anniemiz

Talk Amongst Yourselves

Alright people, I'm feeling uninspired today so I shall direct your attention elsewhere.  A few links:

The post, I missed the memo, at unfogged generated some interesting comments.  From the original post:

Do people really abort because they find out the baby has Down's Syndrome? I thought that people had abortions because of the mother's circumstances, the mother's health, or because the baby had such severe abnormalities that it would only live a year or two.

But lately all these people have come out of the woodwork saying, "Yeah, we would have aborted it if it had had Down's." Really? Am I totally out of touch with the baby calculus going on in other people's heads?

Annnnnnd...did you know that, in NJ, you can vote by absentee ballot for any or no reason at all?  I did not know that...until yesterday.  From the NJ Division of Elections website page on Absentee Voting:

In New Jersey, any voter can now vote by Absentee Ballot for any election. You do not need a reason to vote by Absentee Ballot. Don't feel like going to the polls? Simply vote by mail. Now there is "no excuse" not to vote!

A voter may apply for an absentee ballot by completing an Absentee Ballot Application (see below) and mailing the application to their County Clerk by mail up to 7 days prior to the election. A voter may also apply in person to the County Clerk until 3:00 p.m., the day before the election. The County Clerk cannot accept faxed copies of an Absentee Ballot Application since an original signature is required. And here's the link to the application.  I'm thinking about doing it, for a few reasons: I'm lazy and my polling place is all the way down the street (as in, 5 blocks away; further as in, I could walk there in 5-10 minutes). The polls will probably be very busy that day. I'm considering volunteering to give rides to polling sites to people who need rides to said polling sites.  This way my vote will already be in and I won't have to worry about doing it on a day when I might be rushing around trying to get other people to the polls. I'm thinking about not doing it for symbolic reasons: There's something about going behind the curtain and physically casting your vote. My town is very Republican and, for some reason, I think of physically going to the polls here and casting my Democratic vote, standing in line with a whole mess of Republicans, existing Democratically for all to see, etc. as somehow symbolically important.  Not quite sure how, hence the 'somehow', but there it is. The important thing is that you vote. Somehow, some way, it doesn't matter how you vote, just do it! And now, for something completely different (well, perhaps not; it's about a proposition that's up for vote in CA): Frank Notes blogs about and against California's Proposition 8 here and here.  I am tewtally down with commenter Mary, who says: Whatever mystique there may be about the sacred tradition of marriage is absurd, IMHO. For much of history, marriage has been a means of transferring property (a woman) from one man (her father) to another (her husband). Quite honestly, I hope any adult who wants to enter into a lifelong commitment with another adult should be able to do that. Stheriousy.  My own comment (which came off a bit pessimistic): I’m with Mary who commented about the mystique of a sacred tradition of marriage. People who are against gay marriage often speak of hetero marriage as if it means the same thing to everybody, but it doesn’t, whether or not we married heteros realize it. People get married for different reasons: love, companionship, to start and raise a family w/another person, financial security, societal expectations, etc. I don’t mean to demean the love part of any marriage; I just mean to point out that it’s not the only reason people want to marry. It’s like saying there’s only one version of patriotism or one ideal of beauty. Not all hetero marriages are the same mysterious sacred union; they’re all variations on the theme of marriage. And the consenting adults who enter into marriage should be just another variation on marriage. I don’t think I expressed myself very clearly. I once heard a gay comedian talk about how, wrt gay marriage, gays just wanted a chance to be as miserable as hetero married people. It pointed up what I’m trying to say, just better and funnier. People make such a big deal out of marriage, like it's some sort of ethereal existence.  It's just one type of interpersonal relationship.  It has not always existed.  It has also played different roles in society throughout time, as Mary noted about its use of transferring property.  Or transferring power.  At some places and times it has represented - and continues to represent - the union of entire families rather than just two people.  Sometimes multiple spouses (usually multiple wives) are allowed, accepted as normal and perhaps even encouraged, but even that is often done for reasons other than bco some spiritual union business.  Basically, I doubt that very few people who get married actually do so for groovy mystical reasons. I'd like to see state-recognized marriage and all its benefits as a civil function, i.e., a civil wedding takes place and is the legal wedding for purposes of all those lovely benefits.  If people want to have a religious ceremony too, they can certainly do so.  My father used to occasionally get pictures from then-Communist Poland of relatives' weddings.  There seemed invariably to be two pictures: one of the happy couple at their civil wedding and one at their religious wedding.  So in my mind, then, this idea of civil and religious weddings suggests a Communist approach.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  But I assume that those who are afraid of the Pinko Commie Threat would oppose such an arrangement, but I bet a lot of such people wouldn't even know enough to make the connection to what Communist countries used to do. Shorter: Just take religious institutions out of the state-recognized marriage business. Even shorter: Separation of church and state.

Helping the Womens' Group in Basra

I blogged recently about the murder of Leila Hussein, the mother of Rand Abdel-Qader, a 17 yo girl who was murdered by her father for having a crush on a British soldier in Iraq.  Hussein had divorced and left her husband after their daughter's murder.  A womens' group in Basra hid Hussein and was trying to smuggle her out of the country for her own safety.  She was murdered as she and two women from the group were moving her from one place to another along her escape.  The two women with Hussein were also shot, but they survived.  In my earlier post I said:

More importantly, I don't know what can be done.  Several commenters on the Feministe thread express frustration at the seemingly non-existent assistance one can give to women like Rand and Leila.  I used to volunteer on the help line at a womens' shelter (also at a nursing home and an animal shelter, but it's the womens' shelter volunteering that I miss most; I miss the cats at the shelter, but I do not miss all the cleaning, the scooping, the stinking, the  medicating, the feeding, etc. etc., in short, all the dirty work; with 6 cats, I get enough of that at home nowadays) and my contributions were always visible, measurable, etc.  I knew that I was helping people, that I was getting the right information to the people who needed it, that I was listening to people who needed to talk, etc.  Direct assistance is surely not the only way to help others, but women suffering under oppressive patriarchal societies seem so far away, so unreachable, so untouchable to those outside the society willing to help (and, to a lesser extent, probably to those within as well).  One commenter had several suggestions, most of which I'll call 'administrative', although I do not mean to suggest anything negative about them.  I'll guess that the most effective suggestion would be the economic one: boycott offending countries.  So, unfortunately, I have nothing practical to offer.

