David Hume on Obfuscatory Philosophy

I came across a wonderful quotation by the great David Hume. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1777) Hume unpacks his targets and what he hopes to avoid. In the very first section, “On the Different Species of Philosophy”, he considers the cases of some “metaphysical” philosophy which is obscure because it is not “science”. This is not to say that because it is not science it is worthless, but that a good red flag is something that revels in not being science, bathing itself in obscurity and obfuscation. (Which today identifies such things as obscure New Age nonsense, astrology, and homeopathy.)

To Hume, because “man is a reasonable being”, “science [is] his proper food and nourishment”. This is the famous paragraph, where he dissects the contradictory nature of “man” and ends off with (personified) nature telling us: “Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.”

Of course, here there was little differentiating between the kind of philosophy and science we ought to do. Both should be focused on remaining “human”. “Indulge your passion for science, says she [nature], but let your science be human, and as such have a direct reference to action and society.” (Emphasis added.)

I take such words to heart, considering the applicability of my thoughts, research and philosophical focus. I do not want to indulge in irrelevant navel-gazing on publicly meaningless topics. A danger, I think, in many disciplines.

And this is the paragraph I want to quote; where Hume admonishes all who would indulge in obscurity, superstition and meaningless drivel (I’m looking at you literary theory). Every academic should have this paragraph on their door; or above their keyboard or quill or whatever academics write with these days. Says Hume:

But this obscurity in the profound and abstract philosophy, is objected to, not only as painful and fatiguing, but as the inevitable source of uncertainty and error. Here indeed lies the justest and most plausible objection against a considerable part of metaphysics, that they are not properly a science; but arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to the understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselves on fair ground, raise these intangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chaced from the open country, these robbers fly into the forest, and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind, and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudices. The stoutest antagonist, if he remit his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice and folly, open the gates to the enemies, and willingly receive them with reverence and submission, as their legal sovereigns. (Enquiry, I: Par. 11)

Hume teaches everyone, not just philosophers. Indeed, anyone can benefit from this man’s powerful and beautiful writing, thought and grace. His sobriety and clarity is second to none.

Sunday Sacrilege: 09/01/2011

Today I will recommend some incredible stories, but it seems to be a week for sceptical/skeptical triumph (yes, a jagged red line suddenly birthed itself beneath itself beneath the ‘c’ sceptical. Tut, tut.)

As usual, in no particular order:

1.

We have the ‘Skeptic Detective’, Angela Meadon, finally (!), writing something along her usual trajectory of informative, in-depth and clear explanations of supernatural claims. My pick has to be her latest focus on rhino horns as an aphrodisiac. The title is bit misleading, I think, but her article is short and excellent, containing the necessary links for further investigation. The word ‘aphrodisiac’ itself comes from the Greek goddess of love, Aphrodite, who was widely desired. Similarly, the purpose of an aphrodisiac is “to enhance … sexual virility”, as Meadon says; yet it does not necessarily make the user more desirable to the desired person. It can but it doesn’t necessarily mean it will.

What’s more problematic in the whole affair is the typical human assumption that we can use non-human animals for our own benefit. As Meadon puts it, summarising some scientific articles which investigated the claims made of rhino horns’ efficacy, “They all arrived at the same conclusion: rhino horn is of no use to anyone except the original owner.” (Original emphasis.)

2.

Another post, is my friend Dr Kenneth Lipp, at Cambridge who is spreading the word for Paul Kurtz’s new society: the Institute for Science and Human Values. The Institute’s mission, as Lipp had indicates, states:

“We are committed to the enhancement of human values and scientific inquiry. This combines both compassion and reason in realizing ethical wisdom. It focuses on the principles of personal integrity: individual freedom and responsibility. It includes a commitment to social justice, planetary ethics, and developing shared values for the human family.”

Whilst I am, um, sceptical of things like niceness, optimism, happy toleration, etc., I am very glad for the Institute’s existence. It is certainly an honour to be mentioned in this post, and I will gladly help out where I feel comfortable. Considering my enormous respect for Paul Kurtz, it is certainly an important institution to keep an eye on.

