Archive for the ‘Rant’ Category
I respect your nonsense
Leave a CommentSomething that caught my attention the other day was the commonly used phrase “I respect your religion”, which is sometimes wheeled out as “I respect your faith”. It is a near universal expectation of those who believe in a deity or deities and it so ingrained in our culture that it can sometimes even trump the most basic human rights. There are even proposed international laws against defaming religion. But why should we respect religion? What do people mean when they say this? Is it dangerous to shelter religion from abuse, ridicule, even questioning?
Respect for property? †
I feel the need to explore what this statement actually means. At one end of the spectrum, it can mean acknowledging the rights of an individual to think what they please, which is innocuous enough, while on the other end it can mean submitting to the (god given) authority of an institution.
Respecting the individual is something that makes very good sense. We are social animals and rely upon those around us, we do not function well in solitude and with few exceptions we live together in communities. By the same reasoning, we can extend this concept of respect to the plant and animal kingdom with which we share this planet, even the bricks and mortar of our communities and the services they provide. But what is it that justifies giving respect to religion?
One argument is that our morals come from god and that without adherence to religious doctrine our societies would collapse in an orgy of sin, because we would not know right from wrong. If that were the case, a healthy respect would most certainly be in order and we should be compelled to listen to the teachings of the church. The whole idea is preposterous, of course. If it were so, we would live in fear that our non-religious neighbours might slaughter our families in the night and take possession of our homes. It is also highly insulting to those good people who do not subscribe to any form of religion and do not believe in the higher power of some unseen god.
As social animals we have an innate understanding of what is right and what is wrong and are quite capable of altruistic behaviours, because we appreciate the fact that cooperation benefits and strengthens our societies. Recent research shows us that we are born with the urge to help others, which suggests that the behaviour has evolved because it provides an advantage. Religious proponents might argue that god planted that seed within us, but why put yourself through the mental contortions necessary to believe this, when science offers the more obvious answer. Those arguing for god would also have to accept that he also chose to plant the same behaviours in other primate species, who have no more need for a holy book to tell them about moral behaviour, than do we.
Religious advocates will emphasise the important charitable role of churches when arguing for its purpose. The charity work of religious people may be something to be admired and appreciated, but it is the individual who deserves the respect. Religion is not an essential part of charity; it can be performed just as admirably by non believers who are not looking for a heavenly reward. In fact religion, in some cases, can attach conditions to their charity work, using it as a subtle – and in some cases not so subtle – recruiting tool. The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington also shows us that human rights – in this case those of gays and lesbians – take second place to religious dogma when it comes to providing for the poor and the needy.
Should religious authorities command respect because they are truth seekers trying to make sense of the world? Theologians will make words do somersaults in order to provoke the mental gymnastics which are necessary to hold a belief in a god or gods, but when scrutinised in the context of the real world, there is no substance to their claims. They will claim to seek the truth, but the fact is that they are already committed to what they believe is the truth and therefore have no interest in doing any such thing. Word play is the only tool they have left with which to support their version of the truth. And with so many faiths out there in the world, there are a lot of incompatible “truths” to which we may subscribe. This fact alone should give a clue that there is more nonsense to religion than there is sense. Why should any one of them command any respect?
How about the suggestion that religion gives meaning to peoples’ lives. After exhausting all other attempts to ascribe a useful purpose to religion and justify the demand for it to be given respect, this is often the last gasp to wrestle the argument back. And I cannot deny that religion does indeed give meaning in some peoples’ lives. I don’t personally think it is a meaning rooted in reality, but it is a personal choice and the individual – not the religion – should be given the respect to believe whatsoever they please, on the condition that it does not adversely affect the lives of others.
The problem is that nonsensical beliefs can spill over into the lives of others, to their detriment. It is at this point that we no longer need to exercise tolerance, let alone give our respect. Religion uses preaching to self perpetuate and commands its adherents to obey certain rules, something which can be used to great advantage in exercising control over a population. Throughout history we have seen how church and state have become intertwined for exactly this purpose. Some modern religions use the threat of eternal damnation in the fires of hell to keep their members from straying from the flock. Most disturbingly they preach this message to fearful, innocent children; that is how far they will sink. These are methods that belong in the dark ages and are nothing more than an embarrassment in the 21st century.
