The Center for Inquiry, one of (if not the) leading non-religious advocacy group in the United States, has begun a new campaign, ‘Living Without Religion’. Have a look at this clip, aimed at simply stating their mission in this campaign and the overarching idea of living without a god, in general.
It’s simple, coherent and is not threatening. My only quibble is with the word ‘hope’. What do they mean by ‘hope’?
Like many controversial views, ‘anti-natalism’—the choice not to have children for moral reasons—is covered in the phlegm of misconception. And those filled with the most viscous fluid are those who believe that breeding is a good thing; or at least important toward leading a fulfilled life. This view is not just wrong, it is arrogant. It also leads many people to believe that those of us who are not going to have children wish their own little offspring dipped in acid, head-first, to watch their tiny feet squirm. Many also argue that the world, society, humanity or life is simply not fit enough to create more people to suffer from these properties of existence. A poor argument from critics is to urge such people to give up their own existence, since they deem existence so bad. This is yet another misconception, as this confuses those who do not exist with those who do.
There is no unified ‘church’ or philosophy with regard to the position that having children is obscene, morally repugnant, poorly motivated, or lacking in good reasons. All manner of people choose not to have children for a variety of reasons: they are under resourced (even though statistics state these are the very people who breed the most, which is the source of continual poverty), consider themselves poor parents, or, like myself, can find no good reason to breed. However, what unites all of us is that it is a choice not to have children, or “create life”. So someone like myself might have nothing in common with someone who considers herself a poor mother and, therefore, will not have children. But what unites us is the conscious choice to go against our biological urges to propagate the species: a uniquely human attribute. It is not because we are physically unable. This is important to stress: those who are unable to breed because of physical disabilities are not necessarily against breeding.
There are also different degrees. The bottom rung—which again unites all of us in this choice—is a personal choice. (Of course, this can have deleterious effects on marriages and partnerships, since some might find themselves single if they told their partner. This only means that they should find better partners who don’t couch the relationship on non-existent people. This is similar to losing one’s partner because of a god. Or not being able to date someone because they don’t date Geminis.) From those I have engaged with, most remain on this rung.
The next rung is to consider the arguments for breeding poor, bizarre, or non-existent. I find it all three but mostly the latter. This differentiates itself from the first rung by lifting the person higher toward seeing their position stretch further. So, one considers one’s choice personal but also engages with those we might consider “pro-natalist”. (An almost guaranteed pro-natalist will be one’s parents. Try telling them they are not getting grandchildren and listen to their reasons for wanting them in the first place).
Finally, there is the radical position adopted prominently by David Benatar, professor of philosophy at my alma mater, the University of Cape Town. This deems it not only poor but indefensible and morally reprehensible to create life. This is a position that says it is better if everyone adopted the position of not wanting to breed. It is better if the human species came to an end, sooner. Indeed it is Better Never to Have Been, as his book is entitled. This strikes the misanthropic chord but only to severing argument. Instead of dealing with the arguments Benatar bolsters, people lump them into a knot of incredulity, unable to believe anyone could live accordingly. Instead of dealing with each strand of argument separately, people hold on to this knot and deal with it as an incredulous piece of garbage, or the product of a dark misanthrope. The correct course is of course the least adopted one: that is, dealing with the arguments themselves. So far, no one has provided a decent reply to Benatar’s propositions or even Schopenhauer’s (from where Benatar derives some arguments).
Severing the ideas from their authors is the first way to engage with them; it is a skill one must learn in order to maintain one’s epistemic duty. Of course due to their outlandish nature, most would simply dismiss even the first rung of such an argument or position. People would in a sense be kicking down the whole ladder, instead of climbing it to understand the position it upholds.
I place myself, unsurprisingly, in between the third and second rung. Benatar himself does not advocate his views like a despot. Even within his book he states that his liberal self could never want such views to be law. That is, we would never want this choice to be enforced; indeed, it would defeat the very word itself. It is a choice which means people must come to it of their own choosing not by coercion.
Let us deal with the third position because that, in turn, deals with the bottom two.
Do I really think having children is immoral? To a large degree, yes. This does not make you a bad person, however. Creating life is a major decision, a large event—it is rightly viewed as the biggest decision of couple’s lives. I just think that couples make the wrong choice. What are their reasons for having children? I have heard them all: to unite us, to show how much we love each other, to raise a child so we can love it and care for it and protect it from harm, because having children is the greatest joy in the world, it is fulfilling, etc. One answer I do not include because one can immediately see its fallacy is this: we did it for the child.
Let us start with this black-sheep of an answer. Firstly, remember that the child does not yet exist. Or rather, does not exist. We can have no notion of non-existence since, as Epicurus pointed out, we exist. But even non-believers have a very warped view of children and life. There seems to be a consensus that there are “souls” of children awaiting on some magical island for the gateway called conception. As if the “soul” is a fully formed person just awaiting an outlet. Of course this is nonsense. The question of “Who am I?” is one of the hardest in all of philosophy and psychology. We have trouble enough pinning ourselves down, reflecting often that we are nothing but the Humean bundle of perceptions. We are moving sand dunes, since even our physical make-up changes completely. How then, struggling for identity subjectively on a day-to-day basis, can parents say they want a child for the child’s sake? The child does not yet exist. And even then, it is only in retrospect that one can speak about having the child. This is the most bizarre and also a strangely frequent answer. Even today, parents would not be able to say everything about their child; so how can they know who this person is that they wanted, who did not even exist?
