My recent submission to the Expert Panel on Religious Freedom C/O Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

ETA Monday, April 2: So I've come across two things that address the issue of Religious Liberty from some different sides, not necessarily straight up anti or pro, and I think they're definitely worth sharing.

I subscribe to Counter Arguments and I do encourage people to check it out. The arguments are clear and fairly comprehensive and provide great great ground for further discussions. In this video, he tackles the subject od religious freedom, specifically addressing the Kim Davis case and the arguments around civil disobedience. I think it does a great job of breaking the situation down, particularly helping to distinguish the roles of the different branches of US Government in legalising Gay Marriage and the implications for law enforcement.

An area of difficulty I found was in the idea that those advocating for religious liberty are in any way looking for a free for all pass on any behaviours claiming roots in religious belief and that is very well addressed in this article:

#KimDavis, Slippery Slopes and Religious Freedom

I think what this article does is outline the ability to have a balance that allows all cases and rights be properly examined and then dealt with accordingly which, as per my submission below, is something I strongly agree with.

**************************

Further information regarding the current review is available here:
https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review

The right to freedom of religion and belief is as fundamental as the right to dissent or criticise any form of belief. Both should be equally and adamantly protected. 

For the state to create an overriding general mandate on morality despite the complexity of core beliefs and the right to express those beliefs ultimately stifles the opportunity for genuine and open discussion which is essential to furthering human understanding in a pluralistic world. One doesn't wipe out discrimination by forcing people to act in genuine conflict with their conscience and the only real way you can distinguish between the two is through honest conversation which also must involve honest listening. 

If a case comes forward and is placed under scrutiny, then the merits of each side's arguments can actually be judged. Once the ability to even argue a side, whichever side it is, is taken away by being made contrary to law, the opportunity to judge actions based on genuine reason and merit disappears. In a democracy, such a thing would be unspeakably wrong. 

We must fight discrimination tooth and nail, but in trying to stamp out real discrimination, lumping those who intend to spread real hatred and unjustly discriminate with those who have genuine reason for their beliefs and whose beliefs have no root in hatred, does the population real injustice. In a democracy, we cannot abide by simply gagging a portion of the population. 

Our only chance is to protect the freedom of all sides to peacefully and respectfully live and express their beliefs and therefore allow genuine discussion and further encourage real understanding between all.

[Repost] On the notion of Belief - Do Science and Religion really have to be incompatible?

Am I a Christian, Pastor Timothy Keller?

A friend on Facebook posted this article from the NY Times and it's a great conversation between the Pastor and the interviewer, Nicholas Kristof, about questioning faith. Pastor Kelly makes some wonderful points questioning the notions that skepticism and science are necessarily incompatible with religion and suggesting that secularists 'should be as open to questions and doubts about their positions as religious people' - all things I not only agree with, but deeply believe in. I really do recommend people give it a read, whatever they believe. 

It was in that spirit, that I wrote the below last year. Well, that spirit and somewhat admittedly incendiary response to comments on a topic posted to the IFLS Facebook page about giving up sugar for Lent hence of the moments of tonal aggression. Why a repost? Because pretty much any response I have to the above linked article is pretty much already summed up below. 

As always, my overarching stance on pretty much anything is that I respect the respectful, regardless of where they stand on the spectrum of belief. 

Originally posted on April 4, 2015:

'Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.'

The National Academy of Sciences on the compatibility between science and religion

I do encourage everyone to read the rest of that page linked above.

Earlier today, the I Fucking Love Science (IFLS) FB page posted a link about what happens to you if you happened to give up sugar for Lent. I'm always somewhat wary of seeing links like this on IFLS, not because I'm not religious, quite the opposite, but because I've become accustomed to the hostility and mindless bashing that comes with even remotely daring to have the notions of both science and religion in the same vicinity. I have seen it before when IFLS linked to an article talking about the potential discovery of the birthplace of Jesus. Now I understand that IFLS and any similar sites are not The History Channel or otherwise historically informative, but when I see comments like, 'Why are you reporting on a myth', I am filled with a very quiet but very real fury (look up the history for two seconds, honestly). On today's post about sugar addiction that dared to mention Lent, some choice comments included, 'If you practise Lent, there's already something wrong with your head' and 'do people who fucking love science observe Lent?'.