I received the following email from a reader:

I realize there is no shortage of ghastly events everywhere that demand our attention but each of us is especially touched by one or other. The case of  Leila Hussein has been hammering round my head since Sunday. She vanished very quickly from the press and is remembered in just a few blogs. I wrote to Al- Jazeera to ask why there was no coverage but have received no reply. It occurred to me that maybe a teeshirt campaign would take off - I imagined millions of people wearing her image to demonstrate that her courage was not forgotten and to show the Islamic world that we are disgusted and outraged and perhaps to encourage sensitive and intelligent Muslims to wear it also to distance themselves from such practices.  Letters have been written to the authorities in Basra to press for the arrest of the father and brothers but I feel this campaign could address the issue in another way. What do you think?

 

Thing is, I don't really know enough to know what a good idea is in this situation.  Around this time, Feminist Philosophers blogged about Hussein's murder.  Figuring the folks over there would be more hooked into how to help women like Hussein and Abdel-Qader, I shared my frustration and my reader's suggestion in their comments section.  One of FP's bloggers pointed to this link over at Jezebel, about how to get funds to the Basra womens' group, which has shut down bco the danger.  Group members have received death threats and are trying to get themselves out of Iraq.

 

Jezebel readers have somehow managed to send $1,700 to the group.  Not sure how they did it; PayPalling Jezebel was involved; I think it went through somebody in the UK bco potential problems with U.S. types sending money to Iraq.  Anyway, I'm checking in on that post occasionally to see if they're still collecting funds and will be sending over another chunk o' cash.  Of course, this may help these women escape Iraq and potential death, but won't do anything for the women who remain.  That still remains a challenge and I'm still interested in good ideas about how to help them.

 

BTW, here's Afif Sarhan's blog.  I think it was Sarhan who first reported on Rand's murder.

Leila Hussein, Mother of 'Honor' Killing Victim, Is Herself Murdered

I blogged recently about the 'honor' killing in Iraq of 17 yo Rand Abdel-Qader.  Rand was killed by her father, Abdel-Qader Ali, when he learned that she had become infatuated by a British soldier, 'Paul' while she was volunteering to help fellow Iraqis in Basra.  He learned this 4 months after she had last conversed with Paul.  Apparently, she had chatted with Paul briefly a few times over several months.  When Abdel-Qadar began assaulting Rand, her mother, Leila Hussein, called Rand's two brothers for help, as in to stop her husband.  Instead, they joined in.  Rand was stomped upon, suffocated and stabbed to death.  Abdel-Qadar was arrested by Iraqi police, but released within 2 hours.  He has not been charged with any crime.  He claims that police congratulated him on his actions.  From the Guardian UK (also linked in my original post):

Abdel-Qader, 46, a government employee, was initially arrested but released after two hours. Astonishingly, he said, police congratulated him on what he had done. 'They are men and know what honour is,' he said.

Hussein divorced Abdel-Qadar two weeks after the killing, at which point he broke her arm while beating her.  She went into hiding and was being helped by one of the few womens' rights groups in Iraq.  The group was trying to get Hussein out of Iraq.  Feministe tells us that Leila Hussein has also been murdered.  Again, from the Guardian UK:

Leila Hussein lived her last few weeks in terror. Moving constantly from safe house to safe house, she dared to stay no longer than four days at each. It was the price she was forced to pay after denouncing and divorcing her husband - the man she witnessed suffocate, stamp on, then stab their young daughter Rand in a brutal 'honour' killing for which he has shown no remorse.

Though she feared reprisals for speaking out, she really believed that she would soon be safe. Arrangements were well under way to smuggle her to the Jordanian capital, Amman. In fact, she was on her way to meet the person who would help her escape when a car drew up alongside her and two other women who were walking her to a taxi. Five bullets were fired: three of them hit Leila, 41. She died in hospital after futile attempts to save her.

The two women helping her were hit with one bullet each.  The womens' rights group to which they belonged has since stopped their work, citing the danger:

Since the attack the NGO has stopped its work in Basra. 'We daren't answer the phones because we have received so many threats since we gave our support to Leila's case,' said Mariam [one of the two women with Hussein at the time of the attack]. 'Most of our members are preparing to leave the city and even Iraq if they can raise the money.'

...

Mariam has moved out of her home. But within hours of speaking to The Observer a close friend went to her new address to deliver a message that had been left for her at her front door. It read: 'Death to betrayers of Islam who don't deserve God's forgiveness. Speaking less you will live more.' She believes it was sent by Leila's killers.

This whole business of female 'honor' seems so odd to me, for several reasons (and yes, I realize that several of these points stem from my own cultural background which is itself foreign to cultures in which these murders are condoned):

1. The idea that an individual's honor is connected to/defined by another individual seems so counter-intuitive.
2. These murders are about control, not honor, religious purity, Islam, etc. Yes, the murderers hide behind Islam (like so many murderers have hidden behind so many religions for ages), but one can be Muslim without condoning honor killings. Of course, extremists will say that such people aren't real Muslims.  I wouldn't be surprised if many, many extremist men who think that they're defending Islam ('true' Islam, of course) don't realize that they themselves have been formed by generations of cultural manipulation.  I'm not expressing this well, let me try again: They think they're being good Muslims, i.e., they think they're acting religiously out of their own piety, when really they're acting culturally.
3. It strikes me as odd that, in such a very patriarchal society, the actions of one woman - a society in which women are worthless, female births are occasions for sorrow instead of joy - have such power over the men in her family.
4. Besides being about control, there's something here that suggests fear. Perhaps it's fear that, by not supporting concepts such as female honor, men will lose control over women.  When a woman steps outside the bounds, it ignites this fear and the transgressor must be extinguished a) before she does any damage to male control and/or b) so that others see her fate as a deterrent (similar to how capital punishment is supposed to serve as a deterrent in the U.S.).

