Be Reasonable

The sad tale of the British Muslim women's football team

I listened to the Taking on Tehran programme on Radio 4 today. The programme is about a British football team's participation in the Muslim Women's Games. There's also an article about the programme on the BBC News site.

I found the programme rather sad. Iran doesn't permit women to participate in most sports in the Olympic because of religious dress codes. Instead they have set up their own women-only games where no men are permitted so the women can wear sports gear.

The British football team does hopelessly badly. I don't know much about football, but even I know that a 38-4 defeat is dismal (and that wasn't their worst defeat). The reason for this is that Muslim countries are fielding their national teams and some countries have fielded non-Muslim teams which is permitted. Britain could send the national women's team but that would be rather disappointing for the Muslim girls.

The programme does offer some balance. We hear that the girls from strict Muslim countries don't understand why the Brits wear the Hijab when they don't have to. We also hear from contributors who are against the games pointing out that Muslim men can compete in the Olympics and that segregation is against the spirit of sport.

Whenever there's a discussion about women's right to wear the hijab or even the burqa, there's a part of me that feels that they should be permitted to do so if it is a free and considered decision. However, there's a stronger part of me that feels that it is wrong to cover and inhibit women in this way. This programme has made me more convinced that such restrictive dresss is inappropriate even when self-imposed.

So you think Grandma's going to Hell?

Today's Guardian (yes the paper that is obsessed with religion) reports, Dr Eric Stoddart of St Andrew's University is doing a fascinating piece of academic research on the implications of belief in Hell. Here's an extract:

Dr Stoddart is interested in how belief in hell affects everyday life and is keen to hear from ordinary Christians as well. He said: "I'm interested in how people handle their belief in hell. If you believe (or are told you should believe) your grandmother is going to hell because she is not a Christian, how do you deal with that? Do you dehumanise her or psychologically distance yourself in order to accept her fate? How is it possible to go about daily life while believing that a loved-one has entered eternal suffering? When most hell-believing Christians are likely to encounter the death of 'non-Christian' loved-ones it is striking that it is a subject rarely tackled. No one talks about this aspect. There is something of a conspiracy of silence."

It's a good question. I've often wondered if Christians really believe this stuff. Do the Christians that I know well (yep, we've got serious religious folks in the family) really think that I'm going to suffer in Hell for all eternity? If so why aren't they doing more to save me and the other atheists in the family? Surely social etiquette wouldn't be reason enough to stop them if they really believed. I can only conclude that in their heart of hearts they don't.

Lord Winston: Religion without Faith

Yesterday I discussed Lord May's caution that religious fanaticism is an inhibitor to scientific progress. Today it's the turn of another British Lord and scientist to express his views on the relationship between science and religion. Lord Robert Winston has written a book and made a TV series entitled the Story of God (starts Sunday 7th November, BBC1) and is of the opinion that science and religion can happily coexist.

Winston expresses his views today in a BBC News article. I'm a bit baffled by Winston. He seems to think that worrying about whether God really exists or not is besides the point:

It does not matter whether you believe there lurks a real God or gods behind the idea. The idea is real and, as a scientist who studies "real things", I believe it deserves to be examined.

But he is a practising Jew and in this recent interview he clearly separates religion and faith:

Do I believe in the conventional God who sits on a throne in heaven and judges people on earth? No I don't. I don't believe that because I believe in free will. And if you have free will then you can't have a god that intervenes - it doesn't make sense. But you can have a divine idea or divine spirit within you, which I believe. And I come from a religious tradition which is as much concerned with how you behave as how you believe. Judaism is one of the few religions which makes no demands on faith.'

I get the impression that Winston doesn't believe in God but does believe in religion. He seems to like the ritual of religion (he only eats Kosher food) and appreciate the intellectual and ethical framework of Judaism.

Interesting. This is certainly a more rational position than belief in the supernatural. But I still find it unnerving. I just don't see how a scientist can be so strongly influenced by dogma. I'm looking forward to watching his TV series and trying to get a better understanding of what Winston's views really are.

No earthly good

The Catholic church are really on a roll this week.

Yesterday it was the official publication of their lovely document explaining that the sex that priest's are not having must be of the heterosexual variety, but condemning discrimination against homosexuals. Do they have their own special branch of Vatican logic?

Today it's the proposal that limbo has been abolished. Catholic doctrine says that the souls of babies who die before being baptised are sent to limbo, which lies between heaven and hell, because they are still tainted with 'original sin'. The Guardian suggests why limbo might be going out of favour:

More than six million children die of hunger every year in underdeveloped countries where the Church is keen to see its support continue to grow.

