The New York Post reports today that a group of two hundred or so orthodox Rabbis in New York have signed a "proclamation" claiming that the Health Department's concerns about the ritual of metzitzah b'peh - in which blood is suctioned from a male baby's circumcision wound by mouth - are "lies", spread "in order to justify their evil decree". They have also stated that even if the law is changed, they will simply ignore it.
The article I quote can be found here, but as with so many news pieces dealing with religious customs and ceremonies I can't help but feel a point is being missed. Don't misunderstand me; anything that draws attention to the entirely unnecessary dangers of circumcision, anything that might - just maybe - make a parent stop and think "wait, why am I actually allowing this to be done to my child?" is a good thing, particularly in the USA where circumcision is as much a cultural thing as an overtly religion custom and far more common than it is in the UK and much of Europe.
This, specifically, is the aspect that bothers me; all the emphasis in the proposed change to the law seems to be on avoiding the risk of herpes (and other diseases, one would like to assume), which is a danger specific to oral contact with the child's wound. It is true that babies have been killed and brain-damaged by contraction of the herpes virus during their circumcision, and of course that needs to be prevented from happening again; but by placing all the emphasis on that risk, the law-makers in New York leave their stance on more modern circumcision methods open to interpretation, and it would be very easy to conclude that it is only the oral contact specifically that carries any risk for the baby. Who knows, though? Maybe that really is their stance.
When Germany outlawed circumcision for non-medical reasons a few months ago, the decision was met with hysteria and outrage among both Jews and Muslims, with one Rabbi describing it as "perhaps the most serious attack on Jewish life since the Holocaust". Much was made of Europe's - and particularly Germany's - history of oppressing Jews, but while this past certainly can't and shouldn't be denied, nor should it be allowed to become some sort of carte blanche to do whatever you like without reference to ethical considerations or legality just because you're Jewish. It's my opinion that Germany's decision was the correct one, even though I'm certain people will find ways to flout the new law; they've considered the moral implications, and taken a stance on the issue. That speaks volumes in its own right.
Circumcision - unless for legitimate medical reasons - is one of those issues we seem perpetually to be debating and I sincerely fail to understand why. I literally don't get it. I understand that religious people hold deep convictions on this matter; in a strange sort of way, though, the religious people almost aren't the problem. WE are the problem, we who feel the need to honour their grisly traditions, we who allow them to mutilate babies - who cannot possibly have any notion of the belief system into which they are being presumptively inducted - because they believe it should be done.
Ask yourself seriously; if a parent asked a doctor (or anyone else) to cut their baby's ear off, would we consider that person a fit parent? What if they demanded not only the removal of the ear, but that the procedure be carried out in unsanitary conditions and without anaesthesia? Now what if you learned not only that people were ritually removing babies' ears in unsafe conditions for religious reasons, but were in fact up in arms at the prospect of being made to ask permission to do so?!
Male circumcision has been associated not only with communicable diseases as already detailed, but also with long-lasting psychological trauma, reduction in sexual response and confidence, and even with increased pain response throughout the body later in life. I know many men who have been circumcised (not all for religious reasons, as I have already said the practice is very common in the USA even among the non-religious), and almost all of them resent it to varying degrees. Sex is a crucial aspect of being human, one of our most primal drives (arguably the primal drive among males) and an essential part of our individual and cultural well-being. I cannot begin to imagine how violated and angry I would feel if I were forced to spend my life wondering how different - even, torturously, how much better - my enjoyment of sex might have been if someone had not wantonly lopped off an important part of my anatomy when I was too young to defend myself.
Over again we hear the same tired old arguments in favour of circumcision (apart from the religious irrelevancies, I mean); that it reduces risk of infections, that cleanliness is more assured, that it reduces risk of penile cancers, that it's desirable - weirdly - that a male child should "look like his father". Leaving aside the absurdity of that last one, the rest, I believe, will be shown to be on balance not worth the risk of the procedure. We are learning, now, to follow where evolution leads us in medicine. In the same way that more pioneering surgeons are now accepting that the best place to attach an ACL graft is almost always where the original ACL was (because evolution has shaped our complex knee joints over millions of years, through epochs in which ACLs attached in a non-optimal position would have been punished far more than they are today) I would not be surprised at all if in twenty or fifty years we learn that it really is best, medically, to leave the foreskin in place.
And aside from all that, of course, there's the issue of how far parents' (or Rabbis') "rights" to practice a religious or cultural custom should outweigh the rights of the child not to be permanently affected by that custom, both physically and psychologically. I would have no problem - in principle, although I might find myself objecting to excessive parental/cultural pressure - if an adult male, able to weigh up the risks and assess for himself the importance of the decision, were to decide to be circumcised. If that is what he wishes to do, I struggle to find any arguments that would justify anyone in opposing that decision. But to make a permanent and life-altering decision like that for a child too young to have any opinion on the subject... that, I contend, is deeply wrong and should not be considered acceptable.
We are, all of us, guilty of overlooking grisly and amoral acts committed in the name of religion that we would not even consider allowing for other reasons. I believe the gratuitous and dangerous mutilation of an infant's penis falls into that category, and I would like to see media outlets push past the unspoken taboo of religious custom and address that, rather than trivialising it by focusing on the very worst outcomes imaginable.