The commenters on the Feministe thread about Husseins' murder are mostly anti-honor killing, feminist, etc.  There is one dissenting commenter, 'Syed'.  Now, other commenters wonder if Syed is who he appears to be, i.e., a Muslim man who supports Rand's honor killing, but not necessarily Hussein's murder.  Some suggest that he may be a troll posing as such so as to make Islam come off badly in a public forum.  Here I'll take Syed's comments at face value.  His first comment:

While I understand that the murder of the wife should be prosecuted, the daughter’s killing is justified in Islam which was their religion and while it may appear strange to westerners, they should not worry too much about it just as Muslim countries leave the strange Western practices alone. In Islam, it is forbidden for a woman to be alone with or talk unnecessarily to a man that is not related to her. The punishment prescribed by the Holy Quran can go from imprisonment until she repents upto death. We are not privy to what went between her father, who must have loved her, and her before her death and we should refrain from speculating.

From another comment:

Only that which is given in Quran matters as that is the unaltered will of Allah.

Annnnnd:

It is just the way it is. There are consequences for actions. They may appear harsh but there is a reason they were ordained that way.

These comments, and this view in general, strike me as odd for, again, at least several reasons:

• Allah is (I presume) the source of all creation, including humans, who have powers of reason. The above interpretation of Islam suggests blind adherence to the Quran, i.e., no further thought is required. Perhaps reason can be applied to non-religious matters (if there are any; perhaps everything can be religiousized[?]), but never to religious matters.
• Strict adherence (read: blind obedience) to the Quran is necessary. How was this decided? Perhaps somebodies, somewhere, sometime along the way, reasoned that that was the thing to do. But is that still human reasoning involved in the very fundamentals aspects, in the establishment of Islam?
• Or perhaps the Quran itself mandates strict adherence. But a lot of Muslims interpret Islam and the Quran in a lot of different ways. Even such a mandate could be interpreted with widely divergent results. If determining the meaning of text is an exercise in reason, then even those who say they're following the letter of such a mandate in the Quran (again, I don't know that there is one) are actually reasoning about the meaning of said mandate.
• If there's any reasoning involved in following the Quran, isn't there room then to wonder if one's got it wrong?  I suppose one could argue that one's interpretation is the correct one, but then there's that reasoning again.
• These bullets point are not an argument.  In fact, there are inconsistences among them. There are also other factors that should be considered, e.g., what role does free will play in Islam and in the interpretation of the Quran?  (That particular question is too large to deal with here.)

I don't have any answers to these questions.  More importantly, I don't know what can be done.  Several commenters on the Feministe thread express frustration at the seemingly non-existent assistance one can give to women like Rand and Leila.  I used to volunteer on the help line at a womens' shelter (also at a nursing home and an animal shelter, but it's the womens' shelter volunteering that I miss most; I miss the cats at the shelter, but I do not miss all the cleaning, the scooping, the stinking, the  medicating, the feeding, etc. etc., in short, all the dirty work; with 6 cats, I get enough of that at home nowadays) and my contributions were always visible, measurable, etc.  I knew that I was helping people, that I was getting the right information to the people who needed it, that I was listening to people who needed to talk, etc.  Direct assistance is surely not the only way to help others, but women suffering under oppressive patriarchal societies seem so far away, so unreachable, so untouchable to those outside the society willing to help (and, to a lesser extent, probably to those within as well).  One commenter had several suggestions, most of which I'll call 'administrative', although I do not mean to suggest anything negative about them.  I'll guess that the most effective suggestion would be the economic one: boycott offending countries.  So, unfortunately, I have nothing practical to offer.

I'll leave you with pictures of Leila and Rand, both of whom are now dead, murdered by religious/patriarchal extremists.

Leila Hussein:

Rand Abdel-Qader:

Looking for Someone to Listen To

You know, I just don't know what, or perhaps it's how, to think about some things.  Via Feminist Philosophers, I read in their post, Deadly Crush, about the 'honor' killing of Rand Abdel-Qader, a 17 yo Iraqi girl.  She was killed by her father and two uncles bc she had become friendly with a 22 yo British soldier, 'Paul', in Basra.   She and Paul met when she volunteered to work with the needy of Basra.  I don't know if Paul was also a volunteer or if it was part of his job as a soldier.  Apparently, it wasn't much of a relationship.  It sounds like she had a crush on him and their interaction consisted of a chat here and there.

And that was sufficient cause for her father to murder her.  From a Guardian article:

Rand, who was studying English at Basra University, was deemed to have brought shame on her family after becoming infatuated with a British soldier, 22, known only as Paul.

What I do and do not think:

• I do think this was a heinous murder and that the father and uncles should be punished for killing the girl.
• I don't think this happened bc Islam is inherently a crazy religion, although I do believe that it may be irrational to believe in any religion (haven't decided on that score yet).
• I do think this happened, in part, bc these individuals believe their religion, as they practice and interpret it, supports their actions.
• I do think this happened, in part, bc the society in which these individuals live, a society which is heavily influenced by a central religion, supports their actions.

Longtime readers will recall that I have not developed final thoughts on religion.  I understand the pull, the attraction of religion.  I see religion as fulfilling a psychological role for people: it provides comfort, hope and the like.  I've often thought of the so-called positive psychological roles provided by religion.  Yet religion also provides what I consider negative roles.  The above killing has nothing to do with 'honor' and everything to do with controlling women.

There's a lot of talk about tolerance: religious, sexual, cultural, etc.  It's relatively easy to be tolerant of non-extreme views.  I might think they're unfounded, irrational, impractical or the like, but as long as they don't cross a line-determined-by-me, I can tolerate them.  That's no big achievement, since I don't really give up much to tolerate them.

I cannot tolerate a view that:

• controls the bodies and thoughts of women and girls - half the population;
• abuses to the point of murder the bodies of women and girls;
• values women and girls - again, half the population! - so little;
• calculates familial honor on individual honor.

