| atheism.davidrand.ca: Living Without Religion | |
|---|---|
| > Table of Contents | |
| > > News Archive | en français |
| Previous page | Next page |
| |
New York Times, 2002-12-24
In his new book, "Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion and the Nature of Society" (University of Chicago Press),
Dr. Wilson argues that the religious impulse evolved early in hominid history because it helped make groups of humans
comparatively more cohesive, more cooperative and more fraternal, and thus able to present a formidable front
against bands of less organized or unified adversaries.
By taking an evolutionary perspective on the subject, Dr. Wilson said, religion's twinned record of transcendent glories
and shocking barbarities becomes comprehensible and even predictable, though not, perhaps, inevitable for the future.
Q. You're trying to explain the evolution of religion. So how do you define your terms? What is a religion?
A. Religion has a superficial definition, which is a belief in supernatural agents, but some people regard this
definition as shallow and incomplete. The Buddha, for example, refused to be associated with any gods. Or you
could say that religion is something that handles concepts of an afterlife, but that definition, too, is limited, and
it excludes a number of faiths. A scholar at a religious conference told me that what little Judaism has to say
about the afterlife is only there because Christians asked them. I've found that when you go beyond the superficial
definitions of religion, it's very difficult to distinguish anything fundamental about religion that is not also
fundamental to other social organizations. For example, the concept of sacredness, and the existence of a symbolic
system that distinguishes the sacred from the profane, extends to many other social organizations.
...
Q. What do you gain by looking at religion from a Darwinian standpoint?
A. Certain ways of thinking and study methods that we routinely use as evolutionists turn out to be very new from
the standpoint of religious scholarship. If I'm looking at guppies or beehives, the first thing I'll want to know
about a trait is, Is it an adaptation or not? So I ask that about religion. If it's not an adaptation,
maybe it's a spandrel - a byproduct of some other evolutionary process - rather than an adaptation.
Maybe back in the Stone Age it was adaptive to be nice to others because most people around us were relatives who
shared our genes, and then we ended up being nice to nonrelatives, too. Maybe religion is even a maladaptive
spandrel today, the way our sweet tooth makes us fat. Or maybe religion is like a parasitic disease, which
evolved to transmit itself like the AIDS virus, and isn't good for any of its hosts but gets passed on anyway.
If religion is an adaptation, we can ask, Did it evolve because it benefited whole groups, or some individuals
within a group? Was it a sting operation, with some leaders fleecing rather than leading their flocks? This is almost
certainly true in some cases, but is it true as a rule? These are hypotheses that we can frame and address as we
would a study of nonhuman organisms. And the great thing about religion is that descriptive information about it
exists in abundance.
...
Q. So if the egalitarian impulse is strong within us, can we assume that institutions like slavery were unnatural
blips in human history?
A. Unfortunately not. Religions and other social organizations may preach kindness and cooperation within
the group, but they often say nothing about those outside the group, and may even promote brutality toward those
beyond the brotherhood of the hive. That has been the dark side of religion. But it is not an
inevitable side of it. I don't want to come across as naïve, but there's no theoretical reason why the moral
circle can't be expanded to ultimately include everybody. Nor is there any reason why we can't take a surgical
approach to religion, and keep what is positive about it while eliminating the intolerance.
...
Webmaster's comment:
Wilson suggests that the definition of religion as belief in supernatural agents is superficial,
but then goes on to state that there is no reason that we cannot cut out the negative aspects of religions while
keeping the good. He should consider the implications of juxtaposing these two statements.
Belief in supernatural agents is, on the contrary, a very appropriate characterization of religion because it is precisely
that aspect which distinguishes religion from other social phenomena. And it is precisely supernatural belief
which is most harmful, because it is used to justify the most brutal and irrational behaviour. And so, the
"surgical approach" should be to cut out supernatural religion. It is also important to avoid applying
the word "religious" to the non-supernatural aspects because we can be sure that religious institutions
will (and do!) profit from the resulting confusion of terms in order to lay claim to anything positive, i.e. those
aspects (such as ethics) which are available without religion.
CBC News —
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2002-12-20
The Canadian Supreme Court rules that religious objections cannot be used to justify the banning of books in public schools,
as Christian homophobes have attempted to do. Nevertheless, the Court grants the school board the power to decide the
context in which such books can be used.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that a British Columbia school board should not have banned books at the
kindergarten and Grade 1 level that depicted same-sex parents.
In a 7-2 ruling, the top court said the school board in Surrey went against provincial legislation that says the
public school system is secular and non-sectarian.
The case goes back to 1997, when the school board refused to approve three books for use in kindergarten and Grade 1.
The three books are Asha's Mums, Belinda's Bouquet and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads. The books depicted
same-sex parents in a favourable light, triggering complaints from parents who took objection on religious grounds.
James Chamberlain, a primary-level teacher, wanted to use the books in class, even though they are not part of a
reading list approved by the B.C. Education Ministry.
The Supreme Court ruling focused on the religious objections, rather than the larger issue of gay and lesbian
onstitutional rights.
The Surrey board said it ordered the ban because the books were not suitable for five- and six-year olds.
The board also said many parents objected to the books because they regard homosexuality as a sin.