Clearly that first comment is far more incendiary than the second which, outside of my own bias and doubt, could have been genuinely meant. In that case, I will answer it with a resounding yes. Some people who fucking love science actually observe Lent because they are both scientists and Catholics or Christians. In fact, growing up, the majority of priests I knew were scholars in science, most notably physics. Even now, some of my friends who are scientists and engineers are also very devout Catholics who have no problem pursuing science and practising their faith at the same time. Bearing further mention are the countless Christian or Catholic scientists who have contributed so significantly to our modern understanding of the world. How many people know who Georges Lemaitre, Angelo Secchi or Roger Bacon are? Look them up.

[On a personal note, I am a happily practising Catholic with a Bachelor of Science in Psychology (although one who admittedly chose not to pursue it as a career but professionally assists others who have) who agrees wholeheartedly with the use of the scientific method to learn more about the world around us. Any qualms I may have with scientific pursuit usually fall under the umbrella of scientific ethics (an area into which I undertook postgraduate study), often in the area of bioethics (eg. cloning), but such areas are generally contentious and without medical or scientific consensus so I'm far from alone on that count, religious or not.]

Essentially, what is upsetting and angering about comments that immediately jump on the science and religion can't coexist is that these days, some such declarations (not all, I'm sure, but many) are made without having actually attempted to read or research the idea and appear to have become Pop Fact, much like the notion that religion has caused the most wars (again, fury) despite the fact that according to recorded history, only 123 out of 1763 wars and less than 2% of all people killed in warfare have been classified as religiously based, according to the Encyclopedia of Wars by Phillips and Axelrod. Yet, people seem more than willing to blindly accept that religion is a bigger source of evil than outright human greed and territorial conquest and the need for power and control.

Also, from experience, a lot of people who seem to 'love' science, have no damn clue what it actually is. As a Psych student, I was often told by people I knew in the hard sciences that 'Psych is not a science' despite the fact that the method by which I spent a degree being taught to study observable human behaviour was most definitely the scientific method and the statistical analysis that followed (which I have gladly left behind) was engaged to ensure we were obtaining results as statistically significant as possible. We didn't do that shit for fun, we were trying to see if the variables we had manipulated in order to test our hypotheses were actually making a real difference - just like people do in labs. Pardon us for trying to scientifically research something that is intangible and therefore more difficult to assess. To this day, I say those studying cognitive psychology are some of the most creative people I've ever encountered. Being able to construct experiments to test and observe memory? Insanely imaginative and clever.

But I digress. As the statement made above by the Academy of Sciences points out, scientific reason and faith and belief look at things from completely different angles and ultimately, that's how you want to view the world - from as many angles as possible. Considering we live in an age obsessed with pluralistic thought and perspective, it's odd that people are then only willing to engage in understanding the world via one very often flawed means. When journalists investigate a story, attacking it from just the one side or the one perspective, it begs questions of bias, an agenda and a lack of objectivity. Why is it suddenly completely objective to stand by science and nothing else?

I think what people get confused is scientific fact versus scientific discovery and possibility. More likely than not, what many people take on board as scientific 'fact' is nothing more than the replicated results of studies that provide evidence for particular conclusions to be drawn. These are not facts, they are findings that potentially support hypotheses and once disproven or falsified, will be altered. As an undergrad science student, I was trained to write, '... there is evidence to suggest...' ad nauseum. Even in areas of more solid and tangible results, for example, biological or medical discoveries and treatments, there are only so many treatments, medications and therapies that work 100% of the time. As a sufferer of a number of chronic medical conditions, I can at least personally attest to the fact that many treatments that have worked on many past patients have not been able to work on me and I am not alone in that at all. When it comes to science, we do what we can with the knowledge that we have and still test what works and what doesn't. The rest, we take on almost as a form of faith, eg. I have never seen these medical results in others for myself, but I have taken it on faith that the medical community backing these assertions aren't simply lying to me. In that same spirit, I have never been to space, seen the moon's surface for myself or seen the Red Spot on Jupiter with my own eyes, but I have faith and trust in those astrophysicists who have done the research for me.