I could go on, but I'm sure  you get the point.

Yes, I understand that there are moderate and liberal Muslims who decry honor killings, the societies that support honor killings and the interpretations of Islam used to justify honor killings.  But where are they and their condemnation of honor killings?

OTOH, why should I or anyone else look to moderate and liberal Muslims to condemn honor killings?  What obligation, if any, do these people have to voice their condemnation?  E.g., in the U.S., if a fundie Christian murders an abortion provider, Christians of all stripes (except those shared by the fundie murderer) condemn the murder.  Just bc that happens here doesn't mean it should happen anywhere.

OTOH, I think anybody who very publicly brooks fundie Islam greatly risks death, injury, ruin, etc., not only to themselves, but to their family and friends.  I can sit here and type, Why aren't they speaking up?, seeing as I'm not the one who's going to be murdered for speaking against fundie Islam.

OTOH, I wonder if moderate and liberal Muslims are speaking out and I'm just not exposed to it.  Are such protestations covered in non-U.S. media?  Non-western media?  If so, I would be most interested in being directed to such coverage.

At bottom, if moderate and liberal Muslims are not speaking out in significant number, I wonder what it is that keeps them from doing so.  Fear of retribution?  Loyalty to fellow religionists, no matter how extreme?  Apathy?  Familial and/or cultural pressures?  I wonder if it's the case that, bc I know so little about Muslim societies, there are disincentives to speaking out of which I'm unaware?  Insights are most welcome.

Just Leave Well Enough Alone

In his 'Closing the books' post over at Crooked Timber, Daniel Davies writes that he has:

...a minor annual tradition (as in, I did it once) of beginning the year with a short list of arguments that I am no longer going to have. As I said when I produced the first such list, while not necessarily claiming to have the definitive truth on these subjects, my views

“Are no longer up for argument, pending absolutely spectacular new evidence. I’ve had a number of arguments on all of these points over the last year; I’ve heard all sides, and I’ve made up my mind. If anyone has an argument which they genuinely believe to be new, go ahead, but don’t expect much. Please note also that I am no longer interested in methodological debates over the merits of statistical studies which purport to prove the matter one way or another on any of these propositions.”

It’s basically a way of clearing the decks of old pointless arguments, leaving room for new pointless and bitter arguments (I hope to post next week a short list of things that I plan to argue about a heck of a lot more, being a list of tacit assumptions made by other people that I regard as highly questionable). If you want to have a last go on any of the short list below, now’s the time, but otherwise it is books closed, I’m afraid; I have made a reasonable donation to the Grice United Fund which ought to cover any genuinely deserving intellectual charity cases. So here’s the list – it’s actually shorter than previous years.

His list includes the following argument and comment:

God, non-existence and/or general perniciousness of as a vital matter for public debate. Moderate amounts of publicly financed god-bothering as an inevitable first step on the road to theocracy. Teaching of evolution to people who don’t want to learn it as a vital goal of public policy. [DISAGREE]

Entirely agree with Jamie here that a sensible man does not spend his precious and decidedly finite waking hours talking or thinking in any great depth about that in which he does not believe. The amount of time and energy poured into this bottomless pit by passionate, intelligent and liberal individuals who could be doing Avogadro’s number of more worthwhile things is enough to make me want to weep. I particularly won’t be reading or discussing any of the books on the subject unless and until I get hold of a series of the original and canonical texts by Oolon Colluphid.

When I read his post, I thought, 'Hmm, maybe that's a good idea.'  There are so many things about which I (or anyone) could think.  My brain being somehow more finite than most, perhaps I ought to limit that on which I spend my precious stock of brain cells.  This might also help with the problem of so many worthy causes with which to sympathize, but so little resources to spread across those causes, that I blogged about in Earnestness Avoided.  And so I decided to, like Mr. Davies, no longer consider arguments for/against the existence of god(s).  There's no conclusive argument either way, as in, no knock-down undeniable proof against which all comers fail, and there isn't likely to be anytime soon.  Sure, I and others might think that one conclusion is, to some extent or other, more likely than the other, but none is 200% fool proof (I know, I know, low hanging fruit).  I've read and thought a bit about the subject, have arrived at a belief, and perhaps now it's time to put the subject on my personal backburner.

But I just can't stay away!  And so I find myself with the following books on my nightstand:

• Reason for the Hope Within, edited by Michael J. Murray and
• Philosophers Without Gods, edited by Louise Antony.

I shouldn't, really I shouldn't, do this.  I do so much better with my focus on fewer rather than more things, i.e., I probably don't have enough space on my radar to consider this now.  And yet I forge ahead on an almost certainly doomed endeavor.  I've started with the first book.  I don't have much to say just yet, having finished only the first two chapters.  I think I'll need to find support elsewhere for some claims in each contributor's chapter.  I forget which of the two chapters referenced several things a Christian must or cannot accept (paraphrasing here, I don't have either book with me at the moment).  Some things that a Christian must accept refer to the Christian god as depicted in the Bible.  But why credit the Bible?  Phrases like 'We learn from Scripture that....' and 'Scripture tells us that....' hold little weight for me since I don't believe that a Christian god guided the hand of men to write the Bible.  I regard the Bible as a man-made product of the culture, politics, customs, prejudices, etc. at the time of its writing.  Obviously, each contributor cannot address/justify every assertion they mention, however, I wouldn't mind hearing why one should credit the Bible with such authority.  Just as it might seem obvious to a Christian reading this why the Bible is the authoritative document on Christianity ('Well, duh, bc it was written by God.'), it seems just as obvious to me that the Bible was written by many very human men.  And by 'men' I mean 'men', i.e., the maleness of authorship is an important feature of the Bible.

So, yeah, we'll see what happens.  I don't know what I expect to get out of this.  I refer to this as an almost certainly doomed endeavor bc I won't get anything near the 200% answer noted above, that is, I don't expect to reach a conclusion very different from that which I've already reached.  I do expect to gain a deeper understanding of the arguments on both sides and possibly a better idea of how they could all work (or not) together.