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
Thursday, 30 August 2012
Update on songs for Atheism
Following my post last night in which I asked for songs and music people felt appropriate to the atheist/secular movement, I've had some great feedback and suggestions. I was going to just post these under my original entry with my suggestions, but there's too many so I'll put them in a new thread.
First, though, I'm going to be shamelessy self-indulgent (hey, it's my blog) and post just two more of my own. The first one is Nina Simone's "Feeling Good", which I think is pretty self-explanatory:
This second - not to lower the mood - I want played at my funeral. Reflective, simple and beautiful. I could listen to Tom Waits all day (and frequently do) but "Take It With Me" is one of my favourites: In the comments section here, I had the following suggestions: From Xu Wang, "Saved" by Shelley Segal: From WelshKris87, Bryan Steeksma's "Listen To Reason": From Phil Meyers, Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds' "If I Had A Gun": Heretic With A Heart suggested Gogol Bordello's "Supertheory of Supereverything": Michael5MacKay offered XTC's "Dear God" (by the way, someone needs to tell me what other song that guitar riff appears in because it's putting my swede through. I'm feeling it's vaguely 70s-ish but can't pin it down) and "Ballad of Peter Pumpkinhead": Jon suggested Doris Day's Que Sera, Sera: Altair suggested this piece from the Cosmos series (for me, definitely a lie on the grass, stare at the stars get miles away one, thanks Altair!): Smegger68 recommends "Faithless" and "Freewill", both by Rush: And Phil Walder suggests "Everybody Hurts" by REM - a worthy acknowledgment, I think, that all of us, atheist and theist alike, are human and have the same feelings. (Well. Maybe not Republicans.): Meanwhile, on Twitter, Adam Bennett suggests "The Dream" by Greydon Square: ... and only1united suggested the theme tune to Ghostbusters, which made me laugh:
Anyone want to suggest any more? Keep 'em coming!
First, though, I'm going to be shamelessy self-indulgent (hey, it's my blog) and post just two more of my own. The first one is Nina Simone's "Feeling Good", which I think is pretty self-explanatory:
This second - not to lower the mood - I want played at my funeral. Reflective, simple and beautiful. I could listen to Tom Waits all day (and frequently do) but "Take It With Me" is one of my favourites: In the comments section here, I had the following suggestions: From Xu Wang, "Saved" by Shelley Segal: From WelshKris87, Bryan Steeksma's "Listen To Reason": From Phil Meyers, Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds' "If I Had A Gun": Heretic With A Heart suggested Gogol Bordello's "Supertheory of Supereverything": Michael5MacKay offered XTC's "Dear God" (by the way, someone needs to tell me what other song that guitar riff appears in because it's putting my swede through. I'm feeling it's vaguely 70s-ish but can't pin it down) and "Ballad of Peter Pumpkinhead": Jon suggested Doris Day's Que Sera, Sera: Altair suggested this piece from the Cosmos series (for me, definitely a lie on the grass, stare at the stars get miles away one, thanks Altair!): Smegger68 recommends "Faithless" and "Freewill", both by Rush: And Phil Walder suggests "Everybody Hurts" by REM - a worthy acknowledgment, I think, that all of us, atheist and theist alike, are human and have the same feelings. (Well. Maybe not Republicans.): Meanwhile, on Twitter, Adam Bennett suggests "The Dream" by Greydon Square: ... and only1united suggested the theme tune to Ghostbusters, which made me laugh:
Anyone want to suggest any more? Keep 'em coming!
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Could there be an anthem for atheism?
Occasionally I hear a piece of music that I think would be a good theme tune for the atheist movement, or for aspects of it; if atheism needed one and if I thought for a moment that atheists would ever reach a consensus on such a notion, that is.
So in a totally lighthearted and probably quite tongue-in-cheek way, I'd like to submit a few suggestions and ask anyone who reads this for their suggestions. If nothing else, I'll probably hear some new music I didn't know about. Rather embarrassingly, I can't work out whether you'll be able to post functional links in the comments, but if it turns out you can't I'll repost them as amendments to this post.
My submissions:
For when we're feeling rebellious, Rage Against the Machine's "Killing In The Name" (especially the section from about 4:15 on - I couldn't make it to the One Law For All rally for Free Expression in February this year - when that whole mess with the Jesus and Mo cartoons was at its peak - but if I had I'd've wanted to play this REALLY loudly!):
For when we're getting our geek on, Monty Python's "Universe Song": For our hippie moments, John Lennon's "Imagine": For when we want to be REEEAALLY snarky at christians, Guns n Roses' "Sympathy for the Devil" (and anyone who tries to tell me the Rolling Stones' version was better will be shot): For when we're happy and careless (and because I do love Eric Idle), Monty Python's "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life": And to illustrate JUST how far things can be open to interpretation, and because I think it's one of the most beautiful (and, now I know more about it, most bittersweet) songs ever recorded, "None of Us are Free" by Solomon Burke. I honestly thought could have been about the atheist movement the first time I heard it: And for when we just want to lie on the grass at night, stare at the stars and feel our spines tingle at how truly awesome the universe is, "Conquest of Paradise" by Vangelis (apologies for the tacky video on this one; just ignore it, look at the stars and space out with me!):
So those are mine - a few of them, anyway. Anyone have any others they want to share? Please let me know!