Now, if someone has no belief or has chosen not to believe in the supernatural (I don't, however, tend to adhere to the notion that anyone chooses what they believe. While specific beliefs can be altered, belief in itself is simply that. You believe something or you don't), then fine, if you have no room for any form of spirituality in your life or are happy in the notion that biological or neurological processes or quantum mechanics are enough explanation for the more intangible aspects of life, then by all means, that is absolutely your call. This does not, however, give you the authority to declare as fact beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those who do believe in a supernatural aspect of the world are either dead wrong and intellectually pitiable because in some cases, the likelihood will be that those people have put a lot more thought into it because that which is intangible bears far more need for thought by nature of its invisibility.

I do understand that there are people out there who have thoughtlessly decided to follow one belief system or another, among them Catholics and Christians, however, this type of believer is not strictly bound within the arena of religious faith. There are blind adherents to scientists, philosophers, hell, nowadays, even celebrities (I'm looking at you, Jenny McCarthy, incidental anti-vax champion. More fury).

Rather than demonise, however, as I've always stood by the notion that everyone believes what they do for a reason, whatever reasons they may be, at the end of the day, by all means, disagree, mock, even, if you really must, but maybe once in a while, instead of burrowing comfortably in your warren of disbelief/belief, ask someone you just do not understand - why?

[Repost] Islamophobia: more mindless generalistic demonisation of religion

Honestly, I really do hope to put something up that isn't quite so heavy some time soon because I'm not loving the general wave of tone I've been posting in the last month or so. That being said, the current state in which the world is simmering, boiling, burning, however you want to put it, does lend itself to moments of unavoidable painful reflection and self-reflection so it simply is what it is.

In that spirit, current events, particularly in the US and Europe this last month, have only shown that despite the flurry of events, so many core realities don't change. In trying to find answers to the horrors of the world, people respond in a myriad of ways, some as hopeful and as positive as can be mustered under the circumstances, some innocently misguided and others resorting to outright hatred, anger and vitriol.

It is that last point my original post looked to address. Anger, fear and hatred are actually genuinely natural responses to horror. But at the end of the day, if we've voluntarily chosen to remain blind to any further human consideration for other individuals, we have to take responsibility for that and any damage it may cause which, let's be honest, it often will.

I don't condone the notion of never questioning the beliefs, backgrounds and histories that lead to acts of violence, in fact that can only be a huge step in hopefully addressing the roots of so many problems. However attacking genuinely innocent people is simply unjustifiable. We can argue till we're blue in the face about systemic ignorance leading to extremism going unchecked (has that peacefully practising Islamic family passively condoned acts of terror simply by being Muslim? I personally absolutely do not think so, but the scores who disagree will) but ultimately, those who acted and those who encouraged and trained them to do so are entirely responsible. Any retaliation aimed elsewhere is just wanton and pointless vengeance.

Though ideally, I identify as a pacifist, I do believe in fighting for what's right and fighting for what you believe in which is why I can often admire even those who fight vociferously for things with which I absolutely do not agree. However I definitely believe in fighting against those who decide to attack who we are and what we believe in.

What I will never believe in is attacking innocent people.

Originally posted October 6, 2014.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over the last week, the two videos below have been all over my Facebook, Twitter and news feeds. Both tackle the question of Islam and Islamophobia and the impact generalisation has on how people view Islam. I finally got to watch them today and, well, let's be honest, I love watching spirited debate and both delivered, just in very different ways.