Estimation

The 58th Philosophers' Carnival at Philosophy Sucks! includes a link to What's the deal with philosophy of religion? at The Incredible Hallq.  I posted previously about 'The Reception of Philosophy of Religion' post at Prosblogion.  Both external posts deal with the how por is viewed within philosophy in general.  Both conclude, rather tentatively bc neither claims to be based on serious inquiry (and I don't imagine there's data out there on this), that por is viewed poorly.

This brings to mind something about which I've been thinking lately.  Rather than thinking about how to view the entire field of por, how to view those with whom I disagree about religious matters?  Surely there's overlap, but there's more underlap (?) than overlap bc most of the people with whom I disagree about religious matters are not philosophers (the ones who are philosophers are, I should think, used to reasonable disagreement, criticism, questions, etc.).  They're, like, the majority of living people; people I deal with everyday; people I call friends and family.  Seeing as I like and think well of the vast majority of people within my circle (believers and non-believers), I don't really wish to be sniggering* at any of these people.  Of course, should someone provide reason for me to think poorly of them, then I'll think poorly of them, at least wrt the area of the provided reason.  And yes, I admit that if, more generally speaking, I don't care for them, I will most likely snigger at them.  Small, yes, but there it is.

So.  What to think, what to think, what to think?  Disclosure: As usual, I am thinking out loud here.  This question has been floating around in my head for some time now without me making much progress toward answering it.  It remains rather disorganized in my head bc I find there are many, seemingly disconnected things to consider.  I'm afraid this calls for a brain dump.  Things to consider:

Believers believe in different ways and degrees.  There's the person who believes bc that's (a) how they were raised and (b) what they were taught and (c) haven't thought through their beliefs.  At the other end of the spectrum, there's the person who believes precisely bc they've thought through (a) their beliefs and (b) why they hold them.  And then there's all the folks in between.

Believers are more than their beliefs.  Perhaps this should be obvious.  An atheist teen recently remarked how they (and I paraphrase here) 'just laugh at Christians' and 'make fun of Christians' bc 'they're so stupid'.  I cringed inside upon hearing this (no doubt bc I recognized a younger, embarrassing version of myself; not necessarily a younger self that ridiculed Christians, but probably ridiculed people bco one thing about them; but also) bc I thought of the believers with whom I share other beliefs, values, interests, etc.  They run the intellectual gamut, although I wouldn't call any of them 'stupid'.  That's pretty harsh.  They also run the gamuts of kindness, consideration, conversationality (word?), creativity, enthusiasm, activity, etc.  No reason to whale on a person just bco their religious beliefs, unless...

...some believers expect others to at least act in accordance with their beliefs, even if others don't actually share their beliefs.  This is where politics and the alleged role of religion in public life comes in.  I greatly appreciate a nice, healthy, sturdy separation between church and state.  The establishment clause is one of the best ideas evar.  The foisting of one's religious beliefs on others, whether personally and individually or publically via legislation, really puts a hive of bees in my bonnet.  But then I think...

...is it correct to think that government is of the people, by the people, for the people except when it comes to anything to do with said people's religion?  I.e., why shouldn't believers vote their beliefs?  When I vote in alignment with my atheist beliefs, am I not voting my non-belief?  Why not accord believers that same opportunity?  I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a very good legal, constitutional reason for thinking of the two scenarios quite differently.  Perhaps it's that voting my non-belief into legislation (a) is in accordance with the Establishment Clause and (b) does not preclude anyone from practicing their religion.  Whereas, voting one's belief into legislation (a) is not in accordance with the Establishment Clause; (b) forces the majority religion's beliefs into the public sphere to the detriment of atheists and non-majority religions; and (c) precludes the believers of non-majority religions to practice their religion as freely as the majority religion.  Considering that I'm totally talking out my hat here, I'll just drop this consideration for now and leave it to the legal, constitutional experts.

Believers and non-believers are not static in their belief/non-belief.  Like most people, I was raised within a religion (Roman Catholic).  As I've gone through life, my thoughts and beliefs about religion have morphed.  Occasionally, I've been more of a believer.  Now I'm an atheist.  For most of my life, I've been a questioner of religion.  Believers may go through ups and downs in the depth and degree of their belief.  E.g., parenthood and the option to baptize, christen, I forget the name of the Jewish ceremony, plus whatever other religions do to bring infants into the fold, often get parents thinking about their religion, especially if more than one religion is involved or even if no religion is involved.

Most believers are raised as believers and it's a hard habit to break, if one is so inclined.  Think about all the stuff your parents/caregivers told you and you just accepted like delicious candy or at least like your daily Flintstones vitamin.  This indoctrination (of valuable and valueless ideas) starts from Day One and, even if you intellectually put aside what was told to you, it's often emotionally and/or psychologically still there.  (I sometimes think it's especially still there in the case of Roman Catholics bco the guilt factor, but perhaps that's just the latent martyr in me.)

Judge not lest ye be judged.  Hey, there are a lot of good ideas that are religious in origin!  Or, if not strictly in origin, are strongly affiliated with religion. Who am I to judge another solely bco their religious beliefs?  Okay, I claim the right to do so when they start to trample on my or others' beliefs/non-beliefs/rights.  Especially in light of some level of religious indoctrination most people receive as part of their upbringing, most people can't help but have some kind of religious beliefs.  Religion is just one piece of luggage, among beliefs about character, education, health, nutrition, recreation, work, etc., on the baggage carousel of life that parents bequeath their children.  Sometimes the kids take their own bags, sometimes they take someone else's bag, sometimes they leave the bag to the lost & found. 

Okay, I'm off bc, no matter how many things one can think about, one still has to get one's hair cut.

*I say 'sniggering' in recognition of  Hallq's sense that there are at least some atheist philosophers who snigger behind theistic philosophers of (among other things) religion, rather than go further to publish/state their reasons for disagreeing with those philosophers.

