function, then our consciousness will cease to exist.
If, however, one could preserve the brain and find a way to reactivate it without changing it, then our consciousness could arguably be revived. That would fall under the category of reanimation after a period of suspended animation though.

In contrast to that, religious claims of the after life are supported by no evidence what-so-ever. Not even sound logic plays a part in this assertion. It is merely wishful thinking. So to say that the two assertions are comparable is a little funny.

The concept of reincarnation, which I feel the writer eluded to, is on equal footing with the religious claims though. Although it is a very fascinating idea and does play into the whole infinite life through body substitutions deal. There is again, no evidence for it to be the case. Yeah, you probably can't disprove it but the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion and not the other way around.

At a slight loss of what to do ...

I opened my inbox at facebook today to find this message:

I have heard of people receiving messages like this but it's my first time receiving it. The label of 'sister' strikes me as just so funny really. Is that supposed to present this person as near and dear to me so as to encourage me to perceive him as espousing a genuine concern? Well, technically they may espouse a genuine concern but are too ignorant to realize how misplaced their concern is.

"Please do not try to imitate people who are negligent and do not know their lord" - I imagine this was written in response to me mentioning in my bio that I did not wish to associate myself with even remotely religious people. Or perhaps it has to do with my bio mentioning a preference for pro-choice individuals. Or does it maybe refer to the inviting nature of my profile bio ...

"Please read the Quran and the Sunnah" ... I'll be generous and say that this person hasn't read the Quran or sunnah and is recommending it for this reason. The alternative would be this person knows what information is in the Quran and they are wicked enough to advocate that stuff.

 I'm slightly at a loss regarding what to do about it. The reply that is. So many options to choose from. Should I engage and admonish this person for proselytizing, to strangers, material they themselves are unfamiliar with? Should I try to engage this person in a skeptical discussion? I could simply ignore this person but that doesn't sound like a lot of fun. My most tempting option is to send the picture (on the right) to them in response. It would just be so very funny and so very offensive. I can almost imagine the person recoiling from the image after opening the message. And therein lies my dilemma; to send or not to send.

A few thoughts on Atheism 2.0

So I heard about this talk a week ago and I dismissed it at the time after reading some critiques (which I agreed with, bias alert, I know) but since then I've run into a few people who've taken a liking to the points mentioned in the video and I though I'd critically appraise it myself partially to build my case. So yeah, I guess I have somewhat of a bias going in which may hinder my ability to credit the positive aspects of the video, but I'll try to be as impartial as possible. This is to clear my head and take another look at the arguments presented. You should go check out the video before reading my critique (if you can even call it that).


I think Matt at Atheist Experience sums up the talk very nicely in this post:

But he seems to be saying that we should adopt the methods of religion – methods that I specifically reject. What he’s suggesting are largely elements of indoctrination; using art, repetitive, ritualistic actions and emotional language to instruct people…and his justification for this seems to be that it’s useful. Well, of course it’s useful!
This is an “ends justify the means” argument. Convinced that he has the truth, he’s advocating spreading it by whatever means works best. Unfortunately, there’s doctrine and dogma waiting at the end of that road…and the results may not match his projections.

I'm going to transcribe his commentary here so that it's easier for me to remember it instead of playing the video over and over again to ensure I got the correct material and I'm not critiquing a strawperson (strawman - wikipedia seems to have a different explanation for strawperson).

"One of the most common ways of dividing the world is into those who believe and those who don't. Into the religious and the atheists."

I can agree with the first sentence, the simplest way to split people is the in-group and the out-group. That doesn't necessarily have to be religion. It can be Male or Female, Blacks or Whites, etc. The second statement has me a little stumped. Where exactly do theists, deists, pantheists, who don't participate in religious practices fall exactly? The world isn't really all that simple but I guess I'm just nitpicking here.

"And for the last decade or so, it's been quite clear what being an atheist means."

- Nitpicking - Other then lack of belief in god, what does it mean to be an atheist? Do we even attach any of our secular humanistic political or cultural pursuits with the label of atheist? Anti-theist is not the same thing as Atheist.

"There have been some very vocal atheists who've pointed out not just that religion is wrong but that its ridiculous."