Other arguments from pro-natalists are equally bad and unable to bridge the divide between children who exist and those who do not. People still speak of children as if they exist: “I really want one of my own, etc.” failing to realise that one must create a child and then, possibly, love him.
The rest of the arguments fall into the space of bonding the couple, using the umbilical ties of the child as bridge between themselves. But this too makes no sense. Why is it defensible to say we needed to create life to maintain our relationship? Then so much the worse for that relationship. A more optimistic reply and one related to my most important argument, is that of adoption. Adopting a child can also bond a couple, unite them in an effort to do the best they can for one who deserves love.
Most people, I have always believed, are genuinely kind, helpful and yearning for love and answers in a universe vastly indifferent to their existence, their tribulations and their insecurities. Many believe they can assuage this indifference by bringing meaning to another being. We fulfil this by loving, being good friends, teachers and, of course, parents. Careers and lives orbit around the notion of securing ourselves by securing others. Society, that which Emile Durkheim said we can not escape, is premised on roles and responsibilities. Many think that they are doing some good by creating life and looking after it. I think it is very important to look after life, especially children who are intellectually and physically dependent on elders. Yet, what I can not understand is the reason to create life to look after. Why create life to look after when millions of lives exist that already need it? I am speaking about children who need adopting and the love of settled couples or individuals.
I find it abhorrent that people use money and time and expenditure from governments to breed, for this very reason. Why must we waste time on fertility treatments when we could be doing more to promote adoption, making it easier and more inviting to people? Why do potential adoptive parents have to be subjected to inquiry and scrutiny, to their background and income (and so on), whilst others feel they can breed whenever possible?
People need to rethink their positions on breeding: why do it? Should we do it? Will we make good parents? I have found no answer for the first, so we can skip that one. The second is a difficult question but one that can only be answered by the couple themselves. In many instances, I think more people can be successful parents by communication and so on. But being a successful parent does not necessarily make it something worth wanting. Many parents are abandoned by children in their old age; gradually children phase out parents in their life. To not be alone when old is something many use as a reason to have children (though also an unsatisfactory and rudely egotistical reason: creating life so that one is not lonely?). There are better ways to make one’s life successful: more friends, better relationships, and so on can, all lead to a fulfilled life. There does not have to be children to render the heart whole.
We are genuinely shocked by the Frankenstein scientists who create life, in fiction and films. Protesters easily whip out placards to march on laboratories that they claim are playing god or becoming Frankenstinian. Many are shocked at the notion of scientists being able to create life, no matter the size. Yet why does our frown change to a smile of joy when our friends or wives deliver a baby? Where are the placards for the man who has seven children? Here people are creating life but we find nothing abhorrent about it.
Two replies follow suit: one is that breeding is natural and therefore a good thing. The second is that we are creating humans, not mutant plants or creatures.
(1)Its natural: Earthquakes, cancers, viruses, volcanoes are all natural and have killed and caused an untold number of people to suffer and die. These are natural. This does not mean that everything natural is good. Secondly, we have been “interfering” with nature enough to create cows and certain birds; yet no one finds these to be horrid “unnatural” beings. Just because we will be able to mutate at microscopic level does not change the fact that we are manipulating the environment and animals. Suddenly because we can see our change, because we have lifted the veil of existence to gaze at its very character, it becomes a crime so monstrous. It is not; it would be a double-standard to say that mutating at the microscopic level is (more?) abhorrent than doing so via picking the meekest auroch or most placid wolf-cub, until their descendants became dependent on us.
(2)Creating humans not mutants: So what if we are creating humans and not half-rabbit half-baby when we breed? We are still creating life. Saying that because it is human it is, therefore, something worthy of creating is simply speciecist or anthropocentric. Just because it’s human, why does that make it something worth creating?
This is not meant to equate the creation of Frankenstein monsters, mutated John Wyndham-type plants, or tentacle-waving women with the creation of a normal, happy child. My point only is to ask as to the purpose of creating life in the first place, no matter what its body-parts. I am not at all stating we should bring out placards if our female friends breed, but we should question whether they should breed in the first place instead of adopting. And perhaps we could bring out placards for the man who decides to have seven children. If he can afford to look after that many, then he would be a massive resource for adoption agencies.
One of the reasons this question is so poorly answered or engaged with has to do with our humanity. What is humanity? It is the extraction of care, empathy and security that we want for ourselves stretched to cover all those who we consider human; it is the desire, the need, to see life fulfilled and love extended with the knowledge that this only comes about by diminished returns and its own propitious engagements; humanity is doggedly followed by the awareness of mortality, that our lives, our hopes, our fears, our dreams will die with us one day. Our biology is the cage and our awareness is the torture. We do not want to die, we do not want to see our humanity destroyed by having no one for whom it matters. Even then, we wish our form of humanity, our way of seeing the world, continue. Our vision deserves immortality and we create eyes to see this: we create children (notice that religious or cult leaders often call their followers children, too?). By creating children we also extend the barrier of humanity – more people, more carriers and successors to the products of humanity.