The Seventh Time's The Charm

Finally finished The Language of God by Francis Collins.  As blogged before, I stalled early and often while reading the book.  I sat down with it the other day and finished it off.

I'm glad I read it, although I'm not sure why bc it was not as interesting and/or satisfying as I'd hoped.  Perhaps I'm glad I read it bc I really was quite curious what such a well known and highly placed scientist has to say about religion.  I wondered if his scientist-believer status would give him some kind of particular insight into the intersection, if there is any, of science and religion.  Unfortunately, I didn't see any particularly deep thoughts about this intersection, although I certainly may have misunderstood or missed them.  He came across as yer average guy, which certainly isn't a bad thing.  I guess I expected more depth from the guy who heads the Human Genome Research Institute.

The book is clearly written and uses little jargon to explain scientific ideas.  Collins writes amiably and seems like a reasonable fellow.  On a related note, I recently read God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, which had a very different tone to it.  I often wonder what tone one should take when discussing religion in the public sphere (or other divisive issues).  It seems like some consider an individual's religious belief to be, so to speak, sacred in that it's beyond reproach from others.  E.g., I'm crazy bc I don't believe in gravity, but don't you dare say I'm crazy bc I believe in angels (or miracles or burning bushes or partings of seas...).

Why is there this attitude?  And I'm certainly not immune from it.  When reading Hitchens's book, I cringed at some of the language he uses to describe believers.  Is there really something wrong with referring to believers as 'yokels', especially if that's how you really view them?  They might consider it insulting, but if you think their beliefs really are crazy and that religion as a whole is a dangerous development, why mince words?  OTOH, you might mince words bc your targets would be insulted and some of us don't care to insult/offend others.  OTOH, you might not mince words if you think that religion is seriously bad news and the sooner it's extinguished the better and if some feelings are hurt in the process, so be it.  That's something I wonder about now and again: How should people disagree?

Anyway, back to the book, which had a few cringe-worthy moments of its own.  Collins whips over, under and through objections to the religious viewpoint.  Granted, it would be difficult to cover them all in sufficient detail in one book aimed at the general public, but it does contribute to the overall feeling of dissatisfaction with the book.

Science is not the only way of knowing.  The spiritual worldview provides another way of finding truth.  Scientists who deny this would be well advised to consider the limits of their own tools, as nicely represented in a parable told by the astronomer Arthur Eddington.  He described a man who set about to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh size of three inches.  After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, the man concluded that there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length!  If we are using the scientific net to catch our particular version of truth, we should not be surprised that it does not catch the evidence of spirit.

This kind of thinking makes me nervous, for a few reasons:

• I recognize the point he's trying to make, but it's not a good parable to use to make this point.  Maybe Deep-Sea Man is generally going about things the right way, he just needs a better instrument i.e., a better mesh.  Or maybe he could use another, yet still scientific, approach and doesn't need to go outside the scientific realm to get at the truth about the creatures of the deep.  Isn't this just what science does, i.e., continually develop new and improved methods, tools, theories, etc.?
• I find the phrase 'our particular version of truth' a tad unsettling.  What exactly does this mean?  I'm not going to say that it's entirely impossible to have conflicting truths about one thing, but how many versions of the truth are there?  If we're not looking for our particular version of the truth, for whose version are we looking?  I'll guess he means God's truth, but how would we know if we found God's truth?  Mightn't we still find our particular version of the truth and think that it's God's truth?  Not to mention that positing God's truth assumes we've already made that leap of faith to believe in God (and Collins acknowledges that belief in God does require a leap in faith since it appears that, at least at the moment, no proof either for or against the existence of God is forthcoming).
• Elsewhere in the book, Collins criticizes Intelligent Designers for using a 'God of the gaps' approach, e.g., invoking God to explain some phenomenon which science has not yet successfully explained.  When science does finally succeed, it discredits ID for erroneously and unncessarily positing divine influence.  Maybe this whole business of positing an omni-being creator and accessories (e.g., angels, souls, spirits, miracles, etc.) is done to fill some psychological gap or desire in humans.  Collins suggests that IDers may have confused the unknown with the unknowable and the unsolved with the unsolvable.  Where are these divides between unknown/unknowable and unsolved/unsolvable?  Certain things certainly seem unknowable and unsolvable, but perhaps these divides will shift as science progresses.  Why assume we cannot ever know these certain things, e.g., what was before the Big Bang? 

I'm getting a little snoozy right now, but there is one thing about God that Collins mentions, sort of in passing, that others have mentioned and that I find a little peculiar.  Basically, it's the idea that God created humans for relationship purposes.  Collins uses the term ' fellowship'.  I'll have to refresh my memory wrt what others have said.  But it's always struck me a bit odd that an omni-being like the Christian God would have needs or desires for pretty much anything, but certainly fellowship, companionship, relationship, or the like.  If the idea is that God wants to share his bounty with other creatures, that's one thing, but there definitely is this other idea of God creating humans for relationship purposes. That will have to wait for another day.

Longing

Lately, I've read a number of books that touch on a similar subject:

• God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens
• The Varieties of Scientific Experience by Carl Sagan (posthumously) and Ann Druyan
• The Language of God by Francis Collins

Actually, this last one I only got through the first couple of chapters.  I took it out and renewed it and renewed it and renewed it, etc. etc., but it just wasn't moving me.  Oh, I'm at work now; I'll take it out and try it again.  By 'not moving me', I mean that I wasn't finding it as satisfying as I'd hoped.  I was - and still am, I suppose, since I've borrowed the book yet again - hoping that a scientist would have a different approach to the subject.  Maybe it's that I expected more rigor.  And again, like I said, I've only read the first couple of chapters.  Perhaps I'll think differently a few chapters down.  Wrt the idea that belief in god(s) is wish fufillment, Collins writes:

Finally, in simple logical terms, if one allows the possibility that God is something humans might wish for, does that rule out the possibility that God is real?  Absolutely not.  The fact that I have wished for a loving wife does not now make her imaginary.  The fact that the farmer wished for rain does not make him question the reality of the subsequent downpour.