But the court said the moral objections of some parents are not a basis for a ban. The court also concluded
"tolerance is always age-appropriate," said John Fisher of the group Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere.
"The Supreme Court of Canada today ruled that learning about difference actually enhances children's education,
that kids benefit when they learn respect for those who are different," he said.
A trial judge supported Chamberlain in 1998; then the B.C. Court of Appeal reversed the decision in 2000.
The appeal court ruled the board could exclude the books from the classroom but have them available in the school library.
CBC News — Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2002-12-20
REGINA - The federal government is offering aboriginals a system of quick settlements of claims arising from abuse in
residential schools. The government's proposal released Friday is intended to break the legal logjam caused by the 12,000
claims, "the sad legacy of the Indian residential school system," now clogging the courts, said Ralph Goodale,
the minister responsible for dealing with the aboriginal lawsuits. "Everyone wants faster action," he said.
Aboriginals have launched suits over physical, cultural and sexual abuse against the federal government, which
set up the residential school program, and the four churches that actually ran the schools for the government.
$1.7 billion earmarked
Goodale said the government's proposed "alternative dispute resolution" process could cost $750 million
to run over seven years, and is expected to provide victims with $950 million "or perhaps a bit more." But
the speed of resolution is much greater and the administrative costs are much lower than continuing litigation, he said.
Goodale said the decision to use the government's new process—or continue litigation in the courts—remains
with the victims. But the payouts under the government's system will be "on a par with the courts in providing fair
and reasonable compensation," he claimed. The process will be binding on those who choose it.
Goodale said he expected many claimants would, rather than continuing to litigate. Of the more than 12,000 cases,
there are judgments in only 12, and at the current rate, it will take more than 50 years to handle them all, he said.
See also:
Webmaster's comment:
Note that the Anglican Church, which is involved in 20% of the abuse cases, has agreed to pay no more than $25 million.
If other churches cut a similar deal, that means only about $125 million paid by churches but $1.7 billion committed
(so far) to be paid by Canadian taxpayers. Remember that religious institutions already enjoy major tax exemptions.
Sounds like a sweetheart deal.
London Times — United Kingdom, 2002-12-19
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, last night launched an impassioned plea for church leaders to put morality
back at the heart of society and public life. In an agenda-setting speech, his first since taking up office at the start of
the month, Dr Williams showed the depths of his determination to advance an intellectual agenda and make the Church of England
a powerhouse at the centre of the debate about politics and morality.
...
Dr Williams argued that without religion "our whole politics is likely to be in deep trouble".
He said it was inevitable that governments can no longer deliver in terms of setting out a moral basis for ordinary citizens
to live their lives by. While governments are successful at encouraging enterprise and consumerism to an unprecedented degree,
they are no longer capable of guaranteeing long-term security. He made it clear that he believes that in a post-September 11
world, it is God that has to define how we live rather than our political leaders.
Webmaster's comment:
Williams makes some valid criticisms of modern political trends: in particular, governments' abandonment of the pursuit
of the common good and their love affair with the market economy. But the cure he proposes—a return to Christian
values—is more dangerous than the disease!
The Guardian — United Kingdom, 2002-12-16
The BBC is facing legal action over its refusal to allow secular contributors to air their opinions on Radio 4's
Thought for the Day. The threat follows a period of mounting pressure on the BBC to change its policy of banning
non-religious voices on the two and a half minute slot.
The former president of the National Secular Society has set a deadline of Wednesday for the BBC to change its position or
face court action under the Human Rights Act. "Around 30% of the population of this country does not hold to any
religion, yet this large minority is denied a voice on Thought for the Day," said Barbara Smoker, the author of
books on humanism and free thought. Ms Smoker's lawyers believe the ban is a breach of her human rights as a potential
contributor and listener.
...
The NSS was one of the groups behind a letter, signed by 100 public figures, urging the BBC governors to open up the two
and a half minute slot to secular and atheist thinkers. The letter was signed by former Labour leader Michael Foot, playwright
Harold Pinter, broadcaster Sir Ludovic Kennedy and Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins, who became the first ever
atheist to deliver an alternative Thought for the Day in August.
New York Times, 2002-12-05
Follow up on the court decision that part of the American Pledge of Allegiance violates the American Constitution.
A federal appeals panel in San Francisco ruled yesterday that the atheist father who challenged the Pledge of Allegiance
on behalf of his daughter had a right to bring the case. In its ruling, the panel reaffirmed its view that allowing schoolchildren
to hear the words "under God" in the pledge amounts to "unconstitutional indoctrination."
...
The case gained wide attention in June with the ruling that Mr. Newdow's daughter should not be subjected to the phrase
"under God" being recited in her public elementary classroom. The Constitution, the court said, prohibited public
schools or other governmental bodies from endorsing religion.
Scotsman.com — Scotland, 2002-12-01
A priest who marched in a gay pride parade which was opposed by the Vatican has been removed as pastor of a parish in southern
Italy. The Rev Vitaliano Della Sala, 39, said he planned to appeal to the Vatican over his removal by the local bishop.
...
In July 2000, tens of thousands of homosexuals and supporters marched through Rome to cap a week of World Pride
activities— an event the Vatican tried to persuade Rome’s mayor to cancel. Among the marchers was the Rev Della Sala.
See also:
| XHTML CSS |