We are terrified not only by our individual extinction but our species’. There will be, according to recent estimates, no organic life on this planet within a hundred millenia. Even if there was to be life, it is highly unlikely it would be human. Not to mention that our sun will die; the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with us; our universe will end. All this points to a full stop we pretend is an ellipses. But it is not. It is the end.
The sooner we can face up to our annihilation the sooner we can continue with living. And not just living, but living well. Children might be the answer to the fulfilled life for many. And this is true: but this says nothing about the creation of children, the creation of life. Our duty to our species rests with those who exist, but instead we spend money, lose partners and deplete our resources for beings who do not yet exist. We need a radical position change to see that there are ways we can foster our humanity for those who deserve it: those who exist. We need to begin promoting adoption as a viable alternative that is heightened by moral responsibility, highlighting that the problem rests with those that would create children to look after instead of helping those children who already need it.
Do I want the human species to die? That is similar to asking do I want to rocks to be hard. Mortality, like hardness, is a property. By defining humans, we speak about mortality. Yet, the question could be changed: do I wish for the end of our species? No. I do not. But that is different from it dying out as would occur at some point anyway. If everybody stopped breeding, what would the impact on technology, society, and science be? Would scientists continue working on properties of the universe, knowing that no one will be using their findings when they die? Would the last police officers care about their jobs? Would criminals even be criminals in the city at the end of time?
I do not know but I doubt that things would be jovial. However, I do not want to focus on the consequences of a choice I know the majority will not choose. My focus, deontologically, is on human breeding – that is, breeding in itself. I see no reason why I should have children, I have no good arguments for having children, and I am genuinely shocked at the irresponsible and poor logic used when parents decide to create life. What place does reason have in something “so magical as children”? This is not an argument but an assertion that there is something special about creating children. Reason is necessary if we wish to know whether we are living good lives, whether we are moral beings and has a lot to say about the future of life. Think critically about children before having them. Be aware of those children who already exist that require love, attention and parental adoration. Be aware that life is not necessarily better because one has created another (all one has done is multiplied the problem of a fulfilled life by two).
People are shocked by this position. I think their shock is, as always with surprise, a mixture of fear and loathing. Their fear comes about by the awareness of mortality, since this means blood-lines will end, surnames fade and someone has decided not aid in adding to the species’ numbers. This rebounds off the critic or pro-natalist, as he is made aware of his own mortality. Children diminish this fear, since people believe they somehow live on through them (this is poor rhetoric nonsense). Secondly, the loathing is that someone is choosing to go against the grain, someone is saying the pro-natalist is nonsensical in this instance of his life. I have had many acquaintances inform me that everytime they look at their child, they are forced to question their motives and slowly begin hate me for that. I also know many who, when faced with these arguments, regret their choice in breeding. This only highlights the need to push these ideas and arguments further afield, so that one does not come to hate one’s children. These choices must be made by every able-bodied human before its too late to change one’s position, i.e.: after creating life.
I do not want to force this view on anyone, as I have defined it as a choice. But it is a reasonable choice, one I believe people can be argued into. We have a duty to our humanity and to our species: there are children who need adopting, need the love and support and care that is going to be given to millions of children who do not yet exist. The children who exist lose out but those who do not yet exist, by virtue of not existing, do not. This is a major point: those who do not exist can not lose out on existence or the benefits of love and adoration, since they do not exist. We must stop thinking of them as beings who do.
Once we begin being self-critical of our motives, once we realise the difference between existence and non-existence, that life is not diminished by a moral choice but heightened by it, our world can slowly adjust itself to realising that we can do better. A simple choice can have a resounding impact on society. (Perhaps, firstly, this idea and choice needs to be sold to the most important part of our species: women.) When we shift our gaze toward children who already exist, to life that already needs love, instead of creating life just to receive these gifts, we can become a better species, more in tune with our humanity.
The great Russian writer, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, defined an arrest as: “a blinding flash and a blow which shifts the present instantly into the past and the impossible into omnipotent actuality.” To be cordoned off as though one is oneself a crime-scene, demarcated and defined as that which needs to be investigated, probed and prodded. Orwell once described himself as hated by very many people only once in his life: as a police officer in Moulmein, Lower Burma. He goes on to describe this as concurrently the only time he was important enough for this to actually happen. Hatred here does not repudiate importance and vice versa. This all coagulates into a set view of a hatred for authority which disperses with human frailty, with a single vision of their place – You may not set foot here, you may not say that here, you may not do x to anyone. It is with this notion that we must ask the following: Should people be arrested for saying certain things? If so, what should people be arrested for saying in our present civil society?
The “classic defence” of free speech is widely regarded as John Stuart’s Mill’s beautiful On Liberty – more specifically the second chapter. Free speech is said to be a right, yet we must first ask ourselves what is this rubric called “rights” and how does “free speech” fit into it.
Mill describes a right as follows:
When we call anything a person’s right, we mean that he has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of it, either by the force of law, or by that of education and opinion. If he has what we consider a sufficient claim, on whatever account, to have something guaranteed to him by society, we say that he has a right to it.
