Month: April 2015

Seems a bit lame after the growing noise around the “beach body” poster, but I need to record my original thoughts. The twitterstorm – the feminists vs the PC-rejectors – has grown this week, but when I first saw the poster over 2 maybe 3 weeks ago, I assumed the so-non-PC shock value was deliberate irony – click-bait. I recall a chuckle. It clearly worked.

Interesting what New Zealand Christians believe  – that Taoist tai chi involves an alternative god?

As one of those previously dismissive of Brand’s naive revolutionary call to reject democracy and throw it’s babies out with the bathwater, without any apparent “plan” to fill the vacuum with anything other than anarchic revolution, I need to point out that his latest Trews interview with Ed Milliband is excellent.

Ironically, Brand’s closing piece credits Milliband with learning something about the reality of the workings of the press and the banks and such like, whereas the person that’s clearly learned something about what it takes to make change happen is Brand.

Some very honest exchanges about shared frustrations, recognition of the difficulties and (real) limits to power and influence, yet a (seemingly) positive coming together on genuine commitment to common aims. Inter-personal good will – respect and trust – is a much bigger part of this than is often given credit. The Love in Revolution.

What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding?

As well as several recent posts – [Secular Politics] [The Art of Freedom] [Freedom Regained] – there are a number of other items and events on the topic of freedom. [Still to publish a complete review of Baggini’s Freedom Regained, referenced in the above – but a recommended read.]

Prompted to post this after seeing the headline “Atheism is Freedom” and thinking that’s really a matter of context – the context for that particular atheist being Iran. Freedom really is a matter of degree.

Last night I listened to @BobChurchill and @BenedictRogers in a “Young Professionals in Foreign Policy” event at the Royal United Services Institute in Whitehall. It was a light-touch facilitated conversation driven almost entirely by audience interaction, around the UN Human Rights Declaration Article 18 on “Freedom of thought, conscience, belief, etc. … ” often annoyingly abbreviated simply to “Religious Freedom”. Both speakers are more sophisticated than that. Practical experiences of the political complexities of violations and of “getting things done” abounded, and the level of agreement from their Atheist vs Christian perspectives was pretty well summed-up in Ben’s closing remarks:

 Art.18 is there to defend freedom for every human being.
Too often Christians speak up for Christians,
Muslims for Muslims, atheists for atheists.
Freedom should be defended [by all] for all.

Political complexities considered – that’s maybe too good to be true, but of course it’s not just realpolitik and hypocrisy that compromises such freedom. The fact is any enlightened freedom worth fighting for still has its constraints and restraints – values against which its quality is judged.

Atheism is freedom, freedom from believing in a god. It’s not freedom to believe [in] nothing. That’s chaos and anarchy. Many of us atheists have had to qualify what atheism means for us – at root it’s a negative belief defined by what it doesn’t believe or believes not to exist – somewhere between anti-theism and agnosticism; I’ve personally gone for non-theism in these days of new-atheism. But on the positive side, as a basis for actual beliefs, I’ve in the past gone for naturalism (many old links in the side-bar) and more often than not humanism or simply a secular rationalism. But too often rationalism tends to be hijacked by those that consider science – scientism – to be the only measure of rationality. But what’s in a name? The question is, what values come with the label.

I see the upcoming A C Grayling talk at Central London Humanists is on “Humanist Values” with a blurb that suggests humanist supporter Grayling chooses, for preference, the label naturalist. [Post note – my write-up on the Grayling talk.] Much has been made in recent debates about the value of humanism being the absence of “imposed” codes – which does indeed look like freedom if your context is of a more totalitarian persuasion. In a generally freer “western” context humanism (or naturalism) does still require a set of values to which we can subscribe, which we are still free to question and can adopt / adapt / improve over time. Successful evolution comes with a degree of conservatism, a generation-to-generation fidelity and fecundity of the established species. Species of value. A valuable freedom worth defending.