In fact, one can turn this wishful-thinking argument on its head.  Why would such a universal and uniquely human hunger exist, if it were not connected to some opportunity for fulfillment?  Again, Lewis says it well:  "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists.  A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food.  A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water.  Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex.  If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probably explanation is that I was made for another world."

Could it be that this longing for the sacred, a universal and puzzling aspect of human experience, may not be wish fulfillment but rather a pointer toward something beyond us?  Why do we have a "God-shaped vacuum" in our hearts and minds unless it is meant to be filled?

In our modern materialistic world, it is easy to lose sight of that sense of longing.  In her wonderful collection of essay Teaching a Stone to Talk, Annie Dillard speaks about that growing void....

It's entirely possible to have universal and uniquely human hungers that lead to dead ends.  Maybe this particular hunger exists bc (and some of these interact w/each other)...

• ...beliefs in something/someone bigger/more powerful than humans have been passed down from whatever and whenever the first such beliefs were held to modern religions.  These beliefs have been held for at least thousands of years.  Organized religion has held great influence in many public spheres for many years.  It might be difficult to shake such a longstanding expectation.  If we have a god-shaped vacuum, maybe it's bc we've been told (and believed), lo these many years, that god exists.
• ...we wonder about our place in the world.  Is this it?  Sure, the universe is ginormous, but still...is this all there is?  There's stuff expanding over there, stuff dying off over here, organisms evolving here, there and everywhere, suns exploding, asteroids crashing, galaxies forming, and all manner of amazing things going on and in existence of which I haven't the slightest awareness.  If there's just the universe and that's it, then meh, we're much like any other thing in the universe.  If there's the universe PLUS a creator, then maybe we're part of something big, something really important, like a plan or a design.
• ...life's hard and it's nice to think that we'll get something out of it, that there's some kind of reward in the offing, that some day (the day we die) will be the day beyond which we experience only supreme happiness.  Never again will we worry about daily pressures, endure illness, suffer disappointment, etc.  I suppose one could move from an earthly to heavenly existence w/o a creator, but there's not much significance to that.  If that's just what happens, then meh, no big deal.  But if someone (God) rewards us with this wonderful afterlife, then I can believe that I earned and deserved that afterlife, baby!
• ...believing in a creator who made us makes us feel really special; we didn't just happen.  We feel especially special if we believe in a creator who made us different from and above all other creatures, who has a certain role for us to play, who has a certain relationship with us, who loves us unconditionally, who stays by our side in good times and in bad, etc.

Whoa, that last one sounds pretty good, actually.  Someone who loves us no matter what?  Someone who will never leave us, even when we push them away?  Someone who forgives our every transgression?  Someone who fetches, maybe?  Bc this someone totally sounds like a dog.  Which is god spelled backwards.  OMG!!1!  I mean, OMD!!1!

I don't agree that it's that easy to lose that sense of longing in our 'modern materialistic world'.  He's talking about a longing for the sacred, but you can think you're longing for the sacred when there is no such thing as the sacred.  You can think you're longing for the sacred when really, you're just longing for an answer to why and how are we here and that answer may be somewhat underwhelming when compared to an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator-answer.  I certainly long to know what the deal is wrt sheer existence.  I sense some disparagement in the description, 'our modern materialistic world', but this material world may be all we've got.   Sure, the world is busy and mundane, but surely I'm only one among many who longs for something beyond lunch.

Living On The Edge

Recently, I've taken to studying at the library.  Of all places!  Thing is, I work at the town library, so I was hesitant to study here bc, well, bco a few reasons.

First, if I study here, patrons might recognize me and interrupt me bc they don't realize that I'm not working at the time (I certainly don't expect them to know that I'm studying, not working).

Second, if I study here, even though I'm not working, I find it difficult to ignore certain stuff.  E.g., the after school hours are particularly busy bc kids come in to use the public pcs to do their homework.  Unacceptable behavior, foul language and the like are not unusual.  So I'd feel like I should do something about it, like I would if I were working.  Plus, if sometimes I do something (bc I'm working) and sometimes I don't (bc I'm not working), to them it will seem inconsistent and send the dreaded mixed message.

Third, it's a very small library and it really doesn't have any quiet nooks.  I've taken to camping out at Ruth's desk in the local history room in the basement.  Hardly anyone comes here.  It is quieter than upstairs, although people do use the public pc in the reference room next door.  It's also an old building so I hear people tramping across the floor upstairs; in fact, someones running from the back to the front right now.  It is more comfortable down here, though; at home, I don't have a very good desk setup: basically, it's a dining room table currently not used in the dining room and a folding chair.

The big problem is that I get very distracted at home, so it's good for me to study elsewhere.  At home, I might think, 'Oh, I'll just do a little laundry while I'm reading'.  Doesn't sound like much, but time taken away to 'just do this' or 'just do that' adds up.  It also breaks my concentration and then I have to get back into it.  There are other distractions, e.g., I should go see who's sneezing or yakking or fighting or whatever, the Mormoms are at the door, answering the phone, etc.

It's raining and yucky outside today, so I parked close by, at a two-hour meter.  They check the meters until 5 PM.  My time runs out at about 4:30 PM.  I've already fed the meter once (I don't think you're supposed to do that) and I don't feel like going out and getting soaked again.  I'm hoping the yucky weather deters the parking people from being very conscientious and that I don't get a parking ticket bc I didn't feel like getting wet.  I have a parking thingie to park in certain spaces for free, but I think that might be only for when you're actually working.  Of course, who would know/notice?  Those spots are a little further away.  Normally, I park a little further away to squeeze a walk (a very little exercise) into my day, but today I just didn't feel like dealing with the rain.

Speaking of Mormoms - why can I not spell that word correctly? - Mormons, I had the most interesting conversation with a patron last night.  She and her family lived in Utah for about six years or so and learned a lot about the Church of LDS and some about the FLDS.  A couple of young men would stop by the house for a while there, wanting to talk about their religion (LDS).  I was interested in reading their stuff, but they balked at just handing it over without having a real sitdown about it.  And I didn't want to do that.  All I really know about Mormonism is whatever's available in the popular press and maybe a few things others have told me.