It seems however that this does not at all clear up what a right is. What I mean is that at some point in our history it was an axiom to consider woman as not having the right to vote, as people of darker hues to have lesser or fewer rights than those of pinker. Thus, our definition of rights goes nowhere nearer to clarifying the matter of whether x, y, or z should be or are rights at all.
However, rights are contested and projected. Now it is common for modern (dare I put in “Western”) people to consider equal treatment of the sexes and to dismiss racism as unhelpful in our classifications of people (we might as well use eye-colour or length of lips for such banal distinctions). The reason why – even if, like me, you are doubtful of notions of “progress” – is that the terms of rights are contested. This fits in with another beautiful phrasing of Mill’s, in which he states that unless an idea or opinion is “fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.”
So, whilst we have a vagary of what a right is, we must be sure to note that this does not tell us that x, y, or z ought to be rights. For now let us say that rights are things to which we are allotted by society and which society ought to protect us in their consumption, diffusion and utility.
The right to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” is a famous line (from the amazing United States Declaration of Independence). One can have a right to free speech. Yet one can also have a right to consume toxic substances which serve almost no other purpose but self-debilitation (alcohol for example). One has a right to ones own time, freedom of movement, etc. But wait! Certain governmental areas are off-limits to citizens, offices are protected from invasion due to the valuable information they contain, homes are not to be walked into by anyone. It does not look as though rights really stand for anything, since there are always exceptions to them. But this would be to have a pessimistic, unhelpful and incorrect view of rights.
Are we truly free? It seems to me that we are not. But that is a good thing since I think here “absolute freedom” is not a good thing to have. “Absolute freedom” would amount to a repudiation of rights, since it would entail no restrictions or limitations on our actions – one could consider it as the hypothetical “state of nature” that Hobbes considers in Leviathan. 
We need restrictions to allow for ordered movements to allow societal flow. “Absolute freedom”, as I define it here, would mean that law, government and formalised institutions would be unnecessary since these exist to serve, protect and further our rights. At times, true, it does not feel like it. But at present, these are goals and aims of these institutions.
Similarly, we do not have – nor should we want – absolute freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, remember is itself a right, but one that is also hard to define. In a recent spate of “blasphemy” in Cape Town, Errol Naidoo has brought into sharp contrast the contesting criticisms between homosexuals and Christians (in the same link, I show why this reasoning is flawed on his part). In the past, sure, we can see that blaspheming was considered very unPC – very much an encroachment on people’s rights to their practising of religion. Since the gates of dogma have slowly been removed of their steadfast watchmen, we have seen that the gates actually protect nothing but insecurities and irrationality. That however does not stop people from continuing to believe and practise their faith in private. What it has introduced is the now accepted proposition that ideas may be contested openly, whilst people can be respected.
Freedom of speech does not mean we should mock, deride, and make snide remarks about people at every available opportunity. Not only is it exhausting and inconvenient, it also does not help to further the causes of liberty, respect and equality. The difficulty does not lie in which, for example, faiths or political movements we are allowed to mock, but how mockery and satire contributes to overall flourishing of a society, when by their very definitions they are negative aspects toward certain people. To put it another way: How can freedom of speech – which is only contested when those who are critical and therefore negative toward a set of ideas or opinions are silenced – at all help society when it allows for mockery and satire as its hallmarks? Mocking one’s leaders can’t make their lives easier to help lead our societies, so why should we allow it?
This is a fair question, but one that misses the overarching point: The feelings of one person or one group should not prevent the overarching methodology of critical thinking to be repudiated for the whole society. When we mock a leader, say Jacob Zuma, is his job easier? No – but who said anything about making our leaders’ lives easier? The main point is that it indicates a society that is able to mock its leaders when they make ridiculous statements like having a shower will get rid of AIDS, or only Afrikaners are true white South Africans. Being able to mock indicates that one is not governing sheep who accept where their leader points his staff. It indicates that freedom and critical thinking are walking hand-in-hand, ready to point out where along their path the leader is not directing us.
In this instance, this derision fits in with the rubric of a right because it indicates liberty. It indicates that the personal autonomy of the individual citizen is no more reprised from him for allowing his critical faculties to engage with satire or mockery, because the target of his mockery is failing in his or her own critical faculties. This is the instance in which freedom of speech must be defended.
It may seem arrogant to suggest that if Mary is not living up to Bob’s standard of “critical thinking”, Bob is allowed to mock Mary and defend himself by invoking freedom of speech. Of course, the beauty of liberty and personal autonomy raises itself on its two legs to justify this: Mary is allowed to clarify, defend and present her own case for her decision or opinion which “offends” Bob’s critical faculties. It is the beginning of a dialogue and not the invocation of silence which is so important. Mary, in this instance, can not say that Bob is not allowed to criticise her ideas. Freedom of speech basically means allowing a dialogue between two opposing forces to take place; whereas no freedom or arbitrary limitations on freedom of speech give the lie to despotism, arrogance and egotistical bullying.
For this reason, so-called “blasphemy” is a human right. Blasphemy may be defined as mammalian utterances of divine denigration. By breaking down this definition – with the ribald fanatical Muslims and Christians serving as the broadside to this investigation – we can see why we are all partisans to it. Not just “atheists” but even the faithful commit blasphemy every day.