Luce. xx
So in a totally lighthearted and probably quite tongue-in-cheek way, I'd like to submit a few suggestions and ask anyone who reads this for their suggestions. If nothing else, I'll probably hear some new music I didn't know about. Rather embarrassingly, I can't work out whether you'll be able to post functional links in the comments, but if it turns out you can't I'll repost them as amendments to this post.
My submissions:
For when we're feeling rebellious, Rage Against the Machine's "Killing In The Name" (especially the section from about 4:15 on - I couldn't make it to the One Law For All rally for Free Expression in February this year - when that whole mess with the Jesus and Mo cartoons was at its peak - but if I had I'd've wanted to play this REALLY loudly!):
For when we're getting our geek on, Monty Python's "Universe Song": For our hippie moments, John Lennon's "Imagine": For when we want to be REEEAALLY snarky at christians, Guns n Roses' "Sympathy for the Devil" (and anyone who tries to tell me the Rolling Stones' version was better will be shot): For when we're happy and careless (and because I do love Eric Idle), Monty Python's "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life": And to illustrate JUST how far things can be open to interpretation, and because I think it's one of the most beautiful (and, now I know more about it, most bittersweet) songs ever recorded, "None of Us are Free" by Solomon Burke. I honestly thought could have been about the atheist movement the first time I heard it: And for when we just want to lie on the grass at night, stare at the stars and feel our spines tingle at how truly awesome the universe is, "Conquest of Paradise" by Vangelis (apologies for the tacky video on this one; just ignore it, look at the stars and space out with me!):
So those are mine - a few of them, anyway. Anyone have any others they want to share? Please let me know!
Luce. xx
Monday, 27 August 2012
One more post about Atheism Plus, then I'm going to try to leave it alone.
Hello again everyone.
If you've followed me here from Twitter, you probably know that I've been coming down pretty hard against Atheism Plus - in fact, the more I learn about it and the more I talk with its proponents, the more against it I become. Yes, I am deeply ornery and prone to fighting against things that demand my complicity just on principle. Ask my boss. It's more than likely that's part of my problem with the whole idea, I won't deny that - but that in itself is kind of the final point I want to make.
(Just a note before I continue, to clear up something I've been hearing a lot from people who don't like my anti-A+ stance. Do I think there is a problem with sexism (and racism and homophobia and transphobia, although sexism has been mentioned far more) within the atheist community? Absolutely; if it's happening at all - and it is - it's a problem. But in case you hadn't noticed, it's a problem fucking everywhere, among all communities. People are still being killed for being the "wrong" of the wrong race, gender or sexuality. This - rather obviously - is not OK. When I object to A+, I object to their methods, not the the ideology behind them.)
My partner has a career that has made him supremely talented at managing people (or has just revealed the talent. Either way.). Dwight Eisenhower described good leadership as "[t]he art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it". That's my partner; he's a genius in the specialised field of making people feel invested in what HE wants them to do, and therefore inclined to make a greater effort.
When I've asked him how he does it (there are occasions when I think it would be a useful skill, such as when I'm talking my way out of getting sacked for being an unmanageable bastard), I've got the impression most of it is just instinctive and probably related to being one of those special people who just like other people. One thing about it that he has been able to distill and articulate for me, though, is that people respond best when they're made to feel good about themselves.
This, in a nutshell, is why Atheism Plus is getting shot to shit on Twitter and elsewhere. The fact is that you cannot label your group new and improved without by extension labeling everyone else old and inferior. You cannot call yourself morally superior without telling everyone else they're morally inferior. You can't pronounce yourself moral arbiter without telling everyone else their opinion matters less than your own (or not at all, if you're Richard Carrier). Thus - INSTANTLY - Atheism Plus has made everyone who wasn't involved from the very beginning feel misjudged, wronged and vilified. At this point, it barely matters what your intentions were (although I'm astonished that no one behind this little clique realised just how insulting is was to every other non-believer, secularist and humanist in the world); you're asking people to join a movement whose opening gambit is to tell them they're not good enough. Very few people are going to respond favourably to that.
There's one other problem with assuming someone is a tosser until they prove themselves otherwise (and it's multiplied when the only criteria you'll accept is to be exactly the same as you and willing to submit to your definition of a decent person). You are making an unfavourable assumption about another person based on no information. If you are right, you are as unfair and prejudiced as they are. If you are wrong, you are worse than they are. There is no way in which this can be said NOT to make you unjustifiably judgmental and prejudiced.
So that's my piece. I've been tweeting vociferously about this over the last week or so, and long since reached the stage where I physically cannot respond to every question and shriek of indignation I receive. Apologies to anyone who's tweeted a question and not received a reply (if you've tweeted to call me a bigot for refusing to presumptively label other people bigots - well, up yours, quite frankly. Are you seeing how this works yet? Note though; I WILL NOT block someone for giving me stick, disagreeing with me or calling me names. That's both cowardly and unbearably self-important coming from an internet nobody with a blog. I don't have any sort of right not to hear opinions I don't like.).
If you like this post or any other I've written about Atheism Plus, please feel free to refer people to it; however, I'm going to take on my own combative (read argumentative tosspot) nature and try very hard not to get involved any further in this particular argument - I will still be blogging and tweeting about other stuff, though. It's just that I kind of need to eat, sleep and earn money occasionally!
Peace, yawl. Chill your beans.