Unfettered freedom is not only an illusion; it makes no sense. It would not be desirable even if we could have it. Choices are not meaningful unless they reflect values, and values cannot be meaningfully chosen unless we already have some.
Julian Baggini – Freedom Regained

====

[Post Note: More on Humanist Values (for later)]

[Post Note : Paul Mason’s Grauniad piece on “bogus” identity politics – I beg to differ, it’s ultimately about identity.]

[Post Note : Kenan Malik on inherited Western / European / Christian / Islamic / Greek values etc. My recurring point is that naming a set of values as “ours” is about subscribing to them, not a proprietorial claim of ownership or originality, nor to contrast or distinguish them from the values of others. The more we share the better. The claim is simply an affirmation.]

[Post Note : And – on 13 May 2015, post #GE2015 – values topical in politics and media as measures to limit protections on free expression – of hate & prejudice – are proposed & debated. Links to be collected. This is the basic news story. Cuts both ways – on extremists and “critics”. And the Grauniad take. Samira Ahmed’s documentary piece. Graundiad on “Universal Values“.]

[Post Note : “Stay Quiet and You’ll Be OK” and “Seven Reasons not to Hold Back Your Opinion“.]

[Post Note : Baroness Warsi – on emphasising and promoting positive values, rather than negative legislation.]

[Post Note : More from Sarah Brown on Racism a cross-post of this. My initial response on identity and parallels between racism and religious hate speech was what about “Ethnicity”. See also Framing Islamaphobia law, and UK reworking Human Rights Act story. UK Muslim Myths. Time for a consolidated post from these holding snips.]

[Post Note : Even the Conservatives call time on Pamela Geller.]

This story of several writers pulling out of an event where Hebdo are to be honoured with an award. Quotes Salman Rushdie, and a twitter storm has arisen. Showing that the following are consistently held:

• Condemn Hebdo murders.
• Defend Hebdo’s freedom to publish.
• Celebrate Hebdo’s courage to publish.
• Criticise Hebdo’s actual publications and motives.

As I have done here. Not complicated.

[And here, Alex Massie in The Spectator.]

Interesting case. I don’t know any more than this piece and what I’ve seen tweeted about it (*), but it seems clear religious communities, press and individuals put pressure on voters. How much that was active (or passive) “corruption” by the candidate and their campaign is hard to tell from the reporting, but at least the vote was voided.

It says two things to me.

It shows the basic secular drive to separate religious faith from institutional legal governance, but there are a couple of corollaries that are harder to handle. It’s hard to imagine how religion-based opinion within any given community could be legislated against amongst the electorate.

The formal segregation is one thing – disestablishment of any one church – but mixed community religious values are another. Any vacuum of values is going to be filled by competing values from the community, religious or otherwise. It’s time the knotty topic of “national values” was taken seriously. National means adopted and valued by the nation; it says nothing about exclusive origination or ownership, nor whether  previously adopted by religions. The more widely they’re shared with humanity and valued in historical experience the better in fact. It’s about choosing colours and nailing them to a mast. Counter-intuitively, to nail something down is core to freedom.

Secondly, in this particular case, it shows why this kind of Islam – Islamism – is dangerous and unacceptable. The kind that says Islam is above temporal human legal governance arrangements, and that to participate in them is to be apostate, making individual free secret ballot subject to cultural block coercion. That is not just un-democratic, it is anti-democratic. That kind of preaching is unacceptable, though again, difficult to see exactly where legislation would counter this in a free society. It certainly means that individual free voting is part of those national values to be upheld in law, and one of the reasons “private” religious belief and “organised” religion are treated differently. Private beliefs and values are a matter of education and culturally shared values, which are protected by freedom of thought and expression.

Whilst we reject religiously imposed rules, especially those based on superstition or otherwise considered irrational, some values must carry the authority of our established culture. Always open to question, sure, but something to believe in, something more conservative than the next calculation or poll.

[(*) Hat tip to @jeremyr1 Full judgement here and Nick Cohen in The Grauniad. So yes, the original case actively corrupt, and yes, no surprise, political correctness as the passive corruption that drives failure to speak against cases where Islam is part of the problem.]