'Criticize the person doing it, not the [country]'

It is odd to find myself potentially siding with Bill Maher because in general, I've never liked the man. I'm not a fan of his smug, sarcastic brand of commentary and his 'documentary', Religulous, while certainly entertaining, could hardly have been called objective and the fact that it is now treated as a factual representation of all (not some, all) religious folk by some still makes my blood boil. 

However, at the beginning of the video, particularly in comparison to Ben Affleck heatedly spluttering his disgust for their views, it was difficult not to see Maher and Harris' calm reiteration of the statistics as more reasonable. It wasn't until further on in the video I was able to see what Affleck was trying to say underneath his irritation and that, I believe, is the same point that Reza Aslan was far more eloquently able to make in the next video.

'To say that 'Muslim countries' as though Pakistan and Turkey are the same, as though Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are the same... is stupid.'

His point was so very clear and yet Camerota insisted on using the term, 'Muslim countries' as though Aslan hadn't already pointed out that the term was invalid about 5 times. Within the first few minutes, he succinctly points out that the examples that Maher was using to criticise Islam are in fact not representative so much of the religion as they are of the countries in which they are practised. I understand the point that Maher and Lemon and Camerota were trying to make about the statistics of mainstream Muslim belief and their own belief that this is indicative of a faith that ultimately promotes violence at its core and not just in its extremes, however it still doesn't change the fact that they cannot use that to justify a broad judgement of all or even most of who identify as Muslim - and yet they continue to do so. 

People say statistics don't lie. I don't imagine they do, but they certainly don't always tell the whole truth. If anything, the picture they end up painting more closely resembles an incomplete puzzle than a crisp and clear photo of reality. 

People and statistics are two separate entities and one thing I've grown to hate is one being mistaken for the other. They are indicative of either what has happened or what people think but they don't determine everything. I don't care if say, for example, a lower socio-economic area in society has a statistically higher rate of crime, unemployment or teen pregnancy or any other category of marginalisation for that matter. If you live in that area, until you as an individual finally act in a way that makes you fall into one of those categories, those statistics do not represent you as a person and are therefore in no way a determinant of your future. They do not define you until you let them.

It is based on this point that I agree with Ben Affleck more than I did his counterparts (until Sam Harris acknowledged that they were speaking of ideas as opposed to people). His point was that judgement should always fall on those who are perpetrating disaster. Not the faith they claim to represent, not the race or country from which they came, but the perpetrators, the terrorists themselves. The end. To focus the blame elsewhere based on statistics is misguided and dangerous because then the victim count extends beyond those directly affected by terrorism or genocide to even more innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't condemn dangerous ideas. Ideas are what drive these attacks and to pretend they don't serve a vital role is naive. But that still provides no excuse to unfairly judge and demonise innocent people who haven't adopted those more violent ideas. The beheadings in Iraq do not make it ok for the beatings and harrassment of innocent Muslims in Australia to have occurred as they did after the police crackdown this last month. That they did is abhorrent and a tragic manifestation of blind and uninformed hate. No number of bombings, attacks, beheadings or kidnappings will ever justify retaliating against the innocent and I say this as someone who has lost a family member to a terrorist attack. 

As Aslan said, those individuals, those societies or those governments that actively oppress and abuse people should be condemned but to breed fear and misunderstanding based on blanket generalisations leads to discord beyond borders because therein lies a very dangerous idea - that we have the right to judge people based, not on their own actions, but on the terrible actions of someone else. 

The Common Sense Atheist on the Logical Christian Philosopher

'In this post I want to celebrate what Craig and I (currently) agree about. I do this for two reasons:

1. So you can correct me if you think I’m wrong.

2. So atheists can stop wasting time by disagreeing with Craig even when he’s right, and focus on where he’s wrong.'

Luke Muehlhauser on William Lane Craig

It's a bare snippet of what Muehlhauser has to say so I do suggest clicking and giving it a read, however alongside the points made, it's the spirit in which the post was written than I am so happy to share. Modern debate of any kind has only become more and more exhausting because people seem to have no interest whatsoever in actually listening to what the other sides have to say.