-Nitpicking - Shouldn't this be the other way around. "not just that religion is ridiculous but that it is wrong"

"These people, many of whom have lived in north oxford, have argued ... they've argued that believing in God is akin to believing in fairies and essentially that the whole thing is a childish game. Now, I think it's too easy."

So he agrees with the point the it is akin to believing in fairies but he won't directly say it to alienate his theistic audience? Or perhaps it's to discredit the people who believe that without actually dealing with the truth factor of the statement.

"I think it's too easy to dismiss the whole of religion that way and it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. What I'd like to inaugurate today is a new way of being an atheist. If you like, a new version of Atheism we can call Atheism 2.0. "

"Now, what is Atheism 2.0? Well, it starts from a very basic premise: of course there is no god, of course there are no deities or supernatural spirits or angles, etc. Now let's move on."

Let's restate that as "of course there is one almighty god, Allah. Now let's move on to how you're going to pray to him."
Atheism doesn't even say that there is no God, it is a rejection of of the God hypothesis. Yes, the two hypothesis "there is a god" and "there is no god" are at opposite ends but these are two different hypothesis and you evaluate each of it in isolation. Rejection of one hypothesis does not mean acceptance of the second hypothesis. This is the difference between constructive logic and classical logic. Yes, one of the two hypothesis is true, but there is no evidence to support either at the moment.

"That's not the end of the story, that's the very very beginning. I'm interested in a kind of constituency that thinks something along these lines. That thinks: I can't believe in any of this stuff. I can't believe in the doctrines. I don't think these doctrines are right but (very important but), I love Christmas carols, I really like the art of Mantenia, I really like looking at old churches, I really like turning the pages of the old testament, whatever it may be."

Leaving religion does not immediately mean that everything related to religion is off limits. Old churches cannot be appreciated separately on their own as architecture. Christmas carols or the art of Mantenia would automatically be off limits somehow. Just because a person is no longer a christian does not mean that they can no longer celebrate Christmas (although technically Christmas isn't necessarily a christian holiday). Just because a person isn't a Muslim anymore, does not mean they have to stop fasting or meditating. Meditation doesn't have to be a 'spiritual' exercise and fasting have benefits from a discipline perspective.

" You know the kind of thing I'm talking about. People who are attracted to the ritualistic side, the moralistic communal side of religion but can't bear the doctrine. Until now, these people have faced  rather unpleasant choice, it's almost as though you either accept the doctrine and then you can have all the nice stuff or you reject the doctrine and you're living in a sort of spiritual wasteland under the guidance of CNN or Walmart."

I suppose the community side of it can't be salvaged because the church and it's members exclude the member because their doubt would influence others in the circle.

"So that's a sort of tough choice. I don't think we have to make that choice. I think there is an alternative, I think there are ways, and I'm being both very respectful and completely impious, of stealing from religions. If you don't believe in a religion, there is nothing wrong with picking and mixing, with taking out the best sides of religion."

This aspect of the talk I actually agree with. Pick out and utilize the useful good bits and ditch the useless or bad bits.

"And for me, Atheism 2.0 is about, in both (as I say) a respectful and an impious way, going through religions and saying 'what here could we use?'. The secular world is full of holes. We have secularized badly, I would argue, and a thorough study of religion can give us all sorts of insights into areas of life that are not going too well. And I'd like to run through a few of these today."

"I'd like to kick off by looking at education. Now education is a field of the secular world really believes in. When we think about how we are going to make the world a better place, we think education. That is where we put a lot of money. Education can give us not only commercial skills, industrial skills. It's also going to make us better people. You know the kind of thing that commencement addresses, graduation ceremonies, those lyrical claims that education; the process of education should, particularly higher education, will make us into nobler and better human beings. That's a lovely idea."

The way it starts off ... with regards to belief in the solution of education ... is that a comparison to belief in religion as a good idea by some?

"Interesting where it came from: in the early 19th century Church attendance in western Europe started sliding down very very sharply and people panicked. They asked themselves the following question: where are people going to find morality, where are they going to find guidance, and where are they going to find sources of consolation. And influential voices came up with one answer: they said culture, its the culture to which we should look for guidance, for consolation, for morality. Let's look to the plays of Shakespeare, the dialogues of Plato, the novels of Jane Austen. In there we will find a lot of the truths that we may have previously found in the Gospel of Saint Jones."