It is concerned that the concept of limbo may not impress potential converts.

The Church is aware that Muslims, for example, believe that all children go straight to heaven without passing any test.

And, in preparation for tomorrow's World Aids Day the pope has already taken the opportunity to avoid talking about condoms, instead he invokes "the help and comfort of the Lord" for Aids sufferers. Reminds me of that Johnny Cash song "You're so heavenly minded you're no earthly good".

Let them have religion

Umberto Eco, the author and academic, has written a piece in today's Sunday Telegraph entitled God isn't big enough for some people. Eco bemoans the current trend for replacing Christian belief with belief in anything and everything:

"G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing. He believes in anything." Whoever said it - he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity."

Eco seems particularly bothered by the cult that has grown up around Dan Brown's The Da Vinci code. This must be especially troublesome for Eco whose academic field is semiotics (the study of things that can be taken as signs) and who writes historical novels. I imagine Eco is frustrated by a readership that cannot tell fact from fiction and an author who plays on this for commercial gain.

Eco, an atheist himself, does seem to value religious traditions:

"I was raised as a Catholic, and although I have abandoned the Church, this December, as usual, I will be putting together a Christmas crib for my grandson. We'll construct it together - as my father did with me when I was a boy. I have profound respect for the Christian traditions - which, as rituals for coping with death, still make more sense than their purely commercial alternatives."

I could be misinterpreting him, but Eco seems to suggest that religion is better that the alternatives and is therefore appropriate for the masses although the enlightened have no need for it.

It does concern me that the alternative to religion seems to be ghosts and horoscopes, but that doesn't strike me as a reason to hold on to religion. Although annoying, these other beliefs don't have such a negative impact on society.

Eco concludes that: "The religious celebration of Christmas is at least a clear and coherent absurdity. The commercial celebration is not even that." I disagree, I don't find the Christian Christmas at all coherent. Although commercial Christmas may be incoherent and absurd, at least it's not claiming to be anything else.

You call it rent, I call it interest

I came across an advert offering Halal mortgages in the UK. Shariah, Islamic law, doesn't permit interest to be charged or received because it is deemed to be an effortless profit.

Here's how regular mortgages work:

"It's a legal contract that says if you don't repay your home loan, including loan fees and interest, the lender can take your home away. When you get a mortgage, although you're listed as the 'owner' of the home, the lender actually holds the title until the debt is paid in full." - How mortgages work

And here's how Halal mortgages work:

"In an Ijara based transaction, you identify the property you wish to buy and agree to the purchase price with the seller. The bank enters into a 'Promise to Purchase' agreement with you for an amount equal to the original purchase price and purchases the property. At the same time, you enter into a lease agreement with the bank which details your rights to occupy the property. You make monthly payments to the bank and a portion of the payment is applied toward the purchase of the property with the remainder paid to the bank as rent. Once the purchase price is paid in full, rental payments cease and ownership of the property is transferred to you." - Halal mortgages

Do you see what they did there? That's right, by replacing the word 'interest' with the word 'rent' you make Allah happy.

The HSBC Bank is a major UK mortgage lender and has an Islamic arm, HSBC Amanah. In their FAQ, they helpfully explain how the 'rent' can be calculated:

"According to the Shariah, the rent in an Ijarah transaction can be set at any value agreed between the buyer and seller. There is no particular reason why a house financed by this method should be any more or less expensive than a house financed by a conventional mortgage. If not ideal, it is certainly halal to use the prevailing interest rate as a benchmark for this rate."

The issue is supposedly about avoiding 'effortless profit' yet the bank makes the same profit for the same amount of effort regardless of whether we call payments rent or interest. Who do they think they're fooling?

Who is Nicholas Buxton trying to convince?

There's a piece by Nicholas Buxton (who was in a reality TV show set in a Monastery) in yesterday's Guardian about why secularism is flawed. Although Buxton acknowledges that religion may be incorrect, he still thinks that it is necessary.

Buxton claims that life without religion would not be worth living:

"If we truly believed that life was meaningless, we would have no reason to get up in the morning - ultimately, the most rational thing to do would be to jump over the edge of a cliff. In other words, religion is our way of making sense out of nonsense, necessary precisely because life, in and of itself, may well be meaningless. To be religious is simply our way of expressing what it means to be human; we could no more cease being religious than cease being artistic or political."