Mammalian utterances of divine denigration (all following definitions are from Webster)
Mammalian adj for the root word mammal n. : any of a class of warm-blooded higher vertebrates.
Utterance(s) n. 1: something uttered ; especially : an oral or written statement : a stated or published expression; 2: vocal expression : speech
Divine adj: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love> b: being a deity <the divine Savior> c: directed to a deity <divine worship>
Denigration n. 1: to attack the reputation of : defame <denigrate one’s opponents> ; 2 : to deny the importance or validity of
Notice the inherent absurdity of blasphemy. We must recognise that it is not some deity’s feelings being hurt, but those who proclaim a belief in him. We are, thanks to the fact that most of their believers are dead, allowed to mock the Roman, Aztec and Norse gods. Indeed, when was the last time someone was struck with ill-luck and was told it was because they had not praised Odin lately? And, the corollary, how many times has some good fortune favoured the life of some “soul” and thanks was given to the war god Ares?
Blasphemy is a victimless crime in the extent that the target of mockery does not exist. I do not deny the feelings being hurt by the faithful, but they must understand that they can not invoke god’s feelings to justify their own. They are committing a religious crime of a serious nature by not praying 5 times a day – or if they are praying 5 times a day, they are not accepting Jesus as lord and saviour. In each case, according to Islam or Christianity, they will be punished.
Let us ask a question relating to this: Should a Christian cease from eating pork or drinking wine, if a Muslim expresses that she is “offended” by this behaviour? Notice this: Group A is asking for Group B – which does not believe Group A’s tenets – to cease certain actions because of Group A’s tenets (which Group B, remember, does not believe in). It does not seem a remarkable conclusion to say it is quite arrogant, childish and bullying to suggest that Group A is right to simply assert their offence as a justification for certain actions of Group B to stop.
Let us return to the example I gave. Should the Christian stop drinking wine to cease offending the Muslim? If one considers the blanket consideration – where we looked at Group A and Group B – one would be correct to say the Muslim here is being ridiculous. By definition, the Christian does not believe the tenets of Islam and therefore can behave according to his (and the society’s – this is my next point, so hang on) standards. He is not harming anyone by drinking wine (provided he does not do it in excess, is driving after, etc.).
Similarly, those who are accused of blaspheming – so called “godless” – do not believe in any religious tenets. Like the Christian in this example, it is simply arrogant and chauvinistic to assert that one’s tenets and beliefs be respected – even though those who offend do not believe them. There is no good reason to silence those who do not believe from criticising or mocking religious ideas. Christians mock Muslims and Muslims return the favour; non-believers do it to everyone (the worst you could say is that they are not targeting one group!). Remember this about freedom of speech: those we criticise are allowed to invoke the same fundamental rights to respond. Thus, they can mock non-believers in return. They can also inform non-believers why their religion is actually true, with evidence, logic and reason. It is not asking a lot. It raises an eyebrow of suspicion when we criticise someone and they simply tell us to not criticise.
“Why not?”
“Because it hurts my feelings.”
“But what you are doing is illogical/wrong because of x, y, z.”
“You must be silent.”
The dialogue is closed off. The worst part is not so much that those who – like myself – criticise religion are not allowed to partake in a dialogue, but those who silence us are themselves victims to the silence they have imposed. When we build a wall to prevent others entering, we can also prevent ourselves from leaving.
Some may have a detected a rat, recently. The example I gave about the Muslim and Christian is missing a central point: context. Even in context however it is the secularists that are triumphant. Here are a few contexts for our example:
The Christian’s House
If the Muslim demanded that the Christian, whilst they were in his house, cease to drink wine, we would have every reason to support his decision to do as he pleases. This means he can, depending how much he likes/loves her, cease or continue. If it is a random acquaintance he may just cock an eyebrow and down his bottle. It is his house and therefore his own place of freedom. (It is why I am sceptical of most non-smocking ventures, as it seems to be an imposition of one group over another, with no basis in evidence. I hate smoking and being around people who smoke, but I do not support any of the recent bans. I will simply not go to areas where people smoke. It is like going to a rock concert so you can complain about the loud guitars).
The Muslim’s House
Now, here is where the Christians’ choice is limited. In the example we saw in the Christian’s house, there were certain freedoms because it was his. Now, if it is a Muslim’s house, we should respect the people we are attending enough to condone to their rules. Similarly, when I enter a mosque, I remove my shoes, wear a kuffiya; when asked to hold hands to say grace at friends’ houses, I comply. It is a matter of respecting the people we love, not their ideas. Indeed, it means nothing to me to bow my head, to remove my shoes. I lose nothing, whilst others are satisfied. Whereas, I would not gain anything by trampling around a beautiful mosque with my shoes or refusing to bow my head and, furthermore, my friends would be saddened by my arrogant behaviour. So, if the scenario previously conveyed is within the context of the religious person, it does take a different turn.