Not all religions operate using threats of violence, either in this life or the next. Jews do not believe in hell like the Christians do, but their faith demands that they obey its rules, some of which are frankly absurd. On the Jewish holy day of Shabbat, for example, followers may use some interesting workarounds to the demands of the faith. Elevators may take an age getting to you on that particular day, because it may be programmed to stop and open on every single floor, just so that devout believers can get around without breaking god’s rules. Apparently she gets very upset when you call for an elevator, but it’s okay if it just happens to pass by and let you on. This is just one example where someone else’s beliefs can adversely affect the everyday lives of the non-believers who want nothing more than to get on with their lives, and unfortunately there will always be those who will protest if you do not live your life according to their beliefs.
Giving respect to this sort of nonsense is the thin end of the wedge that leads to giving religions undue authority or turning a blind eye to their destructive power. Religion has been used to justify heinous acts of violence and cruelty throughout human history, it continues today and will unfortunately continue into the future. And I don’t just refer to wars and terrorism; take faith based medical neglect for example. Undue respect for religion can give perpetrators of these crimes a free pass, or at least some leniency, thereby shrugging off the neglect and abuse of countless numbers of children worldwide, because passing judgement might tread on the sensitive toes of religion.
Nonsense borne out of religious belief should wield no authority. Faith and religion has no right telling people how to live their lives, nor how to end them. The recent sentencing of convicted killer Khristian Oliver stirred up controversy because, in deciding his fate, the jury consulted their holy book: the Bible. A few verses later, they concluded that the man should himself be put to death for his crimes. They had consulted a two thousand year old text that is full of inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies and god sanctioned acts of barbarism that would turn the stomach of any sane jury member. Khristian Oliver was executed on the 6th of November.
No belief system should be sacred and no institution with a vested in interest in keeping it alive should be protected from challengers. If you are a Muslim, which is the default label given to people who are born of parents who consider themselves followers of this particular faith, they have no choice in the matter and are obliged to believe in the one god of their religion. Not conforming carries a risk. Currently the fate of three Iranian men demonstrates the severity of the penalty for dissent: they have been sentenced to death for “enmity against God”. These mens’ lives are in the balance, not for something they did, not even for something they thought, but for something they failed to believe. Where are their human rights? Where is the respect for the one fundamental thing that we all deserve: life?
References:
† Image by caffeina (Creative Commons licence).
Homeopathy muscles in on the flu scare
There have been a series of thuds recently, the result of my head hitting the desk in despair each time I come across some piece of nonsense or stupidity in the newspaper, online or on the TV. In particular I am referring to health advice from practitioners and advocates of what they like to call alternative medicine.
I don’t make a habit of exposing myself to too much of this, because there are better ways to waste time and the headaches are rather unpleasant, but it really does bother me because such advice can be harmful (see Homeopathy couple jailed over daughter’s death) and these people are either deeply misguided or are exploiting the gullibility of people I care about, for their own gains.
Take this recent article by Susan Drury in the Vancouver Observer, for example, in which she recommends the use of homeopathy to ward off the flu, citing her own anecdotal evidence in a vague attempt to support her claims.
What homeopaths do is take a substance which provokes a similar response to the ailment in question, for example caffeine for insomnia, and then dilute it in water until nothing of it remains. The water is then administered directly or in sugar pill form.
Clinical trials, published in the best peer-reviewed journals in the world, have shown these drugs to be no more effective than the placebos they’ve been tested against. For such an ancient “medical system”, evidence showing the efficacy of homeopathy is long overdue.
Advocates cannot even come up with a good theory on how the treatments might possibly work. They sometimes talk about the memory of water and wave their hands in the air, drawing on words such as quantum and entanglement, but this only serves to baffle the enquirer and explains nothing.
At best the homeopath will take our money and leave us to consume harmless water; at worst, they might steer people away from the best and most thoroughly researched drugs and therapies available.
This morning I came across an advertisement from Access Natural Healing in a parenting magazine, offering homeopathic vaccines for “drug-free children”. They are very safe apparently, which is no doubt because they contain absolutely no active ingredients whatsoever, but in my mind this is only one interpretation of the word safe. Is it safe to “treat” children and their families with homeopathy at the expense of them not getting properly vaccinated against H1N1 or the seasonal flu? Whether or not it was there intention, their use of the term “drug-free children” certainly appears to advocate this approach, and therein lies the biggest danger of all.