So why don't I feel the urge to throw myself of a cliff in despair at the meaninglessness of life? Because I don't need life to have an extrinsic meaning. Buxton makes it sound like having a life is such a dreadful thing that we need to have a higher meaning in order to get through the day. I'm very sad that he feels like that. Me, I'm happy to be alive.

Buxton moves on to the classic tactic of claiming that secularists are religious really:

"The second mistake secularists make is that they fail to acknowledge the foundational assumptions - "dogmas" by any other name - underpinning their own worldview. ... When it comes to ethics, secularists are forced to assert that we behave morally and responsibly because it is "human nature" to do so. But what do they mean by human nature? This abstract notion is no different from a religious absolute, and performs exactly the same role in the sentences in which it is used as "God" does in the sentences in which He features."

Buxton seems to have a bit of a bee in his bonnet about Marxism and doesn't seem to address secular ethics in general. Humanism is very different from a religious absolute. Humanism treats morality as something we need to constantly assess and improve. "God" provides 'just because' answers to ethical questions, humanism provides 'to the best of our knowledge' answers. I know which I prefer.

Finally, Buxton suggests that religion is needed to keep us in check:

"Secularism has a more worrying implication, however. Without religion's insight that human beings are essentially flawed, we lose all checks on our hubristic pride, and risk making a false god of our own scientific genius, even though there is no evidence to support the belief that society advances in tandem with science."

Why do religious people always assume that rationalists treat science as a religion, or that we worship humanity? The whole point of being rational is that we don't treat anything as sacred. The scariest thing in the world to me is someone in a position of power claiming that they have God on their side - who loses all checks on their hubristic pride then?

All-in-all, the piece reads like a pseudo-intellectual attempt by Buxton to convince himself that religion is necessary because he feels that without it, he would have nothing. Buxton is currently doing a PhD thesis on Buddhist philosophy at the University of Cambridge. I hope they hold him to higher standards of research and reasoning than those exhibited in this article.

Robot Idol

There's an interesting article in the November edition of Wired: Robots of Arabia. There's a tradition of camel racing amongst the ultra rich elite of Qatar and other middle eastern countries. Camels won't race on their own, they need a rider to whip them. The lighter that rider is the faster they go. This problem has traditionally been solved by using four-year old slave jockeys from the Sudan who are starved to keep them as light as possible.

This has lead to a bit of a public relations problem for Qatar so they have turned to technology for a new solution: remote controlled Robot jockeys. Although this isn't exactly good news for the current slaves, they will be shipped back to Sudan with no support, it will hopefully protect future generations from this treatment.

One comment in the article particularly caught my attention. The robots have been given human-looking faces to convince the camels that they have human riders. However, the faces must be removed before the races begin because Islam forbids idolatry.

I'll admit that I didn't understand the extent of the Islamic concept of idolatry. I'm familiar with idolatry as the prohibition against representations of deities, but I hadn't realised that Islamic idolatry forbids any representation of the human form.

That's religious people for you. Starving four-year old slave boys to act as camel jockeys is fine, but putting faces on robots is unacceptable.

Secular Britain? Yeah right.

The BBC is reporting a recent survey on religious attitudes in the UK. 22% of those surveyed say the have no faith, though it's 43% in the 18-24 age group and there's a clear increase in religious belief until we reach the 65+ age group in which only 9% have no faith.

This isn't just a basic religion survey though, they gathered some other information about the participants including sex and social class.

It's probably not a surprise to know that the higher up the social scale you are the less religious you are likely to be, with 26% of the upper middle and middle class ABs having no faith and 18th of the lower working class DEs having no faith. So far so good, as society as a whole gets more educated and more affluent, we should see a drop in religion.

Then I looked at the statistics for gender. 27% of men have no faith whereas only 18% of women have no faith. That's quite a difference. I would have guessed that women would be more religious than men but not to this extent. A bit of it is probably caused by there being more women in the over 65 category which is the most religious. Isn't it sad that women seem drawn to an institution that treats them so badly?

The other thing that stands out in the results is the way the non-believers answered the question: 'The Church has historically had a prominent national voice and British society is often said to be based on Christian values originating from the bible such as human life always being regarded as sacred. How important do you think it is that British society continues to be based on Christian values?'. 44% of non-believers answered very important (19%) or quite important (25%). What's going on there? Secularism clearly has a long way to go in this country ...

Sorry Alan. I'm upsetting you again aren't I ? ;-)

Ghosts more convincing than God?

According to an informal Halloween poll, significantly more Brits believe in ghosts than in God. A staggering 68% of those surveyed believe in ghosts while only 55% believe in God.