Sure, when you go into any debate or any argument, you enter into it carrying your own personal beliefs and convictions which will inevitably colour your response to whatever you're presented with, but too often debates descend into agenda bashing, name calling and outright childish denial of any possibility that those with whom you disagree may actually have, if not a point, but backing for what they're trying to say.

Hence it is more than refreshing when someone, as Muehlhauser has done above, is so willing to focus on where he and Craig stand on common ground so that they can finally stop wasting time on mindless disagreement and actually try to genuinely hash out the roots of their differences. It's not just better debate, it's an actual exercise in real respect, something sorely lacking in so many argument these days.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I respect the respectful, wherever they may lie on the spectrum of belief and opinion. Cheers, Muehlhauser, from a Christian who respects you and our differences.

On the notion of Belief: Do Science and Religion really have to be incompatible?

'Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.'

The National Academy of Sciences on the compatibility between science and religion

I do encourage everyone to read the rest of that page linked above.

Earlier today, the I Fucking Love Science (IFLS) FB page posted a link about what happens to you if you happened to give up sugar for Lent. I'm always somewhat wary of seeing links like this on IFLS, not because I'm not religious, quite the opposite, but because I've become accustomed to the hostility and mindless bashing that comes with even remotely daring to have the notions of both science and religion in the same vicinity. I have seen it before when IFLS linked to an article talking about the potential discovery of the birthplace of Jesus. Now I understand that IFLS and any similar sites are not The History Channel or otherwise historically informative, but when I see comments like, 'Why are you reporting on a myth', I am filled with a very quiet but very real fury (look up the history for two seconds, honestly). On today's post about sugar addiction that dared to mention Lent, some choice comments included, 'If you practise Lent, there's already something wrong with your head' and 'do people who fucking love science observe Lent?'.

Clearly that first comment is far more incendiary than the second which, outside of my own bias and doubt, could have been genuinely meant. In that case, I will answer it with a resounding yes. Some people who fucking love science actually observe Lent because they are both scientists and Catholics or Christians. In fact, growing up, the majority of priests I knew were scholars in science, most notably physics. Even now, some of my friends who are scientists and engineers are also very devout Catholics who have no problem pursuing science and practising their faith at the same time. Bearing further mention are the countless Christian or Catholic scientists who have contributed so significantly to our modern understanding of the world. How many people know who Georges Lemaitre, Angelo Secchi or Roger Bacon are? Look them up.

[On a personal note, I am a happily practising Catholic with a Bachelor of Science in Psychology (although one who admittedly chose not to pursue it as a career but professionally assists others who have) who agrees wholeheartedly with the use of the scientific method to learn more about the world around us. Any qualms I may have with scientific pursuit usually fall under the umbrella of scientific ethics (an area into which I undertook postgraduate study), often in the area of bioethics (eg. cloning), but such areas are generally contentious and without medical or scientific consensus so I'm far from alone on that count, religious or not.]

Essentially, what is upsetting and angering about comments that immediately jump on the science and religion can't coexist is that these days, some such declarations (not all, I'm sure, but many) are made without having actually attempted to read or research the idea and appear to have become Pop Fact, much like the notion that religion has caused the most wars (again, fury) despite the fact that according to recorded history, only 123 out of 1763 wars and less than 2% of all people killed in warfare have been classified as religiously based, according to the Encyclopedia of Wars by Phillips and Axelrod. Yet, people seem more than willing to blindly accept that religion is a bigger source of evil than outright human greed and territorial conquest and the need for power and control.