Alternative cures can be attractive when confusion and contradictions abound, which is the case with H1N1 flu right now. And it takes no effort to state that a magic vial of water or a special brew of herbs and plant extracts can cure your ills. It is small wonder that there are so many “miracle cures” around, all trying to cash in on the uncertainty (see also this recent Globe and Mail article).
Beware of easy answers. Important decisions on how to tackle a potentially fatal illness should not be made lightly. Contagious diseases put you, your families and your communities at risk. Having said all that, if you really want an easy answer, try this: If an alternative medicine can be shown to work, it is just called medicine.
Recommended reading:
The end of homeopathy?
Homeopathy – Still Crazy After All These Years
Homeopathy Awareness Week
Mocking the pseudo-sciences
Here’s Dara Ó Briain using stand-up to tell it like it is. Not for pseudo-scientists and people who don’t need evidence to live their lives by.
What happened on 9/11? The format wars.
What is so special about the date 9/11? I can remember where I was on that date one year not so long ago, and it became a day that marked a major turning point in history. The day was the 9th of November 1989 and the Berlin wall, which then divided the two halves of Germany, was unceremoniously torn down as the Soviet Union relaxed its communist grip on Eastern Europe. Of course, I also recognise that 9/11 refers to another important date in our recent past: when read differently, it refers to the 11th of September, which was an unwelcome but no less historic day in the year 2001.
You say “tomayto” and Ｉ say “tomarto”. Sure, there’s a bit of that going on here, but my rant goes much deeper than mere pronunciation and semantics. The different numerical forms used for dates can be confusing, problematic and the source of serious errors. I might get fined $75 for missing my dentist appointment, which I thought was on the 2nd of April but which had actually been scheduled for the 4th of February. And if I don’t set my computer’s file system in a way which makes sense to me, I risk making time consuming mistakes when trying to find a document or an email from a given day. These examples may seem petty, but they’re the thin end of the wedge.
If Eisenhower and Montgomery had a similar misunderstanding, D-Day might never have happened and Europe may never have been liberated from the Nazis. The allies originally chose the 5th of June for the day of the landings. A misunderstanding with the dates might have left the Americans with very little support on the beaches of Normandy on the 6th of May. Fortunately there was no misunderstanding and in fact bad weather on the 5th postponed the invasion until the 6th. I can’t help but wonder if a higher authority took control of the weather, just so that both sides of the pond could commemorate 6/6/44 in the future, together and without confusion.
A friend of mine once argued in favour of the American way of writing the date numerically, which puts the month first in order, because, according to him that is the way in which we say the date in words. Not so: I hear British people on the radio and television all the time saying their dates in words with the day followed by the month, as in “the 12th of December”. Even if they choose to say it with the month first, they would not write the date numerically in that sequence.
One might argue that a world of different languages is richer for it, so people should choose whichever format they prefer and that I should cease my rant. I counter that we at least know when someone is speaking a different language to us, but in this case we cannot always tell – and that is a problem.
Another line of reasoning against conformity would argue that each country should be able to write numerical dates in any way they choose, just so long as everyone knows the accepted standard for their country. That would be fine on a domestic scale, but we all now live in the global community and being understood is good for trade, foreign relations and humanity as a whole.
The American way is a little backwards, because the numbers do not adhere to any sequential order of importance, plus the US is in a small minority of countries who use the format, but I am not necessarily calling for it to be abandoned in favour of another. In my ideal world I would simply expect consistency, whichever numerical order it may be.
In Canada, which is often torn between the European and the American ways of doing things, you will frequently find date orders specified with the additional notation “DMY”, “MDY” or “YMD”. The last of these does not always warrant the special instruction on how the date should be read, because there seems to be a universal acceptance that a date written with the four digits of the year first, will naturally be followed by the month and then the day. Perhaps my ideal world would be a place where I commemorate and solemnly remember the events of 2001/09/11 and where, two months later, I celebrate the way the world changed forever on 1989/11/09.