Within a Secular Society
However, we live in a secular society (well, those of us who live in South Africa and many parts of the world). This means it is not religious. One might consider it a massive household of someone who does not adhere to religious creeds. This means that, just as the Muslim had little or no right to impose her beliefs on the Christian in his household, no religious group can impose their beliefs on people who do not believe in any religious creeds. Blasphemy, remember, is only wrong to those who are religious. It is only considered blasphemy by those who are themselves believers in sacred things (I do not believe that anything is “sacred”). It is only blasphemy to those who are believers.
We who do not believe can not be expected to adhere to random mythologies – in the sense that it is only a crime or immoral if one is already within that framework.
It is our right, by living in a secular society, to partake in criticising ideas, opinions, institutions and people we deems worthy of criticising. It is their right, by living in the same society, to respond accordingly. It is not their right – however – to demand silence, restriction and limitations simply on the basis of their feelings being hurt. As creationist fiction offends my sensibilities with regards to science, I do not demand that they be silenced. Indeed, we want evidence. That is a dialogue and why they are allowed to write and publish. It is their right.
Thus, blasphemy is only a problem – like the “Problem of Evil” – for the religious. I can explain evil by concluding we live in an uncaring, ignorant universe, which is culminating in its own destruction; I can get over blasphemy because I do not believe in sanctity, or the tenets of religions. I am not asking the religious to stop practising their beliefs, forcing them to blaspheme, and so on. Therefore, they should not ask me to do the corollary.
Blasphemy is part of free speech because free speech allows for criticism, back and forth. It is the beginning of a dialogue – since the only way we can “progress” as a species, is to talk to one another, clearly and without fear of being murdered for it. In fact, we must stop calling it blasphemy and call it open criticism. It is only blasphemy according to the religious. I am not – therefore, it is an open criticism.
Open criticism is part of free speech, as free speech is a right. Thus open criticism must serve as a beginner of conversation. It is not there to be closed off by the hand of the faithful, if they are partaking in a secular society. When they enter our extended household of secular considerations, by all means, practise your religions. But, even as Jesus said, you must be prepared to be mocked for your beliefs. One can not believe in free speech and retain an essence of blasphemy for the entire society. It is a right we are all allowed to partake in: silencing one group is to give in to Dark Age politics and to forgo the piercing light of reason.
This is in response to Steve de Grouchy’s article, found here.
For my co-thinker Jacques Rousseau’s response, click here.
Steve de Gruchy in “Taking aim at the atheists” (Mail & Guardian, April 9) commits a number of fallacies in the short space provided to him. This firstly gives the lie that the M&G are “Dawkinite” in their view, which he claims has been the common denominator in M&G‘s treatment of religion. Forgetting that we have been exposed to only one view – that of believe or burn - for the majority of modern times, it is at least refreshing to see something new reprised in the public sphere. De Gruchy also does not list what he calls a “disproportionate amount” given to Dawkins views – since I only recall a few interviews myself and perhaps a book-review.
Like Russell and Lucretius, I view religion as a virus to our species – but I do not accept Dawkins as some prophet or harbringer of the “atheist apocalypse” (as de Gruchy call it). De Gruchy does not so much focus on the ideas as on Dawkins himself, stating that Dawkins and “born again atheists” “blindly ignore what is going on before their eyes”. Presumably, de Gruchy has set himself the myopic injunction to clarify my views. Of course, saying that one is mistaken is not the same as saying why. Not once in his entire article, does de Gruchy highlighy why Dawkins’ views are wrong. He simply makes ad hominem attacks (“arrogance”; “naive”) and incorporates all those who do not believe in his particular brand of religion and his one true god as mistaken.
Very well, professor. But why are we mistaken? Why is the use of scientific rationalism a mark of myopic thinking, rather than invoking an arbitrary deity based on no evidence whatsoever?
But perhaps the biggest fallacy is one you would expect a theologian to ignore. De Gruchy lists various machinations within the turgid engine of religious groups – their funding, their associations, their good work – and indicates that it is very much a part of our society. All good and well, but so what? The point that critics of religion like myself indicate is this: no one can deny the power and might of various religious groups, nor the good work they do. But this in no way makes religious claims of the divine, Jesus walking on water and Heaven true or valid.
De Gruchy then pulls “the charity card”. There are two ways to go against the notion that – to summarise the view – “lots of charity is done by people of faith. See how good faith is?” Well, lots of carpets, tables, benches, and most prisoners are of the faithful. Does that at all indicate that if you are faithful, you will commit crime or be prone to making tables? Of course not. So why does it indicate that faith is the cause for altruistic behaviour (this, however, does not repudiate that there could be one)? I personally know many volunteers who do not believe and who are hard at work to save Africa’s people. Does this make atheism any more legitimate? Of course not. The second way to oppose the intermingling of faith and charity is to ask the question: “Would you rather be under the care of someone who does it for goodness’ sake? Or does it to win some higher power’s favour?” I find it abhorrent to think there are people who do good out of the need to get into Heaven. Goodness should be done for the sake of our fellow man and not for the sake of an imaginary one.