Also, from experience, a lot of people who seem to 'love' science, have no damn clue what it actually is. As a Psych student, I was often told by people I knew in the hard sciences that 'Psych is not a science' despite the fact that the method by which I spent a degree being taught to study observable human behaviour was most definitely the scientific method and the statistical analysis that followed (which I have gladly left behind) was engaged to ensure we were obtaining results as statistically significant as possible. We didn't do that shit for fun, we were trying to see if the variables we had manipulated in order to test our hypotheses were actually making a real difference - just like people do in labs. Pardon us for trying to scientifically research something that is intangible and therefore more difficult to assess. To this day, I say those studying cognitive psychology are some of the most creative people I've ever encountered. Being able to construct experiments to test and observe memory? Insanely imaginative and clever.

But I digress. As the statement made above by the Academy of Sciences points out, scientific reason and faith and belief look at things from completely different angles and ultimately, that's how you want to view the world - from as many angles as possible. Considering we live in an age obsessed with pluralistic thought and perspective, it's odd that people are then only willing to engage in understanding the world via one very often flawed means. When journalists investigate a story, attacking it from just the one side or the one perspective, it begs questions of bias, an agenda and a lack of objectivity. Why is it suddenly completely objective to stand by science and nothing else?

I think what people get confused is scientific fact versus scientific discovery and possibility. More likely than not, what many people take on board as scientific 'fact' is nothing more than the replicated results of studies that provide evidence for particular conclusions to be drawn. These are not facts, they are findings that potentially support hypotheses and once disproven or falsified, will be altered. As an undergrad science student, I was trained to write, '... there is evidence to suggest...' ad nauseum. Even in areas of more solid and tangible results, for example, biological or medical discoveries and treatments, there are only so many treatments, medications and therapies that work 100% of the time. As a sufferer of a number of chronic medical conditions, I can at least personally attest to the fact that many treatments that have worked on many past patients have not been able to work on me and I am not alone in that at all. When it comes to science, we do what we can with the knowledge that we have and still test what works and what doesn't. The rest, we take on almost as a form of faith, eg. I have never seen these medical results in others for myself, but I have taken it on faith that the medical community backing these assertions aren't simply lying to me. In that same spirit, I have never been to space, seen the moon's surface for myself or seen the Red Spot on Jupiter with my own eyes, but I have faith and trust in those astrophysicists who have done the research for me.

Now, if someone has no belief or has chosen not to believe in the supernatural (I don't, however, tend to adhere to the notion that anyone chooses what they believe. While specific beliefs can be altered, belief in itself is simply that. You believe something or you don't), then fine, if you have no room for any form of spirituality in your life or are happy in the notion that biological or neurological processes or quantum mechanics are enough explanation for the more intangible aspects of life, then by all means, that is absolutely your call. This does not, however, give you the authority to declare as fact beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those who do believe in a supernatural aspect of the world are either dead wrong and intellectually pitiable because in some cases, the likelihood will be that those people have put a lot more thought into it because that which is intangible bears far more need for thought by nature of its invisibility.

I do understand that there are people out there who have thoughtlessly decided to follow one belief system or another, among them Catholics and Christians, however, this type of believer is not strictly bound within the arena of religious faith. There are blind adherents to scientists, philosophers, hell, nowadays, even celebrities (I'm looking at you, Jenny McCarthy, incidental anti-vax champion. More fury).

Rather than demonise, however, as I've always stood by the notion that everyone believes what they do for a reason, whatever reasons they may be, at the end of the day, by all means, disagree, mock, even, if you really must, but maybe once in a while, instead of burrowing comfortably in your warren of disbelief/belief, ask someone you just do not understand - why?

On the Church and Galileo - it's time the same old myths were put to rest.

• Further Reading:

  An Atheist's Take on Galileo and The Church - Tim O'Neill via Quora

  
  

  '@Mike

  Another routinely perpetuated falsehood.

  In fact, the matter was settled in 1741 when Benedict XIV granted Imprimatur to the ‘Complete Works of Galileo.’