-Just an aside - I can't comment on the historical accuracy of this statement.

"Now I think that is a very beautiful idea and a very true idea. They wanted to replace scripture with culture and that's a very plausible idea. It's also an idea that we have forgotten. You know, if you went to a top university, say you went to Harvard or Oxford or Cambridge and you said that you have come here because you are in search for morality, guidance, and consolation, I want to know how to live."

I wonder if the word 'know' is used on purpose. "I want to know how to live" is not the same as "I want to learn how to live". Is there one specific recipe that people need to follow to live life? And what kind of life did they want to live in the first place? I understand the search for morality and guidance but the fact of life is that there won't always be someone to hold your hand and guide you somewhere. You need to stumble and search on your own.
I can understand the desire for consolation but why would you search for it in an institute of learning? And this is the 21st century. You can find people online to talk to anonymously. And if that doesn't work, there's always a diary. You could even start your own group that, for example, goes hiking or partakes in other sports. Aren't there also support groups and therapists available for this kind of thing?

"They would show you the way to the Insane Asylum. This is simply not what our grandest and best institutes of higher learning are in the business of. Why? They don't think we need it. They don't think we are in urgent need of assistance. They see us as adults, rational adults, what we need is information, we need data, we don't need help."

Note that rational thinking isn't mentioned. I haven't personally been to university, but they do more then just dump knowledge on the students. Also why has this burden been shifted to universities, shouldn't this kind of thing be dealt with at the level of secondary education or lower which everyone studies? But they do have tools like that available at that level, don't they? Counselor's and other extra-curricular activity groups are available. At least, they were at my institute. We even had a careers and civics course which introduced us to tools we could utilize during life. They don't exactly tell you how to live life though!

"Now, religion start with a very different place indeed. All religions, all major religions at various points called us children and like children they believe that we are in severe need of assistance. We are only just holding it together. Perhaps it is just me, or maybe you, but anyway, we are only just holding it together. And we need help, of course we need help, and so we need guidance and we need didactic learning."

My first encounter with the word "didactic", I wonder what it means. Anyway, didactic learning means to learns from experience. Do we, as a group, every one of us, need help? In every aspect of life? Are we incapable of talking to people and learning things for ourselves? Do we need to be told what is morally correct?

"You know, in the 18th century in the UK, the greatest preacher, the greatest richest preacher was a man called John Wesley who went up and down this country delivering sermons, advising people how they can live, deliver sermons on the duties of parents' to their children and the children's to their parents. The duties of the rich to the poor and the poor to the rich. He was trying to tell people how they should live through the medium of sermons, the classic medium of delivery of religions. Now we've given up with the idea of sermons. "

I don't think we have a shortage of people that tell others how to live their life. There's the Quiverful movement where women literally act like incubators to birth child after child to the point where the woman doesn't even care that she nearly died giving her 19th child and may as well croak whilst giving birth to the 20th. Then there is this new book "To train up a child" which validates the use of physical punishments to discipline children. These are some examples of negative lessons but how exactly do you decide which to follow and which to reject? If you're deciding point is simply sitting and listening to sermons. Actually I can't really understand this at all. Do people really need someone to tell them how to live life? Do they really need a prophet or pope to preach from the pulpit? I imagine a lot of Catholics don't care much for what the pope has to say. As I know many Muslims don't care what mullahs have to say.

"If you said to a modern liberal individualist 'hey, how about a sermon', they'd go 'no, no, no, I don't need one of those. I'm an independent individual person.' What's the difference between a sermon and our modern secular mode of delivery, the lecture? Well, a sermon wants to change your life and a lecture wants to give you a bit of information."

A lecture is a delivery of facts, a sermon is the delivery of opinion as fact.

"And I think we need to get back to that sermon tradition, the tradition of sermonizing is hugely valuable because we are in need of guidance, morality, and consolation, and religions know that."

