As I always seem to be saying: never underestimate the human capacity for self-delusion. Here’s another example, from Dr. J. Carter-Wood, over at Obscene Desserts: the Nuwabians. And it’s a doozy, let me tell you. But don’t take my word for it, let John lay it out for you, and be sure to check out the photographic essay by A. Scott. Words fail me.
Category: Society
-
A Land Called Paradise
As something of an antidote to all the "fear and loathing" stories that I seem to read these days in the media, here’s a music video:(hat tip to Rachel) -
Snuffed Out
Lord, this sort of thing is depressing. Human rights should outweigh cultural rights every time. Obviously something that Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy doesn’t agree with, may Allah damn his soul. -
A Plea For Violence
When I read things like this, I realise that some people’s thinking is completely alien to me, and that I am not a cultural relativist. -
The Edge Question for 2008
After you’ve read the Richard Dawkins essay that I referred to a couple of days ago, I hope that you will go to the Edge to read the answers from the rest of the 163 contributors to this year’s question: What have you changed your mind about? Why? -
The Banality of Evil?
It’s become almost a mantra these days to believe that anyone, given the right circumstances, is capable of committing evil acts. After all, look at the experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo. In the light of this, it’s interesting to come across this article in The Psychologist that questions that view of "the banality of evil". The traditional view is that:…psychologists and historians have agreed that ordinary people commit evil when, under the influence of leaders and groups, they become blind to the consequences of their actions. This consensus has become so strong that it is repeated, almost as a mantra, in psychology textbooks and in society at large.But the alternative view might be:People do great wrong, not because they are unaware of what they are doing but because they consider it to be right. This is possible because they actively identify with groups whose ideology justifies and condones the oppression and destruction of others.As the authors say, this raises a whole set of new questions that perhaps should be pursued. -
He’s Baaack!
Dylan Evans, I mean. I’ve mentioned him before, as he does seem to write an awful lot of what strikes me as the purest codswallop. He’s popped up again in today’s Guardian. This time his thesis is that the boisterous play that was once an accepted feature of boys’ behaviour is now ruthlessly curbed by a feminist-inspired thought police. Cough. As one of the female commentors on his piece so aptly says:Oh for goodness sake – when will boys get over the fear that we’re going to chop their willies off!Quite. -
Bankrupt Moral Capital
I see that yesterday’s Observer carried a piece by Richard Harries (ex-Bishop of Oxford, and now Lord Harries of Pentregarth) defending his friend, Richard Dawkins, against those who claim that morality is not possible without religion. He summarises some of the arguments that Dawkins has given to state that it is possible to be moral without God. Naturally, Harries, as a believer, then makes the sideways move of stating that:…all of us, whatever we believe or do not believe, have been created in the image of God and this means we have an ability not only to think, but to have some insight into what is right and what is wrong.A case of "heads I win, tails you lose", it seems to me.But then he goes on to use another argument that I had not come across before (I lead a sheltered life): the argument of moral capital. He says:First, many people who have strong moral commitments without any religious foundation were shaped by parents or grandparents for whom morality and religion were fundamentally bound up. Moreover, many of those in the forefront of progressive political change, who have abandoned religion, have been driven by a humanism that has been essentially built up by our Christian heritage as Charles Taylor has recently brought out in his magisterial study, A Secular Age. How far are we living on moral capital?This does strike me as a rather shaky proposition. I am reminded of a somewhat similar argument used by those who are not in favour of same-sex marriage, because it will destroy traditional marriage. It’s as though they think there is only a fixed amount of love to go round… Moral capital seems to be an equally dubious idea. The philosopher Stephen Law examines the concept further here and here, and comes to the conclusion that:…the most serious difficulty with this move is that it’s simply unjustified. Why suppose all these ethically committed atheists are living off the religious capital built up by previous generations, and that this capital must inevitably run out, with disastrous consequences? What’s the evidence for this claim? We are offered none. Except of course for some vague hand-waving in the direction of the moral malaise. But as it’s precisely the moral malaise argument that morality can’t be sustained without religion that this “religious capital” claim is supposed to salvage, the moral malaise argument can’t then be used to support the religious capital claim. That would be circular reasoning. -
So It Goes… II
Double damn. John Moore was present at Benazir Bhutto’s last moments. Tragic and terrifying, but also the moment to affirm that those responsible shall not prevail. -
Beauty and Truth
Oh gawd, Theo Hobson is writing twaddle again. And, yet again, he conjures up a Dawkins strawman and imagines his Dawkins puppet saying things that actually are 180 degrees away from what Dawkins has publicly said on the matter. Tiresome.Update: The comments thread provides endless amusement. Not the least being someone who purports to be Theo Hobson himself, who penned the deathless sentiment: "You are either for or against the Baby Jesus." I’m inclined to think that the commenter (TheoHobson) must be a sockpuppet. Theo himself surely couldn’t be so crass and idiotic, could he? -
Family History Revisited
Earlier this year, I blogged about a piece of our family history. As a result, I was contacted by a distant relative, and we’ve been able to piece together some more details about my great-great-great grandfather and great-great grandparents. She provided us with this photo of the great-great grandparents. I’ve updated the original blog entry. Fascinating stuff.
-
A Horror Story
Carolyn Jessop tells her tale. The horror is made all the more appalling because it is a true story. Hopefully, there is a happy ending.Update: John Carter Wood adds some worthwhile comment to the story. What I find the ultimate, depressing horror in this is that humans are all too willing to be complicit in their own degradation. In this case, it is the other handmaids who are willing to subject another woman to a sordid life.Update 2: And then you get people such as Frédérique Apffel Marglin. I’m sorry, but words fail me. Such a crass anti-human mode of thought makes me wonder if the pod-people are truly amongst us. -
Walking On The Moon
Alastair Appleton writes about going to see the documentary film: In The Shadow Of The Moon with his mum and dad, and recalling some of the emotions he had as a child about the times. It is amazing to think that it is now nearly forty years ago that a man first stepped onto the surface of the moon. I was lying in bed, drifting in and out of sleep, watching a tiny TV with terrible reception at the time. I woke up just after Armstrong stepped onto the surface and so I missed his famous words. Typical.Appleton captures the wonder and the almost rickety nature of this great human adventure. As one of the early astronauts, John Glenn, once said when asked what went through his mind while awaiting the moment of blastoff, it was: "this rocket has twenty thousand components, and each was made by the lowest bidder." -
Friendship and Soccer
According to Scott Atran, these may be just as important as religion in what goes to forge a terrorist. He puts forward his thesis in this session from Beyond Belief: Enlightment 2.0. His presentation starts at about 1 hour and 21 minutes in.I have to say that I found it extremely persuasive. Yes, he comes across to some as being smug, and perhaps he downplays the role of religion in terrorism; but to counter that I would say that he does seem to have the data on his side. His analysis of the data behind the Madrid bombings was very powerful, I thought.Excellent stuff and very thought-provoking. -
A Miracle
Good heavens, Theo Hobson has written an article that I actually agree with. It’s a Christmas Miracle! -
Law and Lawson
There’s an interesting debate shaping up over at Stephen Law’s blog about whether faith schools are a good idea. Law’s position is that, too often, children at such schools are not exposed to critical thinking on the faith of the school, or even taught comparative religion. He’s had a response from Ibrahim Lawson, the founding head teacher of Islamia School. So far, I am more persuaded by Law’s arguments than by Lawson’s. No surprise there, then.Update 13 December 2007: Is it just me, but isn’t this response from Lawson just obfuscating hand-waving?I feel that I want to take a large needle and prick a windbag full of hot air. Appalling.
Geoff Coupe's Blog 