Lipp’s other posts somehow manage to weave a comfortable thread through WikiLeaks and AIDS policies in Africa, with the same encyclopaedic and clear command of insight that can only come from the Dark Lord Cthulhu. How else Lipp manages this, whilst studying as a Cambridge Fellow, I cannot fathom. Whilst he has an overblown perception of my abilities – I’m struggling to keep up with him as it is! – he is incredibly important to all interested in the culture wars, of science, religion and human rights (the latter, an idea I’m not 100% sure about at least as stated by most bodies).

As atheists often say about Hitchens, I say about Lipp: I’m glad he’s on our side.

3.

The great Steven Novella provides a brilliant summary concerning the ongoing battle between reality and Power Balance™. The company is (in)famous for producing wrist-bands which supposedly enhance active performance. It is endorsed by top sportsmen and, therefore, it must work. Because, you know, sportspeople can’t be wrong! They’ve been backpedalling and retracting, like a bear with a broken arm circling a recently killed prey. Here in South Africa, the FSI has drawn up its own offensive against the company, spurred on by the victory in Australia.

4.

Christian Munthe is a philosopher who represents everything I want to study (and do and teach), working as: “Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.” His “[c]hief interests are ethics/moral philosophy, political philosophy and their applications to practical issues.” He thankfully maintains a blog which keeps us all on top of his areas of focus and interest. Not satisfied with being a top-class academic, Prof. Munthe decided to steal more from the talent barrel and become an excellent musician.

I want to recommend his analysis of a recent farce, in a journal concerning bioethics. Drawing from an important friend of mine, Udo Schuklenk, Munthe describes “a threat against the integrity of bioethics research … exemplified in the form of a multi-layer scandal in relation to a paper published in the ‘open access’ journal”. What everyone else is calling plagiarism, the authors and editor of the journal calls unintentional mistake. Read on to find out more about this silly but highly unethical  conduct,

Munthe, as here and elsewhere, provides a helpful insight into what happened, why, and further insight into the workings of an rapidly expanding field. Also, read his follow-up article concerning Udo’s excellent journal, Bioethics.

5.

I must, must recommend my favourite Ben Goldacre blogpost from last year. Yes, it’s late but this is such an important part of what will inform my thesis, that I can’t leave it out. Goldacre’s article talks about excellent research that went into studying people’s responses to empathy.

“60 students were given a vignette to read about a case of fraud, where either 3 people or 30 people were defrauded by a financial advisor, but all the other information in the story was kept the same.”

Which group do you think conveyed the most empathy: that is, wanted the harsher punishment, conveyed a harsher sentence for the perpetrators? It is not what most would expect: “participants who read the story with only 3 victims rated the crime as more serious than those who read the exact same story, but with 30 victims.” That is, the fewer people affected by the same crime, the more empathy is conveyed. Goldacre refers to another study that found similar results.

This tells us what only science can tell us: reality and the world, and even our fellow human, do not operate as we want or expect. In an ideal world, Goldacre says, it would not be this way. Goldacre ends this post powerfully to illustrate the moral lesson behind this, also implying why the fight against AIDS and poverty in general never receives the emotional impact as a crime against fewer people. There of course many other factors to consider, such as the spatial and personal relation of the affected, one’s own abilities, etc. But it is one of the best posts, if not the best post, I’ve read for some time.

**

That’s it for this week. Please leave other interesting links in the comments.

Ridding Religion – should we replace it with something?

We get used to the tired retorts from apologists: “Something can’t come from nothing!” “What meaning does life have if you are just going to be wormfood?” “How do you explain consciousness?” … and so on. But a nagging question which I’m putting open for debate is the question of replacement: that is, “What do you replace religion with?”

Like Freud, many of us understand that religion will always remain as long as people fear themselves, the world and the unknown, and perhaps especially death. God answers all the above-mentioned questions and most others. Purpose, meaning, morality, mortality – god (too easily) answers all. We also understand that some people belong to religion, not because they are necessarily (or only) scared but also because it creates opportunities. It is an outlet for their altruism and good-will; it allows them to connect with people on a “spiritual” (or non-materialistic) level; it makes them feel included, part of a group that nourishes their individuality by slowly diminishing it. In other words, it allows a part of a person to flourish that otherwise might not.