"Another point about education: We tend to believe, in a modern secular world that if you tell someone something once, they'll remember it. Sit them in a classroom, tell them about Plato at the age of 20, send them out to a career in management consultancy for 40 years and that lesson will stick with them. Religion go 'nonsense, you need to keep repeating the lesson 10 times a day, so get down on your knees and repeat it.' That's what all religions tell us. Get on your knees and repeat it 10 or 20 or 15 times a day otherwise our minds are like sieves, so religions are cultures of repetition."

Repetition helps with memorization and not with learning. Rote learning isn't very useful anyway. I won't cover education because PZ Myers covered it pretty well himself. He's a lecturer so I defer this topic to him.

"They circle the great truths again and again and again."

Great truths? That's a problematic term to use considering they don't exactly cover "great truths".

"We associate repetition with boredom. Give us the new, we're always saying. The new is better then the old. "

HHHhhhmmm ... math is all repetition. Listening to songs over and over again is repetition. Hanging out with your friends in the cafe during lunch is repetition. Eating at the same restaurant from time to time is repetition. Video games are repetition. When a person plays the same level over and over again to beat it. Or when they come back to a game to enhance their score, that is repetition. Do we really associate repetition with boredom?

"If I said 'okay, we're not going to have a new TED. We're just gonna go run through the old TED ones and watch them five times because they're so true. We're gonna watch Elizabeth Gilbert five times because what she says is so clever.' You'll feel cheated. Nonsense. So if you're adopting a religious mindset."

There is a reason people would feel cheated. All these talks are available online. We can watch them over and over again, as many times as we want. We can pause them and go over certain areas we didn't initially get instead of listening to the whole talk all over again. We don't need the same talk again. This is the 21st century. But instead take the example of Stand Up comedy. When comedian go on tour they use a lot of the same material for that particular tour. Same with concerts. To that's the same routine over and over again and somehow people don't feel cheated. I've seen Tim Minchin's song "Ten foot c*#k and a few hundred virgins" dozens of times and I don't associate it with boredom.

"The other thing that religions do is to arrange time. All the major religions give us calenders. What is a calender? A calendar is a way of making sure that across the year, you will bump into certain very important ideas. The catholic chronology, the catholic calendar, you know, at the end of March you will think of Saint Jerome and his qualities of humility and goodness and his generosity to the poor."

Valentine's day, Independence day, Black History month, Domestic violence awareness month ... what are we missing? That it isn't forced?

"You won't do that by accident, you will do that because you are guided to do that. Now we don't think that way. In a secular world we think that if an idea is important, I'll bump into it. I'll just come across it."

I am reminded of Public Service Announcements. If an idea is important, we do bump into it ... note the fuss over PIPA and SOPA. Those who go out in search will surely find, it is only those who do not that are left clueless.

"Nonsense says the religious world view. Religious world view says we need calenders, we need to structure time, we need to synchronize encounters. "

What of things not part of the structure? How are new concepts integrated into a rigid structure? Although I suppose the structure could be flexible. But aren't important ideas to be dictated to us through a structure? So how will we bump into an important idea, decide that it should be part of the structure and then make it part of the structure?

"This comes across also in the way in which religions set up rituals around important feelings. Take the moon. It's really important to look at the moon. When you look at the moon, you think 'I'm very small. What are my problems? Sets them in perspective. etc. etc.' We should all look at the moon a bit more often, we don't."

You know, there are a lot of things that put our problems in perspective. Other people's problems for example. Or reading news about atrocities somewhere in the world. Why be specific with the moon? Why don't we all read the news column every day so that we are motivated to do something about the vicious living conditions of some people? You know, instead of just looking at the moon because I'm pretty sure that will not induce as visceral a response as the news would.

" Why don't we? Well, there is nothing to tell us, look at the moon. But if you're a Zen Buddhist in the middle of September, you will be ordered out of your home, made to stand on a canonical platform and made to celebrate the festival of zukimy where you will be given poems to read in honor of the moon and the passage of time and the frailty of life that it should remind us of. You will be handed rice cakes and the moon and the reflection on the moon will have a secure place in your heart. That's very good. "

"You will be ordered out of your home" ... ORDERED ... yes, that sounds very good indeed (sarcasm)

"The other thing that religions are really aware of is speak well. Not doing a very good job of this here but oratory. Oratory is absolutely key to religion. You know in the secular world you can come through the university system and be a lousy speaker and still have a great career. But the religious world doesn't think that way. What you are saying needs to be backed up by a really convincing way of saying it."

