The enemies of reason

[matgb]

Charlie Brooker in Saturday's Guardian:

"Spirituality" is what cretins have in place of imagination. If you've ever described yourself as "quite spiritual", do civilisation a favour and punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again. Why should your outmoded codswallop be treated with anything other than the contemptuous mockery it deserves?

Maybe you've put your faith in spiritual claptrap because our random, narrative-free universe terrifies you. But that's no solution. If you want comforting, suck your thumb.

Gotta admit he's got a point there; I fundamentally respect your right to hold whatever belief you wish to hold. I also respect your right to either persuade me I'm wrong and/or that I'm going to burn in hell for being the atheist I am.

What I can't, and won't, do is respect the belief itself. Sky fairies don't exist, there are no gods, we have no immortal souls and there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden (well, except in the only good Torchwood episode, anyway). These delusions do nothing but placate fears or dislike for the world the way it is, they're a paliative. Get out there and do something with your life, make something of yourself--this is all there is, make the best of it.

Advantage of staying up North for a week^[1]? televisionfree me gets to watch the one or two interesting TV shows that multichannel world throws at you per week. Richard Dawkins, 8pm Channel 4, Monday night; The Enemies of Reason. Good good.

---

[1] It's an advantage. It's nowhere close to the main advantage, I would in fact put it very low the list of them; spending loads of time with ones new fiancee may be right at the top methinks. Did I mention we got engaged? I did? Ah well, I might repeat it again a few times just for good measure. Time to turn in--g'night all

Comments

[tlingel.livejournal.com]

Thanks for pointing out the Dawkins prog. I have no TV in the flat, so would have missed it, but fortunately I will be in Arborfield tonight.

[matgb]

Actually, thank pickwick, seems I forgot to credit that. But yeah, it looks good.

[innerbrat]

But but but I have spirituality and reason!

For a given value of spirituality, which probably actually just means I really like meditation.

[matgb]

Meditation isn't, to my mind, 'spiritual', you're not putting faith in some outside power or field, you're just relaxing and clearing your mind, which has palpable, measurable benefits.

[innerbrat]

Understand I'm not talking about my own views here, but spirituality doesn't have to include an outside force. Lots and lots of people believe in a human spirit or soul, without the idea of an external deity or god. One of the big 6, in fact, has no external power at all.

Back to me, I use 'spiritual' to describe a state of emotion and feeling, rather than reason, I think, even if I don't believe in a soul.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

I use 'spiritual' to describe a state of emotion and feeling, rather than reason, I think, even if I don't believe in a soul.

What Debi said.

[liadnan]

Gotta admit he's got a point there

Really? Where?

[matgb]

He's a bit more militant (and dismissive) than I tend to be about other beliefs, and the main point is that society is being very accommodating to faith and spirituality, which means we end up with abominations like ID being taught in UK schools, etc.

[frightened.livejournal.com]

I really enjoyed that Charlie Brooker column. It made me go "hee". Especially Maybe you've put your faith in spiritual claptrap because our random, narrative-free universe terrifies you. But that's no solution. If you want comforting, suck your thumb.

[matgb]

Aye, I really only wanted to quote the previous para, but that bit was too good to not put in.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

See, at some point in the last few years it all got a bit post-modern for me. I was raised Catholic but studied sciences and I think both religion and rationalism require faith. There's this persistent idea, jammed into us from childhood, that the universe has this fixed, describable shape. It probably does. But we'd do a lot better trying to understand other people than trying to understand that shape.

[andrewducker]

People are part of the shape. Understanding them doesn't mean not understanding the big picture as well :->

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

For sure, but I mean a bit wider. The human landscape has got to be the primary focus of human understanding, until such time as the bulk of us have a reasonable handle on why we do the things we do. Working out why sub-atomic particles (or sky fairies) do the things they do has surely got to be a bit secondary to that?

[andrewducker]

The human landscape has got to be the primary focus of human understanding, until such time as the bulk of us have a reasonable handle on why we do the things we do.

Why?

I'm not saying it can't be, I'm just wondering why it's _got_ to be. I'm interested in understanding people - I've put a lot of time and effort into furthering my ability to do so. But I don't feel I have any right to tell other people that they shouldn't be more interested in how radios work, or why stars form, or bird mating rituals. Humans aren't magically different to everything else, and the only reason people are more interested in them is that they spend a lot of time around them, and (usually) have some insight into their behaviour because they are one. If you find something else more interesting than people, who am I to tell you not to spend your time investigating that?

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

I wasn't saying "got to" in a coercive sense but in a "surely this is the case?" sense, for which there ought to be a better word.

I think anyone with an opinion has the right to express it, even to attempt to persuade others toward it. Forcing others to follow it against their will becomes a bit dogier, but such is life.

[andrewducker]

I don't see why it is necessarily the case though. People are interesting to me, but they aren't to everyone - and there's no logical reason why they would be.