  Geocentrism was not only a church-held. The accepted view among ALL scientists was that of Aristotelian geocentrism - not Copernican heliocentrism.

  Galileo privately belittled his scientific peers nevertheless refraining from publishing confirmation of his theory (Copernicus' theory actually), not fearing censure from the Church - but public ridicule from his scientific peers.

  He admitted he could not prove heliocentrism using the scientific standards of his day i.e he could not disprove the associated theory of parallax movement of the stars in relation to heliocentrism - critical for acceptance.

  Pope UrbanVIII cautioned him not to promote geocentrism as absolute scientific truth but to present arguments for and against. He refused putting it forward as absolute - with no conclusive evidence. He then launched into an attack on scripture to help his cause – which he knew nothing about and which was a church responsibility.

  Cardinal Bellarmine’s 1615 letter to Galilleo stated the Church’s position:

  a) It was perfectly acceptable to maintain Copernicanism as a *working* hypothesis;
  b) If real proof existed, he should still proceed with great circumspection.

  Pius VII in 1822, declared Copernicanism as a fact – notwithstanding that the Ptolemian-Aristotelian objection remained undetermined until 1838 when Friedrich Bessel finally succeeded in showing the parallax of Star 61 Cygni.

  Pope Paul VI in 1979, directed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to settle the ongoing lies and misrepresentations about the Church once and for all with an Academy report on the matter.

  One concession – the CC is never in a hurry. Their report was finalised in 1992 by Benedict XVI (Cardinal) precisely in order to put to rest ongoing erroneous claims like yours.

  Commenter

  Java

   

  Location

  Brisbane

   

  Date and time

  October 16, 2014, 2:31PM'

  
  

Islamophobia: more mindless generalistic demonisation of religion

Over the last week, the two videos below have been all over my Facebook, Twitter and news feeds. Both tackle the question of Islam and Islamophobia and the impact generalisation has on how people view Islam. I finally got to watch them today and, well, let's be honest, I love watching spirited debate and both delivered, just in very different ways.

'Criticize the person doing it, not the [country]'

It is odd to find myself potentially siding with Bill Maher because in general, I've never liked the man. I'm not a fan of his smug, sarcastic brand of commentary and his 'documentary', Religulous, while certainly entertaining, could hardly have been called objective and the fact that it is now treated as a factual representation of all (not some, all) religious folk by some still makes my blood boil. 

However, at the beginning of the video, particularly in comparison to Ben Affleck heatedly spluttering his disgust for their views, it was difficult not to see Maher and Harris' calm reiteration of the statistics as more reasonable. It wasn't until further on in the video I was able to see what Affleck was trying to say underneath his irritation and that, I believe, is the same point that Reza Aslan was far more eloquently able to make in the next video.

'To say that 'Muslim countries' as though Pakistan and Turkey are the same, as though Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are the same... is stupid.'

His point was so very clear and yet Camerota insisted on using the term, 'Muslim countries' as though Aslan hadn't already pointed out that the term was invalid about 5 times. Within the first few minutes, he succinctly points out that the examples that Maher was using to criticise Islam are in fact not representative so much of the religion as they are of the countries in which they are practised. I understand the point that Maher and Lemon and Camerota were trying to make about the statistics of mainstream Muslim belief and their own belief that this is indicative of a faith that ultimately promotes violence at its core and not just in its extremes, however it still doesn't change the fact that they cannot use that to justify a broad judgement of all or even most of who identify as Muslim - and yet they continue to do so. 

People say statistics don't lie. I don't imagine they do, but they certainly don't always tell the whole truth. If anything, the picture they end up painting more closely resembles an incomplete puzzle than a crisp and clear photo of reality. 