[Post notes on my secular values point:

Jonathan Hodgson’s AEON Video on what comes after religion.
Rory Fenton’s New Humanist piece on humanist codes for living.
Nat Sec Soc’s piece on UKIP’s call for valuing Christian heritage.

All in one day, 28th April, via Twitter. In rejecting religion,
we need to care what gets thrown out with the bathwater,
what the vacuum might fill with, what the gaps should be filled with.]

 

Prompted by a recent twitter exchange – where (usual suspect) Alice Roberts blocked someone for their opinion (or being annoying enough to repeat their opinion) That exchange was related to this earlier program Alice did with Michael Mosley, where I now realise Mosley really did disagree with her and hence I agree with him. What follows is to capture my own pre-existing take on “the facts” quite independent of the content of the program or the social media exchanges:

=====

Vive la différence.
Women think differently to men.
And that’s a good thing. (Repeat after me, and that’s a …)

In some sense – Women’s cognitive patterning is different to men’s. [Most recent.]
Left brains do function differently to right brains. [Myth or evidence?]
Women do have different left-right brain connectivity. [Myth or evidence?]

(a) How much is genetically pre-wired and
(b) how much in-utero / bio / hormonally / physiologically developed?
(c) How much is parentally / educationally / formally and
(d) how much socially / culturally / informally re-inforced and re-developed?
Are open questions, but ~[20(20:80):80(20:80)] as a rule of thumb, I’d say (after Pinker).

But anyway, we all have very plastic brains to learn new thinking tricks.
If we are going to actively train future brains to think better,
then we’d better have a good idea of “better”.

The point?

It seems unlikely that having us all thinking the same way is the best thing to aim for.
Variety would seem to be a good input for evolutionary development.
Understanding variety must be a good thing, denial a bad thing. [Recent denial.]

It’s the level playing field.
Equality in the sense of freedom and opportunity, rather than
Equality in the PC sense of believing and ensuring everyone is, and is created, equal.

Therefore : Vive la différence.

======

Coda 1

The reason this topic matters to this particular blogging agenda?
The “western-male” form of linear/objective/scientistic rationality dominates modern life.
This is a bad thing because it destroys a lot of value and retards progress in the world.

Coda 2

How much difference is significant?
I suggested above only 4% male-female genetic cognitive difference [20% of 20%].
Dennett & Baggini – point out that perhaps conscious vs subconscious though processing might operate at 1% vs 99% (or less) but that 1% is still real (free-will) and can be the “most significant bit”. When it comes to difference, scale and significance do not correlate. Difference matters.

[And … “odd at first sight, but the story figures. Women are typically more polymath”.]

[Post Note : And in the post #GE2015 situation with women leaders of ALL parties except the Tories, I can make my 3rd non-PC point. I believe women in general are better at management and governance than men, particularly when dealing with complexity across multiple levels and timescales, where overly-confident action-men can be counter productive. Obviously, not to the point that I want to prejudice men in relation to women – just that level playing field that recognises rather than attempts to bury differences. Again obviously, these are stereotypes I’m using, but stereotypes that disguise real archetypes.]

I’m completing a review of Julian Baggini’s “Freedom Regained” [previous reference] [and another] in which there are quite a few comparative references to Sam Harris and Dan Dennett. I’m a big fan of the latter – philosopher first and foremost with a special interest in evolution and cognitive science. Harris I often defend as a subtle moral philosopher; despite disagreeing with many of his headline conclusions his qualifications are often important. I was slightly thrown by Baggini referring to him as a “scientist” – so I checked him out on wikipedia and his own web pages.

Quaker / Jewish background. It’s not clear what his first Stanford course was in 1986 (*) – when he experimented with psychedelics, dropped-out after two years and travelled in India. (Sounds familiar?) He later gained a Batchelor’s in Philosophy in 2000 and a PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience in 2009.

(* English apparently – also figures and sounds familiar.)

So perhaps “scientist” as a tag does reflect his most recent & significant field. Interesting.