If you've followed me here from Twitter, you probably know that I've been coming down pretty hard against Atheism Plus - in fact, the more I learn about it and the more I talk with its proponents, the more against it I become. Yes, I am deeply ornery and prone to fighting against things that demand my complicity just on principle. Ask my boss. It's more than likely that's part of my problem with the whole idea, I won't deny that - but that in itself is kind of the final point I want to make.
(Just a note before I continue, to clear up something I've been hearing a lot from people who don't like my anti-A+ stance. Do I think there is a problem with sexism (and racism and homophobia and transphobia, although sexism has been mentioned far more) within the atheist community? Absolutely; if it's happening at all - and it is - it's a problem. But in case you hadn't noticed, it's a problem fucking everywhere, among all communities. People are still being killed for being the "wrong" of the wrong race, gender or sexuality. This - rather obviously - is not OK. When I object to A+, I object to their methods, not the the ideology behind them.)
My partner has a career that has made him supremely talented at managing people (or has just revealed the talent. Either way.). Dwight Eisenhower described good leadership as "[t]he art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it". That's my partner; he's a genius in the specialised field of making people feel invested in what HE wants them to do, and therefore inclined to make a greater effort.
When I've asked him how he does it (there are occasions when I think it would be a useful skill, such as when I'm talking my way out of getting sacked for being an unmanageable bastard), I've got the impression most of it is just instinctive and probably related to being one of those special people who just like other people. One thing about it that he has been able to distill and articulate for me, though, is that people respond best when they're made to feel good about themselves.
This, in a nutshell, is why Atheism Plus is getting shot to shit on Twitter and elsewhere. The fact is that you cannot label your group new and improved without by extension labeling everyone else old and inferior. You cannot call yourself morally superior without telling everyone else they're morally inferior. You can't pronounce yourself moral arbiter without telling everyone else their opinion matters less than your own (or not at all, if you're Richard Carrier). Thus - INSTANTLY - Atheism Plus has made everyone who wasn't involved from the very beginning feel misjudged, wronged and vilified. At this point, it barely matters what your intentions were (although I'm astonished that no one behind this little clique realised just how insulting is was to every other non-believer, secularist and humanist in the world); you're asking people to join a movement whose opening gambit is to tell them they're not good enough. Very few people are going to respond favourably to that.
There's one other problem with assuming someone is a tosser until they prove themselves otherwise (and it's multiplied when the only criteria you'll accept is to be exactly the same as you and willing to submit to your definition of a decent person). You are making an unfavourable assumption about another person based on no information. If you are right, you are as unfair and prejudiced as they are. If you are wrong, you are worse than they are. There is no way in which this can be said NOT to make you unjustifiably judgmental and prejudiced.
So that's my piece. I've been tweeting vociferously about this over the last week or so, and long since reached the stage where I physically cannot respond to every question and shriek of indignation I receive. Apologies to anyone who's tweeted a question and not received a reply (if you've tweeted to call me a bigot for refusing to presumptively label other people bigots - well, up yours, quite frankly. Are you seeing how this works yet? Note though; I WILL NOT block someone for giving me stick, disagreeing with me or calling me names. That's both cowardly and unbearably self-important coming from an internet nobody with a blog. I don't have any sort of right not to hear opinions I don't like.).
If you like this post or any other I've written about Atheism Plus, please feel free to refer people to it; however, I'm going to take on my own combative (read argumentative tosspot) nature and try very hard not to get involved any further in this particular argument - I will still be blogging and tweeting about other stuff, though. It's just that I kind of need to eat, sleep and earn money occasionally!
Peace, yawl. Chill your beans.
Follow up to the Pakistan "blasphemy" case.
Last week I wrote a post about the brutal injustice suffered by a child in Pakistan, who had been arrested on charges of "blasphemy" after being accused of burning pages from the Qur'an. My thoughts at the time can be seen here. Although the story was everywhere for a few days - with the USA, laudably, officially registering their "concern" about the case - little has been heard since the child's arrest so I thought I should do some digging.
I'm pleased to report that - possibly due to the outrage expressed by multiple media outlets as well as pressure from other nations - the news is better than I was tempted to expect.
It is now being reported by outlets in India and in Pakistan itself that there is no hard evidence that the burned material found in the child's possession included any part of the Qur'an. Let me make something clear; this is not me validating, conceding or in any way assenting to the view that THIS is what makes burning a book OK - I'm just passing on what I've learned. Reading between the lines from previous information and another couple of interesting "clarifications", part of me thinks there may well have been Qur'anic material, but that pressure has persuaded the Pakistan authorities to deny this.
In a related clarification, police official Zabi Ullah now states that girl can be held for only fourteen days while the matter is investigated. Another police official who did not wish to be named stated that the evidence against the child is such as to mean there is "nothing much to the case", and that he expected her to be released at the end of the holding period once anger in the region has dissipated. That, of course, is a matter of huge concern; a community of several hundred people has been driven from its homes by a mere accusation; in such an atmosphere, it is not unreasonable to fear that the child and others of her community may remain at risk when she is released.
There is still much confusion on the case; the age of the child has been variously given as eleven and sixteen. There are still reports that she may be mentally disabled. The Times of India quotes a Vatican representative who states she is entirely illiterate. None of that affects or ameliorates the horror of arresting a child, of course - or the insanity of arresting anyone for something so banal as burning a book.
Sadly - and perhaps tellingly - the Pakistan Ministry of Human Rights is offering no comment or press release material specific to this matter that I was able to find.