People and statistics are two separate entities and one thing I've grown to hate is one being mistaken for the other. They are indicative of either what has happened or what people think but they don't determine everything. I don't care if say, for example, a lower socio-economic area in society has a statistically higher rate of crime, unemployment or teen pregnancy or any other category of marginalisation for that matter. If you live in that area, until you as an individual finally act in a way that makes you fall into one of those categories, those statistics do not represent you as a person and are therefore in no way a determinant of your future. They do not define you until you let them.

It is based on this point that I agree with Ben Affleck more than I did his counterparts (until Sam Harris acknowledged that they were speaking of ideas as opposed to people). His point was that judgement should always fall on those who are perpetrating disaster. Not the faith they claim to represent, not the race or country from which they came, but the perpetrators, the terrorists themselves. The end. To focus the blame elsewhere based on statistics is misguided and dangerous because then the victim count extends beyond those directly affected by terrorism or genocide to even more innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't condemn dangerous ideas. Ideas are what drive these attacks and to pretend they don't serve a vital role is naive. But that still provides no excuse to unfairly judge and demonise innocent people who haven't adopted those more violent ideas. The beheadings in Iraq do not make it ok for the beatings and harrassment of innocent Muslims in Australia to have occurred as they did after the police crackdown this last month. That they did is abhorrent and a tragic manifestation of blind and uninformed hate. No number of bombings, attacks, beheadings or kidnappings will ever justify retaliating against the innocent and I say this as someone who has lost a family member to a terrorist attack. 

As Aslan said, those individuals, those societies or those governments that actively oppress and abuse people should be condemned but to breed fear and misunderstanding based on blanket generalisations leads to discord beyond borders because therein lies a very dangerous idea - that we have the right to judge people based, not on their own actions, but on the terrible actions of someone else. 

C.S. Lewis on Reasoning to Atheism

I love this. Logic abound.

I would be genuinely interested in a well thought out response. It’s not often I can’t immediately imagine what it would be and here, the logic is simple enough that I wonder how much further you could nitpick, outside of arguing the nature of the ‘God’ in question.

Following from the above, I think it stands very well to reason that there had to be a first cause with actual intent, implying the presence of something greater than us outside of natural physical development.

I believe it to be God.

What would one who is certain of the absence of a god (as implied by atheism as opposed to agnosticism) believe it to be?

John Cheese on Science and Religion

John Cheese on Science and Religion

Read it. Right now. CLICK.

This is exactly what I think and I am tired of the idiotic assumptions made by either end of the belief spectrum. The sheer willingness to disdainfully dismiss someone’s opinion simply because it doesn’t happen to coincide with your own is only proof of a complete lack of intellect. Outside of those who have just blindly decided to adopt one mindset over another, most everyone has REASON for why they believe what they do.

Basic courtesy would at least require having the respect to ask WHY before mindlessly passing judgement.

Despite horses and buggies, Amish aren't necessarily 'low-tech'

Click the title...

I actually found this really interesting... especially now as everyone constantly lauds the awesome that new technology has been able to bring into our lives while also maintaining the unavoidable wariness of its potential downfalls.

A point on the whole idea of 'friends' VS 'contacts' - from the article:

CNN: What about cars?

Brende: To the extent that you are mobile in an automated or motorized way with something like a car or motorcycle or fast moving tractor, you've increased your radius of contact with other human beings, but at the same time you dilute the quality of contact within that radius.

Like any notion, it's true when it's true and not when it's not (simply put, you're either real friends or you're not) but in a world where networking, 'add as friend' and 'follow' are such highly promoted focal points of communication it's hard not to imagine that human relationships have definitely taken some hits as the years have gone by.

That said, this is all coming from someone writing on an online blog and who has certainly enjoyed the expanded horizons in acquaintance provided by good ol' technological advance. Heh, you'd think my ass would hurt after sitting on this damn fence this whole time...

Oh well, bonus? A little less stereotyping in the mass media about any particular group is always welcome so cheers, Mr Sutter. Thanks for teaching me a little more about the Amish and backing up my belief that being 'behind' doesn't necessarily mean staring people in the ass and missing out on the good stuff.