A career that depends entirely on oratory skills will tank if you're a lousy speaker. I don't actually understand why what you say needs to be backed up by a really convincing way of saying it. Isn't that just manipulation? Don't get me wrong, having good oratory skills would be extremely useful and acquiring a new skill is a worthy pursuit in itself. But for what reason is the speaker giving here? That you may sway people to your way of thinking for bad reasons?

"So if you go to an African American Pentecostal Church in the American South and you listen to how they talk. My goodness, they talk well. After every convincing point people will go 'Amen, Amen, Amen'. You know, the end of a really rousing paragraph, they'll all stand up and they'll go 'Thank you Jesus', 'Thank you Christ', 'Thank you Savior'. You know, if we were doing it like they were, let's not do it, but if we were to do it. You know I would tell you something like 'culture should replace scripture' and you would go 'Amen, Amen, Amen' and at the end of my talk you would all stand up and go 'Thank you Plato', 'Thank you Shakespeare', 'Thank you Jane Austin'. And we'd know that we'd had a real rhythm going."

This bit reminded me of Sam Singleton's performance at Skepticon 4. I wonder if his entire talk was inspired by it. I also feel this way because of the way he added 'respectfully' at the very beginning when he mentioned stealing from religion. Because Sam Singleton mimicked religious service in a manner which would be considered offensive and disrespectful. There was actually a major fiasco because of it when a local christian shop owner place a sign in his window refusing service to atheists which had arrived to attend Skepticon 4.

"All right, All right, We're getting there, we're getting there. The other things that religions know is that we are not just brains, we are also bodies. And when they teach us a lesson, they teach it via body. So, for example, take the Jewish idea of forgiveness. Jews are very interested in forgiveness and how we should start anew and start afresh. They don't just deliver us sermons on this, they don't just give us books or words about it. They tell us to have a bath. So in orthodox Jewish communities every Friday you go to a Mikvah, you immerse yourself in the water and a physical action backs up a philosophical idea. We don't tend to do that. Our ideas are in one areas and are behavior with our body is in another. Religions are fascinating in the way in which they try to combine the two."

Different rituals have different appeals.

"Let's look at art now. Art is something in the secular world, we think very highly of. We think art is really really important. A lot of our surplus wealth goes towards museums etc. We sometimes hear it said that museums are our new cathedrals or our new churches. You've heard that saying."

The first I'm hearing of this really.

"Now I think that the potential is there but we've completely let ourselves down. And the reason we've let ourselves down is that we're not properly studying how religions handle art. There are two really bad ideas that are hovering in the modern world. They inhibit our capacity to draw strength from art. The first idea is that art should be for Art's sake. A ridiculous idea. An idea that art should live in a hermetic bubble and should not try and do anything with this troubled world."

I don't really understand how this is a bad thing. Art is an expression of the artist's perception of life, the world, or anything at all really. Art can be political, it can be useful, it can be controversial, it can capture the essence of an era because the artists are allowed to draw whatever they want. The Jesus and Mo cartoons are art for example. They are political. The artist may draw them because they like utilizing irony for humor. They may draw them to raise awareness about certain current events. They may draw them simply because they are inspired (art for art's sake). It is because the artist aren't pressured to conform to a rigid standard and can create art for art's sake that allows them to fully express themselves and their talent.
"Inhibits our capacity to draw strength from art." - Is that what art is for? To enforce existing ideas? A mnemonic device of sorts? I thought art was supposed to make us think, flex our brains. And each person will perceive each piece differently creating grounds for a healthy discussion and an exchange of ideas.

"I couldn't disagree more. The other thing we believe is that art shouldn't explain itself. That artist shouldn't say what they are up to because if you said it, you might destroy the spell and we might be ... we might find it too easy. That's why a very common feeling when you're in a museum, let's admit it, is that I don't know what this is about. But if we're serious people, we don't admit to that but that feeling of puzzlement is structural to contemporary art."