Anyway, this patron told me all kinds of incredible stuff!  So much stuff that I'll probably screw it all up here, but here goes.  E.g., there are levels to heaven and if you're really, really, really, really, really good in this life and reach the tippy top level when you die - and are a man, natch - you get your own planet to rule!  Kewl.

Some folks were converting non-Mormons and then marrying them off posthumously.  Yes, after people were dead.  Conversion and evangelizing (sp?) are, obviously, encouraged.  The thinking about the dead people is that those poor folks shouldn't be denied the glory of heaven bc they did not have the chance to become Mormons.  So, if you have a deceased relative, you could still convert them.  And then marry them off to some other dead person.  Technically, you could do this with any deceased person, not only relatives, but it's considered better to bring one of your own into the fold.  Not so kewl.

Apparently, this practice caused a big stink when some Mormons starting converting and marrying off deceased Jewish Holocaust victims.  People who were not relations, people they didn't even know.  This did not sit well with others, especially Jews, Holocaust survivors, freedom of religion types, etc.  I don't know how a dead person consents to conversion or marriage.  I guess a person's soul could accept or decline either, although if you're marrying off dead people bc you think you've got a couple of Mormons paired up, you don't really know that the bride or groom agreed to conversion.  This site, apparently from people who know a thing or two about the LDS, talks a little bit about how the conversion is supposed to work.

Wrt the FLDS, I expressed a distinct lack of desire to (if I were a man) support numerous wives and children.  Supposedly, that's not of practical concern bc usually the man and maybe one woman works and they rely on public support to make ends meet and support everyone.  Other tidbits: non-approved materials are banned, e.g., most books, the internet, most tv shows, most radio stations, etc.  Girls, as we've all heard wrt the Warren Jeffs business, are married off extremely young.  The idea is to have as many babies as you possibly can.  Babies are breast fed no more than three months, so the mother is more likely to get pregnant sooner.  Jeffs pulled all the children out of the public school system.  I believe they're all homeschooled now.  I think homeschooling can be a great option, but I'm not confident that these kids are getting a good education.  Then there's all the adolescent and young men who get kicked out.  And the older, married men who get kicked out and their wives and children reassigned to other men.  Yuck.

Both the LDS and FLDS sound very complicated.  I could see how either might be attractive to someone who could benefit from some structure in their life.  Or who craves community and a sense of belonging.  Or who doesn't know what else to do or where else to turn.  Or who needs non-spiritual help, they get it from these folks and then stay with them.  You know, I have a hard enough time keeping track of five cats and one husband and their needs and desires; I wouldn't have the energy or interest to take on all the rigmarole, activities, commitments, obligations, etc. that come with belonging to either religion.

Enough about all that; back to Shaffer.

Summary: Swinburne's The Existence of God, Ch. 14

In Ch. 14, The Balance of Probability, RS discusses the questions:

• How probable is theism, after considering the evidence?
  • RS: >= 1/2.
• Is theism more or less probable than not-theism?
  • RS: more probable.
• Is theism a good P-inductive argument for the existence of God?
  • RS: yes...theism.

The evidence are the various arguments for/against theism covered in chs. 7 - 13.  The question wrt each chapter of evidence is, 'Is it a good C-inductive argument for the existence of God?'

• a good C-inductive argument = add to the probability of the conclusion
  • good = the premises are considered true, but the conclusion is in dispute
  • correct = the premises make the conclusion more probable than it otherwise would have been
• P-inductive arguments – make the conclusion more probable
  • good = the premises are considered true, but the conclusion is in dispute
  • correct = the premises make the conclusion more probable than not, i.e., probability > ½

His conclusions wrt each chapter:

• 7: cosmological - yes
• 8: teleological - yes
• 9: from consciousness and morality - no; neutral wrt for/against existence of God
• 10: from providence - yes
• 11: problem of evil, featuring God's hiddenness - no; is evidence against the existence of God; poe lowered theism's probability; poe complicates theism by requiring theism to add something to explain why God allows evil; hiddenness had no effect on theism's probability
• 12: from history and miracles - inconclusive
• 13: from religious experience - inconclusive

RS relies on evidence from chs. 7-11 iot arrive at his >= 1/2 conclusion.  Chs. 7, 8 and 10 are good C-inductive arguments for the existence of God.  Ch.  9 is not, but also does not have any detrimental effect on theism.  Ch. 11 is an argument against the existence of God and effectively lowers theism's probability.  The poe requires some kind of explanation within theism wrt why God allows evil.  Any explanation complicates the theistic hypothesis, thereby reducing its simplicity and lowering its probability.

A down and dirty list of the evidence in chs. 7-11:

• there is a universe and it's a beaut
• there are physical bodies
• there are uniform LON
• there are conscious beings w/limited power, knowledge and free will
• there are embodied humanly free agents (HFAs)
  • limited free will alllows HFAs to choose good or ill
  • and affect selves and others
• the universe is well-suited to HFAs and other creatures
• evil
  • yes, there's lots of evil
  • some caused by HFAs
  • some caused by nature
  • but the evil that exists is not endless
  • some evil is necessary if HFAs and some other critters are to have certain benefits

Evidence in chs. 12-13 that RS doesn't use in his >=1/2 conclusion:

• prophets
• religious experience
• revelations
• miracles

RS looked to science, history and other common fields of discourse to see how probability is typically evaluated iot apply those same criteria to theism.  He applied the criteria of simplicity when discussing the justification of personal and scientific explanation.  He maintains that there were not many examples out there in the way of evaluating:

• theories that are on the fence between probable and improbable,
• and universal theories (i.e., theories of everything)

and notes that theistic and scientific theories of everything are equally problematic wrt determining their probability.

Bottom Line

RS emphasizes simplicity as the decisive factor wrt theism's >=1/2 probability:

And, if there is to exist something, it seems impossible to conceive of anything simpler (and therefore a priori more probable) than the existence of God. (336)