The sample wasn't random so we can't treat it as entirely scientific, but it did get me thinking. If the survey is accurate then there are a lot of people who don't believe in God but do believe in ghosts.

This means that their reason for not believing in God is not a generic rejection of the paranormal. People are finding the evidence for God unconvincing, but the evidence for ghosts convincing.

For me, Gods, ghosts, horoscopes and UFOs are all the same. If there's no evidence, I don't believe it. This obviously isn't the way that many people see it. If we can believe the survey, then many Brits are specifically rejecting the idea of a Christian God while being open to the paranormal in general.

Although Brits aren't particularly religious we do still seem to be a superstitious lot. I do find belief in ghosts troubling, but it's a lot less disturbing than religion because it has far less of an impact on society.

Fortunately, ghost-believers don't have special representatives in the House of Lords, there's no mandatory daily seance in schools, and the media don't routinely ask senior ghost-believers for their opinions on abortion and euthanasia. Even if 68% of Brits do believe in ghosts, I don't think they would expect any of these privileges. So why when only 55% of Brits believe in God are the corresponding religious privileges accepted?

McGrath criticises arrogant atheists

Alister McGrath, a Christian and ex-atheist and the author of The Twilight of Atheism has written an article in today's Times newspaper criticising atheists. I haven't read his book (although I probably will) so I'm just going on my understanding of the article.

The article was prompted by the World Congress of the International Academy of Humanism which is taking place this weekend in New York and has the topic Towards the New Enlightenment.

McGrath argues that atheism has lost its way after failing to convince the world to give up on religion:

"Hopelessly overstated arguments that once seemed so persuasive - such as "science disproves God" - have lost their credibility. Anyway, our culture's criterion of acceptability is not "Is it right?" but "Does it work?" And the simple fact is that religious belief works for many, many people, giving direction, purpose and stability to their lives ..."

McGrath seems to be suggesting that it doesn't matter whether or not religion is correct, that the effect that it has on people who believe is more important. Well I almost agree with him here. I can't dismiss the value of truth so easily, but if I thought that religion was a positive influence on the world then I'd probably keep pretty quiet about my atheism. I might even feel a little inadequate that, as a non-believer, I wasn't able to participate in improving the world through religion. But the point is, I don't think religion is a positive influence, I don't even think it's benign. Religion is a negative force in the world, that's why I speak out as an atheist. For me, atheism isn't about being right, it's about improving society.

McGrath further criticises atheists:

"It may once have been bold, brave and brilliant to argue that religion was an infantile delusion or a pernicious superstition. Now, atheism seems arrogant and uncomprehending; incapable of even the most basic act of intellectual empathy that tries to grasp why intelligent, articulate people might choose to believe something which we disagree with - and which might even be right."

Arrogant? Well this is something that does concern me. I've tried for many years to come up with a non-condescending reason why intelligent people might believe. I can come up with reasons why they might choose to act as if they believe (e.g. sense of community and family obligation), but that's not the same thing.

Uncomprehending? Definitely. Though not for the want of trying.

Incapable of the most basic act of intellectual empathy ...? I can certainly empathise with religious people in other cultures. I just listened to a recording of the first part of Bob Geldof's Faith in Africa radio programme where he, although an atheist himself, convincingly argues that religion is so important in Africa because day-to-day life is so grim. But it's true, I can't empathise with intelligent educated people who seem blind to the problems caused by religion.

McGrath's main criticism of atheism is that it hasn't moved with the times and accepted that modern Western society needs religion.

Personally, I think it's religion that hasn't moved with the times. I agree with McGrath that religion does help many people in today's society. However, I'm pretty sure that something else would have taken its place had they not been exposed to religion. Wouldn't it be better to try and work out how religion can be replaced in a post-religious society rather than encouraging people to 'choose to believe' in something for which there is no evidence?

Religious Education? No thanks.

The BHA has again voiced its concerns over the government's plans for increasing the number of faith schools in the UK. I agree with everything they have to say on the topic.

I find the idea of faith schools deeply disquieting. I can't understand why the government is encouraging the creation of new faith schools rather than getting rid of the 7000 we already had. Faith schools are wrong on so many levels.

I can't see how anyone can justify teaching religion to children within the educational system. Teaching religion and science on an equal footing is just plain wrong. How can you give children the critical thinking skills that are needed in order to advance society if you also advocate faith-based belief? We've even had a hint of creationism at schools run by Vardy (the 'success' of these schools is a motivating factor in the new white paper). I wish we could get to the point where the only place for religion in schools is in history lessons.