It may well be that this matter will resolve itself more justly than we might have expected, although of course it's disgraceful that it ever happened in the first place. However, this is by no means certain and if the clarifications given are more a concession to pressure than an elucidation of existing facts (and I by no means state that as a fact), that tells us that pressure may still be necessary. If, like me, you are concerned about what will happen to this girl and to her family, I encourage you to visit this page and send emails to the people who may be able to influence the outcome. The content is up to you, of course, but I recommend registering your opinion on "blasphemy" laws and seeking reassurance that the child will be released once it is safe (preferably with mechanisms in place to assure that latter point) for her to return to her community.
I'm pleased to report that - possibly due to the outrage expressed by multiple media outlets as well as pressure from other nations - the news is better than I was tempted to expect.
It is now being reported by outlets in India and in Pakistan itself that there is no hard evidence that the burned material found in the child's possession included any part of the Qur'an. Let me make something clear; this is not me validating, conceding or in any way assenting to the view that THIS is what makes burning a book OK - I'm just passing on what I've learned. Reading between the lines from previous information and another couple of interesting "clarifications", part of me thinks there may well have been Qur'anic material, but that pressure has persuaded the Pakistan authorities to deny this.
In a related clarification, police official Zabi Ullah now states that girl can be held for only fourteen days while the matter is investigated. Another police official who did not wish to be named stated that the evidence against the child is such as to mean there is "nothing much to the case", and that he expected her to be released at the end of the holding period once anger in the region has dissipated. That, of course, is a matter of huge concern; a community of several hundred people has been driven from its homes by a mere accusation; in such an atmosphere, it is not unreasonable to fear that the child and others of her community may remain at risk when she is released.
There is still much confusion on the case; the age of the child has been variously given as eleven and sixteen. There are still reports that she may be mentally disabled. The Times of India quotes a Vatican representative who states she is entirely illiterate. None of that affects or ameliorates the horror of arresting a child, of course - or the insanity of arresting anyone for something so banal as burning a book.
Sadly - and perhaps tellingly - the Pakistan Ministry of Human Rights is offering no comment or press release material specific to this matter that I was able to find.
It may well be that this matter will resolve itself more justly than we might have expected, although of course it's disgraceful that it ever happened in the first place. However, this is by no means certain and if the clarifications given are more a concession to pressure than an elucidation of existing facts (and I by no means state that as a fact), that tells us that pressure may still be necessary. If, like me, you are concerned about what will happen to this girl and to her family, I encourage you to visit this page and send emails to the people who may be able to influence the outcome. The content is up to you, of course, but I recommend registering your opinion on "blasphemy" laws and seeking reassurance that the child will be released once it is safe (preferably with mechanisms in place to assure that latter point) for her to return to her community.
A surreal but wonderful way to spend a weekend
Hi everyone,
As some of my twitter friends know, I've been whinging about being exhausted, bruised and blistered. While I can't boast an experience of quiiite the level of enjoyment the above apparently suggests to certain people who shall remain nameless (and whose idea of good sex I find slightly unnerving), I'm happy to report I've had a weekend very nearly that fun.
This weekend there's an event called the Ancestor's Trail that takes place in the Quantock Hills in Somerset. It's based on the The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins, and as he commented himself; many writers have had their works turned into films, but how many can boast that they've been turned into a walk? The whole thing's actually carrying on this morning (it's a bank holiday in the UK), but sadly I couldn't make the entire weekend and came home last night.
The Saturday night in particular turned into one of the most bizarre but enjoyable evenings in my experience. I went to the event not really knowing what I expected, but dancing to Russian folk music with Richard Dawkins definitely wasn't high on the list of possibilities I'd considered. I wasn't able to get any photos, but if anyone who was there reads this and has any they'd be willing to share with me please let me know!
On Saturday evening, we were treated to a series of talks by a disparate but consistently charismatic group of speakers. This started with Peter Exley of the RSPB, who delivered a talk on the conservationist work of his organisation in general (hint; despite what you might think, it's NOT just about birds!) and with reference to the Albatross in particular. The link from Coleridge's walk in the Quantocks to his eerie and haunting work The Rime of the Ancient Mariner was irresistible and an excellent tool because it gave each of us, I believe, a sense of depth and an investment in the magnificent bird that we might not otherwise have felt. The RSPB's campaign to save the albatross can be found here if anyone would like to make a donation: http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campaigns/albatross/
Kevin Cox from the World Land Trust was next, and I have to say that some of the figures he delivered were utterly terrifying. The WLT operates by buying up chunks of land in regions where it's in danger of being destroyed by logging or agriculture; in doing so, of course, they save literally thousands of species whose habitat would otherwise have disappeared altogether. They're a small organisation and when one considers what they're up against it might be possible to conclude that they're fighting a losing battle. Cox's passion for his cause, though, was obvious and contagious, and the very smallness of the WLT when contrasted against what they've managed to achieve is a testament to what can be done by a small group of people with enough determination; their donations page can be found here: http://www.worldlandtrust.org/supporting/donate. David Attenborough is a patron of the charity - he would approve!