"Now religions have a much saner attitude to art. They have no trouble telling us what art is all about. Its about two things in all the major faiths. Firstly, it's trying to remind you of what there is to love and secondly, its trying to remind you of what there is to fear and hate. And that's what art is, art is a visceral encounter with the most important ideas of your faith. So as you walk around the church or a mosque or a cathedral, what your trying to imbue is, what you're imbuing is through your eyes, through your senses, truths that have otherwise come to you through your mind. Essentially it's propaganda."

If I may quote PZ Myers on this one because his analogy was rather funny:

"He suggests that museums ought to adopt the approaches of the churches, and organize their art by themes and tell everyone exactly what it all means. Jebus. Can you imagine a van Gogh hanging on the wall, with a little checklist next to it telling you what it is supposed to mean, and everyone dutifully reading the museum’s imperative and making sure they’ve got exactly the right interpretation? Some excited little girl makes the mistake of looking at the painting not the placard and telling her mother, “Look at the light and color shining through the confusion!” and the guard has to tap his stick on the wall and tell her, “No, it says CONFORM and OBEY or suffer. Can’t you read?”"

"Rembrandt is a propagandist in the christian view. Now the word propaganda hits off alarm bells. We think of Hitler, we think of Stalin. Don't necessarily. Propaganda is a manner of being didactic in honor of something. If that thing is good, there is no problem with it at all."

How do you decide what is good propaganda and what is bad? Who makes that call? Do you even have the right to make that call on the behalf of others and then bombarding them with propaganda that is "good"?

"My view is that museums should take a leaf out of the book of religions and they should make sure that when you walk into a museum ... if I was a museum curator, I would make a room for love, a room for generosity, a room for ... you know, all works of art are talking to us about things and if we are able to arrange spaces where we would come across works where we would be  told use these works of art to cement these ideas in your mind. We would get a lot more out of art. Art would pick up the duty that it used to have and that we've neglected because of certain miss-founded ideas. Art should be one of the tools by which we improve our society. Art should be didactic."

Art should reinforce existing ideas instead of cultivating new ones?

"Let's think of something else. The people in the modern world, in the secular world, who are interested in matters of the spirit, matters of the mind, and higher soul like concerns tend to be isolated individuals."

Not sure.

"They're poets, they're philosophers, they're photographers, they're film makers, and they tend to be on their own. They are cottage industries. They are vulnerable single people and they get depressed and they get sad on their own and they don't really change much."

Spirituality = poets, philosophers, photographers, film makers?

"Now think about religions, think about organized religions. What do organized religions do? They group together. They form institutions. And that has all sorts of advantages. First of all scale, might ... the catholic church pulled in 97 billion dollars last year according to the wall street journal."

Maybe governments should reconsider giving these institutions a tax free status?

"These are massive machines. They're collaborative, they're branded, they're multinational, and they're are highly disciplined. These are all very good qualities. We recognize them in relation to corporations. And corporations are very like religions in many ways except they are right down there at the bottom of the pyramid of the needs and are selling shoes and cars.:

I find this comparison extremely funny because of how irresponsible behavior on part of a lot of corporations recently resulted in the financial crisis.

"Whereas the people who are selling us the higher stuff, the therapist, the poet, are on their own and they have no power. They have no might. So religions are the foremost example of an institution that is fighting for the things of the mind. Now we may not agree with what religions are trying to teach us but we can admire the institutional way in which they are doing it."

I wouldn't say that these people have no power. It may take time for the seeds they sow to take root and sprout but ultimately, their work does bear fruit. Poets may not be very successful, but therapists do rather well.
This video is an introduction to what the National Center of Science Education (NCSE) is dealing with today. I don't know if I would be generous enough to rate religion as the foremost example of an institution fighting for things of the mind. I wonder if correct education is different from a thing of the mind.

"Book alone, books written by lone individuals are not going to change anything. We need to group together. If you want to change the world, you have to group together, you have to be collaborative and that's what religions do. They are multinational, as I say, they are branded, they have a clear identity so they don't get lost in the busy world. That's something we can learn from."

I suppose books alone won't accomplish much given the nature of our opposition.