[pmoodie.livejournal.com]

You and I certainly seem to be on the same page where religion and "spirituality" are concerned. :)

Interestingly, I and several other rational people have just been getting into heated "discussion" with several "spiritual" people over on the Brit Horror forum, which resulted in me getting stressed and wanting to gnaw my own legs off. As usual with these types of dicussions, the "spiritual" people proceeded to attack "science" and say that it was nothing but a new religion. I suggested that in most cases, people who say that are too stupid and ignorant to understand the science they're being asked to "put their faith in" and they get annoyed because they don't like the idea that there are people around who are more intelligent than them. Predictably, this didn't go down too well.

I look forward to the new Dawkins programme, although I'm sure it will make me furious as these things always do. His last programme was excellent and I have The God Delusion, although I haven't read it yet.

[matgb]

Aye; I try , normally, to be tactful around people that believe; some of the people closest to me I know to be incredibly smart still have faith—el_staplador just completed a pilgrimage, susannah_banana teaches RE, but they're not doctrinaire about things.

It's more the mysticism stuff that bothers me; my old deputy, very switched on but poorly educated, believed in pretty much all the spirtual/ghists/healing energies crap, kept trying to get me to see a healer for my insomnia, etc (an insomnia which has, strangely, disappeared now I'm not in a high-stress job). Would not understand my point that placebo effects only work if you believe them.

But a lot aren't 'more stupid' or 'less intelligent', they're just ignorant, and poorly educated, and while that's partially thir fault, it's also the fault of society, their parents, their teachers, etc.

Also see comments below; people want to feel safe and secure in something, especially in an uncertain age. Religion and mysticism offers that, science just gives more questions. I like that, but most don't...

[pmoodie.livejournal.com]

But a lot aren't 'more stupid' or 'less intelligent', they're just ignorant, and poorly educated, and while that's partially thir fault, it's also the fault of society, their parents, their teachers, etc.

Hmmm. I agree up to a point, but I think people have to take responsibility for their own intellectual development.

There was nothing particularly special about my education and I was raised by Church-going parents, but at a certain point in life I realised that I'd have to look for my own answers and not just accept the vague rhetoric I was being given.

It's not as if we have an oppressive regime in this Country that controls access to information. You can go to your library, high-street bookshop or go Online and avail yourself of all the latest thinking in any scientific field.

Basically, I don't think it's good enough to blame society, parents etc. I reckon we we are as ignorant and poorly educated as we choose to be.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

Did I mention we got engaged?

You might have mentioned it once, but I think you got away with it ;)

[matgb]

In case you haven't seen it, comment below this is the one I mentioned on the phone, will try to repost it at some point.

[thapunkprincess.livejournal.com]

The main problem with Dawkins is that he grounds his argument in Enlightenment terms that circulate around the rational/irrational binary, with rational for Dawkins being the privileged term. He does a good job demonstrating that religious belief is irrational. So what? Philosophers have been making the same case against religion for centuries, I don't see what Dawkins adds that is new. Since religion is on the rise in the world, Dawkins doesn't offer anything to explain WHY - is it just that people are becoming more irrational? Why? What Dawkins neglects is the real terrain on which any contemporary discussion about religion should be held - its deployment as a motivator for social and political identities. Shoring up your identity as, say, a Christian is actually a fairly rational response to a perceived threat from the Other (Islam) when Christianity is a core part of your identity. And vice versa for Muslims. This should be the debate, not some tired old restatement of the fact that religion is, scientifically-speaking, a load of old bunkum.

[matgb]

That's actually a good point; I doubt he has any real grounding in rational choice ideas, and I really should have covered that at some point given how uch effort I put into studying it.

People are scared and fell threatened (not just by islam, but also by progress they can't understand I think), so they retreat to certainty and shared identity.

Hmm, worthy of further discussion at some point I think.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

not just by islam, but also by progress they can't understand I think

I think you're onto something that a lot of people's rejection of the scientific mindset and embracing of the relious has a lot to do with fear (springing from lack of understanding).

* really is off to bed now *

[thapunkprincess.livejournal.com]

The idea that people retreat into religion because of 'fear' of the 'scientific mindset' is possibly true to a limited extent, but do you really think Muslim girls in the UK have started wearing burkas in greater numbers in recent years because they fear Enlightened thought? Perhaps it is much more to do with the fact that 'Muslim' is not just a religious identity, but also a socio-political identity that they feel is under threat. Ditto for Christians, especially American ones. You wear your burka because your response to a crisis in the Muslim identity is to become more Muslim, just as many white British respond to the crisis of identity caused by mass immigration by becoming more white and more British. It is these socio-political aspects of a more sophisicated identity politics that should form the terrain for a debate about such matters, not this lazy, simplistic 'science vs. religion' stuff.

Fresh Hardcore Hot Action XXX Movies

[(Anonymous)]

http://fuckclit.info/1.html