The next speaker was Dr. Alex Taylor from the MRC lab in Cambridge. Here we made the switch from conservation to "harder" science; his talk about XNA (synthetic and modified DNA/RNA) was meaty and fascinating. I wouldn't be confident enough in my own understanding to try and replicate (ha!) what was said in any detail, but Dr. Taylor's blog can be found here and I promise it'll blow your mind: http://talesfromthenobelfactory.posterous.com/
We had a talk then from Alom Shaha, the author of The Young Atheist's Handbook. For me, speaking honestly, this was the only sour note of the evening. Nobody reacts well to being told they're too stupid/ignorant to be science advocates, atheists - typically somewhat contrary by nature - least of all. Shaha made some very valid points about the comparative difficulty in "coming out" as an atheist from starting points in different cultural backgrounds - which results in the admittedly rather homogenous white, middle-class nature of atheist and humanist groups - but again, the approach was such that my gut reaction was to think "I'm sorry, I'll work on being less middle-class, shall I?!". I should be honest and admit that I have not read Shaha's book. Many people I spoke with at the event said they were very impressed by it, so it's entirely possible that Shaha comes across better in print than in person, or that I reacted badly to one thing he said and became hypercritical from then on. If anyone reading this has read the book, do please let me know what you thought of it in the comments section below!
Then, of course, we had the keynote speech from Richard Dawkins. In writing that, I just caught myself about to call him "the global rock star of atheism", and stopped myself because - having talked with him briefly later in the evening - I understand that he thinks of himself far more as a scientist than as an atheist. A reasonable assertion, in fairness; having read most of Professor Dawkins' books, it does seem unfair on reflection that he's so widely known for a single unbelief among a near infinite number of unbeliefs. Moving on from that, then, Professor Dawkins talked us through the principles of the journey laid out in The Ancestor's Tale, and from there went on to describe some of the ways to think about what would happen if we "replayed the tape" of evolution, and what we could expect by doing so. When I first read the book this concept, this thought experiment, was one of the most fascinating ideas for me. The notion that evolution can be in a sense predictive by looking at how many times certain developments have independently evolved is wonderful; no matter how many times I hear about the diving bell spider it seems too astonishing to be real. The Ancestor's Tale is probably my favourite of Professor Dawkins' books; I recommend it to everyone, and it can be found here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Ancestors-Tale-Pilgrimage-Dawn/dp/0753819961/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346057984&sr=8-1
After the talks, we had the rare and lovely opportunity to drink and chat with the speakers; I was able to ask a slightly moronic question about prion disease of Dr. Taylor (the reason it was moronic was that I hadn't accounted for the energy gradient, but he was very nice about it), and had a good natter with Andrew Copson, the unfailingly charming CEO of the BHA, too.
One of the most wonderful aspects of the gathering, I think, was that virtually everyone had come on their own. This meant that there were few preexisting cliques, so by the end of my two days there I'd had entertaining, informative and often wickedly funny conversations with just about everybody there, and made many new friends. I've commented before that the sense of community and good will at humanist events is remarkable and wonderful; this was possibly the best example I've had yet of that feeling. In fact, if I had to choose a way of making humanism more appealing to theists, then - contradictory as it sounds - I would encourage them to attend science-led humanist events so they can see we're NOT the joyless, humourless, rigidly empirical people we're often portrayed to be.
The big walk took place on the Sunday, and although my feet were ready to fall off by the end of the thirteen-mile human trail it was worth every step. The countryside in the area is achingly beautiful, and the talks of the night before had been the perfect set-up because we all spent the entire hike distracted and entranced by every bird, butterfly and spider we saw. (I also got chased - honestly round in circles for a good five minutes - by an amorous bee to the raucous amusement of the c.120 people who'd just sat down facing in my direction to listen to a poem about the great extinctions, though that was only enjoyable in retrospect.)
Things I have learned this weekend:
If you need new inner soles for your walking boots, get them before the thirteen-mile hike. Ouch.
Scientists can be very nice even when you're asking really dumb questions. Just ask, they're not scary.
When people who live in the country tell you something's ten minutes' walk away, pack your camping gear.
Evolution is really, really cool (I knew that already, but we all need reminding at times).
Humanists and geeks are great fun.
Richard Dawkins can throw shapes with the best of them.
Coffee + alcohol + extreme tiredness can lead to the best of evenings.
Other geeks can recommend a near-endless list of fascinating reading material, and I don't know where to start!
As some of my twitter friends know, I've been whinging about being exhausted, bruised and blistered. While I can't boast an experience of quiiite the level of enjoyment the above apparently suggests to certain people who shall remain nameless (and whose idea of good sex I find slightly unnerving), I'm happy to report I've had a weekend very nearly that fun.
This weekend there's an event called the Ancestor's Trail that takes place in the Quantock Hills in Somerset. It's based on the The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins, and as he commented himself; many writers have had their works turned into films, but how many can boast that they've been turned into a walk? The whole thing's actually carrying on this morning (it's a bank holiday in the UK), but sadly I couldn't make the entire weekend and came home last night.
The Saturday night in particular turned into one of the most bizarre but enjoyable evenings in my experience. I went to the event not really knowing what I expected, but dancing to Russian folk music with Richard Dawkins definitely wasn't high on the list of possibilities I'd considered. I wasn't able to get any photos, but if anyone who was there reads this and has any they'd be willing to share with me please let me know!