De Gruchy invokes the intelligent appearing but rationally unsound claim of atheists confusing “questions about God and questions about religion”. Well, no, professor. You have. Whilst we continue to see no evidence for the existence of a deity – and since you can provide not a single good reason to believe – you instead go on to talk about religious groups and their activities. But that is not the point. The point is, religious claims are false and these groups are premised on false beliefs. We can then talk about religious groups – but we have not confused the two. Religious claims and religious groups are two different things – the former being untrue, whilst the the latter being unimportant in repudiating our counter-arguments.
And if the professor wants to invoke the good of religion, he must accept the bad. Is it any wonder that Joseph Khony invokes the Ten Commandments as his reasoning for gathering child-soldiers and massacring innocent people? Is it any wonder that the Pope can say that condoms promote AIDS, rather than prevent it? What about the Bishops who lured people into churches, only to burn them down in Rwanda? Now, none of this tells me anything about whether god exists or not. It does tell me the awesome arrogation of knowledge and power that people can invoke when they believe they have a divine backing.
De Gruchy patronisingly calls our views arrogant. He says: “Like latter-day missionaries, catechists of European secularism think they know better than the “natives”. The arrogance is astounding.” The professor should know that modern secularism is not European but American – as the beautiful First Amendment indicates. But, ignoring semantics, why is it arrogant to suppose people can cope without a god, live fruitful lives without petty fairy-tales and magic books? It is because we secularists think we are all equal, capable of such thought and thus capable of relieving themselves of a god. That is to look at people face-to-face. De Gruchy is patronising to think the so-called “natives” are not ready for secularism. Shame, he would say, leave them to their silly beliefs. If we did not care about others, I personally would not be writing this letter. It is because we feel so passionately about helping people live better lives, devoid of supersition, to grasp reality by the throat instead of by the lapel, that we are so strident in opposing bad ideas like religious claims.
De Gruchy also believes we will get there through religious “solidarity”. People of various faiths should be able to interact and atheism, according to de Gruchy, is creating discord where there was harmony. Harmony, like between Shi’ite and Sunnii Muslims in Pakistan – both of the same faith, notice but just different branding – who slaughter each other every other day? How can their be harmony between completely opposing religions, each believing their particular brand is the right one, and whose infallible books contradict each other? Being a Christian requires you believe that Christ is Lord and God. Being Muslims means only viewing Allah as the divine. You can not be both nor can either view be reconciled, or else they lose the very definitions of their faith.
And this was news to me: Apparently, “we are not a secular nation but a religiously plural one”. The professor has failed to remember that there is freedom of religion (plurality) and freedom from religion (separation of Church and state, and the privacy of faith practice should one choose to indulge), both in our secular society. Our constitution rests in having no faith-based interference, but allowing everyone to practise his beliefs in private. That is secularism. If it were not, it would be tainted by the theocratic justifications and arbitrary expulsions. As much as the faithful do not like it, we are secular.
De Gruchy also says, to solve societal problems we need “more theology, not less.” Gazing into ancient words and pretty imagery is not going to solve the problem of water-shortages in Africa; it will not solve AIDS; it will not ground our governments decisions; it will not allow us to lower the crime rate. Theology will only add to discord, since, as I indicated, we are plural and that means that different faiths have completely opposing theology but premised on the fact that each is infallible. De Gruchy uses the following analogy: “If people sing badly, we do not shut down music schools. We train better teachers”. Ignoring what a terrible analogy this is to religion, I have one to offer against it: “If a certain drug is distributed to people that harms them, we do not kill the people or doctors. We get rid of the drug.”
Finally, in a display that proves he wants to go out with a bang, like an abstract suicide bomber, de Gruchy says that atheism causes fundamentalism! One would think, according to de Gruchy’s view, that atheism is having a large impact on society, forcing people to stop talking about their faith lest the scary atheist-police silence them. And, because atheism is the ruling view, the faithful must take their views underground where, apparently, it becomes dangerous. He gives no justification for this and, like most faithful invocations, simply asserts it as true. It certainly can be attributed to the rise of secularism and Western thought into societies – but there is no legal claim to dismiss religion. Nor are all secularists nonbelievers. The only legality involved is that it must simply be a private affair and one that is not influencing major societal decisions. Is it the Allies fault that they were hated by the Nazi’s, when the Allies fought to dissolve Europe from the darkness of Nazism? No. So it is not the fault of secularists that there are toxic agents in the already murky stream of religious thought. We simply want to be rid of the whole stream altogether. Secularists did not cause the Inquisition, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, or the death of 15 girls in Saudi Arabia for not wearing abayas. The religious are perfectly capable of poisoning themselves with the most potent drug of all: god. Whilst they are overdosing, or trying to justify elements of obstruction (called religious apologetics), we are trying to focus on the present life we have.
De Gruchy then has committed a number of fallacies. The only area in which both our feet are squarely set is in the public: that is, religious people should take their claims to the public sphere and let it be judged as such. This means that the religious can not talk about “offense” since they are bringing ludicirous claims to a public sphere, or agora (as the Greeks called it) where this open market-place of ideas will decide which ones are the victor: the claims for god or those for reason.
That fast artificer of reason, David Hume, said “reason is perfectly inert”. By this, he was focusing on the nature of action, given to morality:
Morals excite passion, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.