"I want to conclude. Really what I want to say is for many of you who are operating in a range of different fields, there is something to learn from the example of religion. Even if you don't believe any of it. If you're involved in anything communal, that involves lots of people getting together, there are things for you in religion. If you're involved in the travel industry, in any way look at pilgrimage. Look very closely at pilgrimage. We haven't begun to scratch the surface of what travel could be because we haven't looked at what religions do with travel. If you're in the art world look at the example of what religions are doing with art and if you're an educator in any way, again look at how religions are spreading ideas. You may not agree with the ideas but my goodness, they are highly effective mechanisms for doing so. So really my concluding point is you may not agree with religion but at the end of the day, religions are so subtle, so complicated, so intelligent in many ways that they are not fit to be abandoned for the religious alone, they are for all of us. Thank you very much."

I don't disagree on the fact that there are things one can learn from religion. But I think the examples given are really ones we need not consider incorporating.

The allure of one answer ...

The world would really just be ever so simple if there were just one simple answer to every single possible problem. Simplicity being the key element in that one answer. Or even several simple answers to complex problems. Wishful thinking, I know. This thought occurred to me recently because of two reasons. One I had just watched a documentary "The money fix" and it annoyed me a bit because the solution proposed in it, although seemingly simple and straightforward works only in theory and not in practicality, so it makes me wonder why you would even pose it as a solution. Of course, I have to admit I have a slight bias towards the proposed solution because it reminds me of one of my old ignorant instructors from a few years back whose every single word grated my nerves. Setting the bias aside though, I think the statement that simply eliminating the interest will somehow solve all of the world's fiscal problems is rather stupid, but more on that later in a few weeks after I've written my exam.
I found the concept of the origins of money and the development of the system over the years fascinating though. That part of the documentary was interesting. I've found another source discussing that in isolation so I'll be looking into it again.

The second thing that annoyed me is rather petty. I was a little annoyed at the response regarding sexism in this comic strip. Someone noticed the subtle sexism in the strip where the artist used the stereotype of an irrational female and a rational male. I found that a little bit funny. I figured the sexism, even if it exists was subconscious and that was it. It wasn't too big of a deal. The back and forth became so ... should i say ferocious? ... that PZ started another thread generally claiming that choose your battles.
Somehow for this little message, he is now labelled an MRA (males rights activist). He recognizes that there is sexism but it's not so major as to warrant so much attention. Setting aside those who thought that there was no sexism in the strip (that only exacerbated the problem unnecessarily), I think it really comes down to a matter of sensitivity. Some people just categorize sexism higher up the list of priorities then others and since it's more of a priority, they feel that it needs to be addressed in a more serious manner than simply brushing it aside.
Then came in this slice of information where the author comments on some of the reddit posts that he intentionally made the irrational bunny female to reflect the high level of religiosity amongst women in comparison to men. Now that was a stupid move. Would you also depict women as poor in a cartoon depicting class issues? Or why not make the bunny black instead of female because the level of religiosity is higher in African Americans? I really don't see what the purpose of depicting the rabbit as female based on demographic statistics conveys. The message of the comic was to convey the absurdity of the creationist/ religious position. How does pointing out that women are more religious then men help this point?

Then there are those who compared this to elevator-gate which is beyond inane. I see the privilege, I see the sexism, but I don't see how you could categorize it as equally harmful. At most this cartoon could illicit a minor annoyance, irritation at why such a good point must be spoiled by subtle hints of sexism but elevator-gate? Come on. Rape is a serious threat with severe consequences; physical, emotional, and psychological. Perceived or actual threat of rape in a situation where you would be largely unable to improve your chances of escape would leave you feeling helpless and frustrated. To constantly be aware of your surroundings. To always worry about what the other person must be thinking and what their intentions must be. It is an unpleasant hell. Trust must be earned and until you trust the person, you can never be sure of their intentions because you can't afford to dismiss their approach as harmless. The possible end result of taking the risk of trusting the stranger and dismissing the threat out of hand is much too dire. There really is no comparison.

I personally rank this level of sexism close to the bottom of the list because there are too many problems in the world and you have to choose which ones need to be addressed immediately and this is usually determined by the level of harm cause by the problem. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." I think not much focus is placed on the "equal" part.