On Saturday evening, we were treated to a series of talks by a disparate but consistently charismatic group of speakers. This started with Peter Exley of the RSPB, who delivered a talk on the conservationist work of his organisation in general (hint; despite what you might think, it's NOT just about birds!) and with reference to the Albatross in particular. The link from Coleridge's walk in the Quantocks to his eerie and haunting work The Rime of the Ancient Mariner was irresistible and an excellent tool because it gave each of us, I believe, a sense of depth and an investment in the magnificent bird that we might not otherwise have felt. The RSPB's campaign to save the albatross can be found here if anyone would like to make a donation: http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campaigns/albatross/
Kevin Cox from the World Land Trust was next, and I have to say that some of the figures he delivered were utterly terrifying. The WLT operates by buying up chunks of land in regions where it's in danger of being destroyed by logging or agriculture; in doing so, of course, they save literally thousands of species whose habitat would otherwise have disappeared altogether. They're a small organisation and when one considers what they're up against it might be possible to conclude that they're fighting a losing battle. Cox's passion for his cause, though, was obvious and contagious, and the very smallness of the WLT when contrasted against what they've managed to achieve is a testament to what can be done by a small group of people with enough determination; their donations page can be found here: http://www.worldlandtrust.org/supporting/donate. David Attenborough is a patron of the charity - he would approve!
The next speaker was Dr. Alex Taylor from the MRC lab in Cambridge. Here we made the switch from conservation to "harder" science; his talk about XNA (synthetic and modified DNA/RNA) was meaty and fascinating. I wouldn't be confident enough in my own understanding to try and replicate (ha!) what was said in any detail, but Dr. Taylor's blog can be found here and I promise it'll blow your mind: http://talesfromthenobelfactory.posterous.com/
We had a talk then from Alom Shaha, the author of The Young Atheist's Handbook. For me, speaking honestly, this was the only sour note of the evening. Nobody reacts well to being told they're too stupid/ignorant to be science advocates, atheists - typically somewhat contrary by nature - least of all. Shaha made some very valid points about the comparative difficulty in "coming out" as an atheist from starting points in different cultural backgrounds - which results in the admittedly rather homogenous white, middle-class nature of atheist and humanist groups - but again, the approach was such that my gut reaction was to think "I'm sorry, I'll work on being less middle-class, shall I?!". I should be honest and admit that I have not read Shaha's book. Many people I spoke with at the event said they were very impressed by it, so it's entirely possible that Shaha comes across better in print than in person, or that I reacted badly to one thing he said and became hypercritical from then on. If anyone reading this has read the book, do please let me know what you thought of it in the comments section below!
Then, of course, we had the keynote speech from Richard Dawkins. In writing that, I just caught myself about to call him "the global rock star of atheism", and stopped myself because - having talked with him briefly later in the evening - I understand that he thinks of himself far more as a scientist than as an atheist. A reasonable assertion, in fairness; having read most of Professor Dawkins' books, it does seem unfair on reflection that he's so widely known for a single unbelief among a near infinite number of unbeliefs. Moving on from that, then, Professor Dawkins talked us through the principles of the journey laid out in The Ancestor's Tale, and from there went on to describe some of the ways to think about what would happen if we "replayed the tape" of evolution, and what we could expect by doing so. When I first read the book this concept, this thought experiment, was one of the most fascinating ideas for me. The notion that evolution can be in a sense predictive by looking at how many times certain developments have independently evolved is wonderful; no matter how many times I hear about the diving bell spider it seems too astonishing to be real. The Ancestor's Tale is probably my favourite of Professor Dawkins' books; I recommend it to everyone, and it can be found here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Ancestors-Tale-Pilgrimage-Dawn/dp/0753819961/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346057984&sr=8-1
After the talks, we had the rare and lovely opportunity to drink and chat with the speakers; I was able to ask a slightly moronic question about prion disease of Dr. Taylor (the reason it was moronic was that I hadn't accounted for the energy gradient, but he was very nice about it), and had a good natter with Andrew Copson, the unfailingly charming CEO of the BHA, too.
One of the most wonderful aspects of the gathering, I think, was that virtually everyone had come on their own. This meant that there were few preexisting cliques, so by the end of my two days there I'd had entertaining, informative and often wickedly funny conversations with just about everybody there, and made many new friends. I've commented before that the sense of community and good will at humanist events is remarkable and wonderful; this was possibly the best example I've had yet of that feeling. In fact, if I had to choose a way of making humanism more appealing to theists, then - contradictory as it sounds - I would encourage them to attend science-led humanist events so they can see we're NOT the joyless, humourless, rigidly empirical people we're often portrayed to be.
The big walk took place on the Sunday, and although my feet were ready to fall off by the end of the thirteen-mile human trail it was worth every step. The countryside in the area is achingly beautiful, and the talks of the night before had been the perfect set-up because we all spent the entire hike distracted and entranced by every bird, butterfly and spider we saw. (I also got chased - honestly round in circles for a good five minutes - by an amorous bee to the raucous amusement of the c.120 people who'd just sat down facing in my direction to listen to a poem about the great extinctions, though that was only enjoyable in retrospect.)
Things I have learned this weekend:
If you need new inner soles for your walking boots, get them before the thirteen-mile hike. Ouch.
Scientists can be very nice even when you're asking really dumb questions. Just ask, they're not scary.
When people who live in the country tell you something's ten minutes' walk away, pack your camping gear.
Evolution is really, really cool (I knew that already, but we all need reminding at times).
Humanists and geeks are great fun.