I'm also concerned about the ripple effect that an increased number of faith schools would have on the wider community, Local schools are a major consideration when people are buying houses. If we see more faith schools then we'll see more segregation in communities. Lack of exposure to other cultures breeds prejudice. Our school system must not encourage small-mindedness.

I find the idea of parents having a choice of schools on any basis ludicrous. Does the government think that everyone lives in big cities with many schools in easy travelling distance? Or perhaps they think it's a good idea to have more children travelling long distances to school by car? Every child should have access to a good school within walking distance (or with a school bus in rural areas). What if the nearest school for a non-religious family is religious? What if the nearest school for a religious family has the wrong flavour religion? Do we really want large numbers of children to have a long commute each day?

If the good school in an area is religious (which does happen) then parents already pretend to be religious in order to get their children into the school. In some cases this even involves non-believers having to attend church, this might be great for the church's attendance figures but surely no-one should be in this position.

I also object to the government spending my money on feeding religious propaganda to children. This is not a religious country, unfortunately our government is disproportionately religious and the religious communities have an influence which is entirely unreasonable.

Religious Education? No thanks.

Mockery of the Faithful is Good

The Religion and Ethics section of the BBC website is currently running the following poll:

Is mockery good for the faithful?:

• Yes
• No

Immediately after I voted the results were looking very close:

• Yes: 114
• No: 116

I wasn't quite sure how to answer. I went with Yes on the basis that occasionally mockery might make someone religious see sense. On reflection, perhaps mockery is more likely to make them dig their heels in.

The poll is a reference Lord Carey's opposition to the proposed (completely crazy) Religious Hatred Bill. Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, has said:

"We know religion is a force for good but I don't want to control a writer not to criticise me, because I may need that criticism."

"The Church of England is a broad church, we are used to being mocked. I do believe passionately in this."

While I agree with Carey that the bill is a bad idea. I think mockery is ultimately going to contribute to the downfall of religion. Even if mockery doesn't convince the faithful, I think it does a lot to make the doubtful see reason and to assure the godless that they are in good company.

Yesterday, Cenk Uygur published a wonderful piece of mockery: "If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong".

Is mockery of the faithful good? Yes, Yes, Yes.

Do the Christians want Halloween or not?

The holiday of Halloween can be traced back to the Celtic celebration of Samhain:

"The Celts believed that on the night before the new year the boundary between this world and the world of the dead dissolved and the dead returned to earth causing trouble and damaging crops.

It wasn't all bad though, since the Celts thought that the presence of these spirits helped their priests to make predictions about the future. These forecasts and warnings about the future were an important source of solace during the long, dark winter." - BBC feature on Halloween

The next step was for the Romans to add their touch to the festival, combining a couple of nearby holidays into the mix.

I'm sure you can guess what happened next. Of course, the Christians came along and claimed the holiday for their own:

"All Saints' Day is said to be the day when souls walked the Earth. In early Christian tradition souls were released from purgatory on All Hallow's Eve for 48 hours, and cakes and wine were left out for them." - BBC feature on Halloween

So why is it that modern Christians aren't playing the game and claiming Halloween as their own? Many of them seem to celebrate Halloween as a secular holiday, others shun it based on its pagan roots. Christians seem to have no trouble claiming Easter and Christmas for their own, but Halloween seems a lot more troublesome.

A Christian Perspective on Halloween is a lovely example of not playing the game. The gist of this article is that Christians should not celebrate Halloween because of its connection with the occult, Christians are invulnerable to dark magic but others are not so it's best to stay away. Children and those who have converted from the dark side are especially vulnerable. Here's a little taster:

"During this night when Satanists and witches covens meet to cast their spells and perform grotesque rituals, it seems appropriate for believers to gather to praise the one and only God."

The web is full of advice on holding church Harvest Parties as a Christian alternative to Halloween. This all seems a bit defeatist to me. The Christians didn't set up a parallel festival to Easter, they claimed it for their own, ditto Yuletide/Christmas.

All is not lost though. The Rev James Jordan has the right idea. In his article Halloween: A Distinctly Christian Holiday he claims that Halloween has nothing to do with pagans and is an entirely Christian holiday:

"Because the power of Satan has been broken once and for all, our children can mock him by dressing up like ghosts, goblins, and witches. The fact that we can dress our children this way shows our supreme confidence in the utter defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ - we have NO FEAR!"