His argument stems from his overarching inquiry which states the obvious but important claim that “reason is the discovery of truth of falsehood”. Many who defend reason pronounce some sort of dominion on its extensions, proclaiming that no one with a sense of reason could say that condoms are the cause and not the cure for the proliferation of AIDS in Africa. No “reasonable” person would say that we should arrest 25 year old bloggers for insulting religious leaders.
The world in my opinion is filled with many assaults on coherent rationality: one which has raised itself up on its feet of evidence and stands strong with its wall of sensibility. But when we defend reason, we must be careful about what we mean.
By reason we do not mean some high-standard of maintenance with regards to autonomous liberty and propitious actions toward others. This is the desirable life of liberty I would want for all people’s, but it is not the sole dominion or elaboration of reason. Reason is perfectly inert in that it is nothing but a distinction of truth from falsity, a sifting of lies to uncoil strands of conglomerate reality to a fine, woven tapestry we can call the present.
There are many definitions of “reason” but I am mainly focused on the notion of it as sifter of truth. We should be weary of saying reasonable people are not religious; or reasonable people would not endorse blasphemy as a crime. There is no reason other than pure arrogance to suggest that there can be no coherent, logical reasoning for people to believe and for people to endorse blasphemy. This is not the same as highlighting the fact that there is not a single good reason to proclaim the existence of a deity, or that offense occurs constantly and it is simply society pre-judging the hypersensitivity of the faithful.
But what is this distinction?
One rests in our actions and physical wantings; the other rests in the purely abstract, intellectual side. This does not mean the one does not infer the other. Indeed, Julian Baggini, in his excellent Making Sense, highlights that many people would have a knee-jerk reaction to so-called “Frankenstein” foods – many regard “not natural” as “wrong”. This is a very physical response and one that elucidates many of their reactions.
However, once one carefully sifts through ones reasoning behind the reactions, we can highlight that these reactions are unfounded in terms of evidence and logic. We can, through extensive layering of reason, see that natural does not necessarily mean good, nor its corollary, that “not natural” means bad. For the former, Jared Diamond highlights, in his Pulitzer prize-winning Guns, Germs & Steel that plants are not there to be eaten by animals; they have various defenses, like poisons and thorns, to prevent such rabid self-destruction. Yet, no one would claim that poisons or thorns are “not natural”. That does not make ones poisoned bloodstream or a child’s bleeding arm “good” because it happened naturally. (Similarly, it is unnatural to wear clothes, glasses, take asthma inhalers, injections, and use every form of medical technology which saves countless lives everyday. Taken to its logical conclusion, people would not allow their soon-to-be-child to be saved in the very likely event that the birth process would be complicated – given that parturition is poorly designed in women’s bodies. Of course many Jehovah’s Witnesses allow a similar horror to occur when they refuse blood transfusions which could easily save their child’s life. At least, we can say for them they are staying true to their illogical philosophy).
Thus, when we lay out and carefully look at the things which are “natural” and “not-natural” we can come to the conclusion that our emotions are unfounded. This informs many things: the status of non-whites and their contact in the world, the place of women, nudity, violence and other such abstentions of expression from the previous century. Many, from past eras (and some still today) would react quite physically – not in pleasurable way, like myself – to seeing beautiful women displayed in their wonderful glory on billboards and magazines. Yet, our informed opinion on the human form, post-Enlightenment, has helped to change that. Of course, things like religion maintain a fixed, unhealthy obsession with this mortal coil and its springing into action with the joy of sex.
What I am attempting to stress is that the two dominions, of action, physicality and the phenomenal world along with the internal, intellectual and abstract domain inform one another. They cross like beams of sunlight through a broken ceiling and our thoughts are the tiny dust-particles flitting in-between each, finally landing on the floor and stabilising. I am stressing this warning that when we mention reason, that precious tiny fragile thing, it does not mean we have dominion over it. We who uphold reason – or like to think we do – would be those who tear the wings off fairies and claim that this tiny creature loves us.
Yet it is not the complete dismissal of rationality either when it enters the domains of morality. Hume’s quotation might misinform, since by definition ethics is in the shadow of the archway of rationality. It borders it and groans beneath the weight of constant usage. Reason, as with freedom of speech, has limits but one that is created with the same tools. The basis for Hume’s portrayal, or rather the extension of it, is to inform us on what is and what ought to be. How do we judge whether abortion should be legal or illegal? We would use arguments based on reason, evidence and logic. But does that make abortion right or wrong? This would be something reason can not inform on, it seems, since reason only attempts, by Hume’s definition, to “discover truth from falsehood”. Hume also stressed that good and evil are simply matters of feeling and run down a different tributary to reason.
But, down the patchwork of human thought, with rationality informing us on truth and lies then feelings telling us what is good and evil, there is no reason why they would not cross. As I highlighted above, reason can inform the passions and thus dissolve them into platitudinous patchworks from which to raise the feet of evidence one step further toward truth. When we defend reason we must be careful of its peremptory arrogation beneath the wings of our dominion. It must be allowed to be free or it will cease to tell us truth from lies, and tell us instead what we want to hear.
We who are not believers, defend science and maintain the highest defense of reason we can, must not be arrogant to think we have sole usage of this precious commodity. Let all partake and claim usage of reason – it is the conclusions which we will judge according to the same rules.