Richard Dawkins can throw shapes with the best of them.
Coffee + alcohol + extreme tiredness can lead to the best of evenings.
Other geeks can recommend a near-endless list of fascinating reading material, and I don't know where to start!
Thursday, 23 August 2012
Update on Atheism Plus - I think I've identified the problem
Since my last post, I've had conversations with Greta Christina, Jen McCreight and a couple of others on the subject of Atheism Plus. These conversations took me through even-more-confused-about-it territory, but I think I've now grasped it enough to form my opinion on it.
There are two main problems with A+ as I see it; one I can overlook and one I can't.
The problem I can get over is an issue with communication. Richard Carrier's representation of A+ - linked in my last post - does seem to be genuinely a misrepresentation of the movement. What started as a move to more actively exclude sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and other nastinesses (which violates my value for free speech on the surface, but is necessary - as Greta points out - when the alternative is tacitly excluding the groups of people targeted by those nastinesses) seems to have been seized by Carrier as a pretext to exclude anyone he doesn't like. Worse, "people Carrier doesn't like" can apparently be defined as anyone not willing to gang up on and exclude non-A+ers even when they've done nothing objectionable.
It would be nice to see McCreight and others disavow Carrier's sentiments, because having seen the contrast between what he means by A+ and what everyone else seems to mean, they've got more reason to be furious with him than anyone else. However, even if they won't do that it is possible that he could simply be left behind by a more reasonable A+ movement - if that happened, it would be possible to get on board with it even given its inauspicious beginning.
However, I said there was a problem I couldn't get around, and that hasn't been shifted. After reading McCreight's clarification post (which can be found here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/responding-to-common-misconceptions-about-atheism/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fblaghag+%28FTB%3A+Blag+Hag%29) I tweeted her with what, to me, was the most important question: "Is it the label or the values that matter?"
The reply I received was "The values", which is in one way the better answer of the two options I offered. However, it did - finally! - help me to identify why I've been feeling so insulted by the whole A+ thing.
What it amounts to for me is this; I AM an A+, in values. I AM opposed to sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and all that stuff (in principle, at least; I don't claim to know everything, so I'm sure I fall short of perfection at times).
I resent the requirement that's been imposed on me by some random atheists on the internet to effectively adopt a label that - from my POV - says nothing more significant than "not a dick", which really shouldn't need saying. I resent the idea that these principles that I consider merely part of being "not a dick" are something novel, noteworthy, deserving of everybody's attention. I resent the implication that I needed some random atheist bloggers to teach me how to be "not a dick". And most of all, I resent the way I'm being emotionally blackmailed with it; according to the proponents of Atheism Plus, I can either identify myself as something that ought to go without saying OR be assumed to be a dick. What the A+ movement has given me is a choice between allying myself with them and crediting them with my being "not a dick", or losing the right to be assumed to be "not a dick", a right I had enjoyed for free until now.
Gee, thanks guys. I can see why THIS idea's been a big hit so far.
There are two main problems with A+ as I see it; one I can overlook and one I can't.
The problem I can get over is an issue with communication. Richard Carrier's representation of A+ - linked in my last post - does seem to be genuinely a misrepresentation of the movement. What started as a move to more actively exclude sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and other nastinesses (which violates my value for free speech on the surface, but is necessary - as Greta points out - when the alternative is tacitly excluding the groups of people targeted by those nastinesses) seems to have been seized by Carrier as a pretext to exclude anyone he doesn't like. Worse, "people Carrier doesn't like" can apparently be defined as anyone not willing to gang up on and exclude non-A+ers even when they've done nothing objectionable.
It would be nice to see McCreight and others disavow Carrier's sentiments, because having seen the contrast between what he means by A+ and what everyone else seems to mean, they've got more reason to be furious with him than anyone else. However, even if they won't do that it is possible that he could simply be left behind by a more reasonable A+ movement - if that happened, it would be possible to get on board with it even given its inauspicious beginning.
However, I said there was a problem I couldn't get around, and that hasn't been shifted. After reading McCreight's clarification post (which can be found here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/responding-to-common-misconceptions-about-atheism/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fblaghag+%28FTB%3A+Blag+Hag%29) I tweeted her with what, to me, was the most important question: "Is it the label or the values that matter?"
The reply I received was "The values", which is in one way the better answer of the two options I offered. However, it did - finally! - help me to identify why I've been feeling so insulted by the whole A+ thing.
What it amounts to for me is this; I AM an A+, in values. I AM opposed to sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and all that stuff (in principle, at least; I don't claim to know everything, so I'm sure I fall short of perfection at times).
I resent the requirement that's been imposed on me by some random atheists on the internet to effectively adopt a label that - from my POV - says nothing more significant than "not a dick", which really shouldn't need saying. I resent the idea that these principles that I consider merely part of being "not a dick" are something novel, noteworthy, deserving of everybody's attention. I resent the implication that I needed some random atheist bloggers to teach me how to be "not a dick". And most of all, I resent the way I'm being emotionally blackmailed with it; according to the proponents of Atheism Plus, I can either identify myself as something that ought to go without saying OR be assumed to be a dick. What the A+ movement has given me is a choice between allying myself with them and crediting them with my being "not a dick", or losing the right to be assumed to be "not a dick", a right I had enjoyed for free until now.
Gee, thanks guys. I can see why THIS idea's been a big hit so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)