I think it is right, but it may be too easy, to say: religion doesn’t need replacement.

I think it’s right in the same sense that we don’t need to replace our belief in Santa Clause or the tooth-fairy. And god, being another imaginary creature, also doesn’t need replacement. However, religion is not simply the belief in god. Many non-religious people believe in (a) god – some are fideists like the great Martin Gardner or Soren Kierkegaard (this may be contested). And, similarly, some religious people do not believe in god: many secular Jews, for instance, are non-believers but might be the first to turn their lights off on Shabbat.

Here are some definitions of religion:

“Religion: Human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine.” (Brittanica)

“Religion: (2) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; (4) a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to, with ardor and faith.” (Miriam-Webster)

“The religious response is a response to experience and is coloured by the wish to provide a wider context for a fragile, short and turbulent life.” (Philip Rousseau, The Early Christian Centuries)

In all of these, there is barely a mention of a deity. Rituals, observances, the creation of sacred objects, places of contemplation, hymns, and so on – all can be observed by anyone without needing to believe in a deity. Why do it, then, one might ask? To benefit from all the things I mentioned before: to allow oneself the opportunity to experience a side of life that is neglected by other spheres.

I do not need such a system or a feeling of spirituality in my life – or rather, I obtain it from reading, writing, experiencing the beauty of the natural world, science, mathematics and philosophy. In these instances, however, the social element is largely missing. That is why groups like CFI, the Council for Secular Humanism, and so on, are so important to those who are not religious. They can and perhaps should provide the many outlets that religious groups provide: connections on more than material (so a place to discuss the meaning of life, truth, and other philosophical conundrums so rudely appropriated and answered by many religions), outlets for altruism, and so on. What troubles me about such things however is that it undermines the very reason some of us leave religion. We do not want to be part of a groupthink, we wanted out for individuality, for the maintenance of personal autonomy that all theisms view as unneccessary or, worse, harmful.

I am torn between wanting to promote a good life without god – focusing on ethical matters – and maintaining a distance from anything remotely religious. Not only is the god question unhelpful, I think it is mostly unimportant as soon as most people come to grips with it. And I do maintain that calling ourselves sceptics, or atheists, or secular humanists is unhelpful – but I can’t help see the necessity in belonging to something that replaces the need for fulfillment. Because above all, whether religion is nonsense (which it mostly is) or not, I think it’s important to realise that, for most people, it fulfills a need. Perhaps a way to combat it is to undermine its central tenets, whilst displaying a better way to appreciate beauty, promote happiness and cherish the love of others. God undermines these things by making humans become slaves to his desires; removing the agent from being good at all, since a believer thinks he can not be good without god. But people can and are good without god and we must stress this. Not only are they good, they live good lives and are often better people for it. They answer to no more abitrary Guy in the Sky or the whims of his self-proclaimed metatrons on Earth. How convenient that god wants you to donate to this man and all other gods are false!

It’s a fine line and I am uncertain how to straddle it. So, I think the question “What do you replace religion with?” should be answered with one of these.

A. Nothing, since the awe and wonder from religious nonsense could be correctly aligned to the awe and wonder of the natural world.

B. A strict tenet like secular humanism or something like that. I get jittery when I read about someone like Don Cupitt – but that’s probably my unease around anything spiritual.

What do you think is the best way to promote a life without god – a strict adherence to some code, which seems too similar to a religion or to underscore each debunking of religion with a better replacement?

Why Do We Fight Invisible Monsters?

In the midst of all these debates about god, Jesus, ghosts, psychic powers and other things that sound like something from a bad Superman comic, we tend to forget an important point: why we do it. Specifically, this is a question addressed to those who do not believe in god or ghosts (or think that the former is actually a form of the latter). It is launched upon us in exasperation, as those who defend the unfounded claims for bad metaphysics and psychics are grounded down by our inquiry. We know that are our arguments in the “god debate” are better, we understand that naturalism is more helpful to explain the world, that appeals to magic and the supernatural are unhelpful or pointless or harmful. The question then, aside from these points, is why we do it. Why do we fight against a god we don’t believe in, against powers we don’t think exist, against forms of existence we think go against rationality?

I think this question, like most of those offered as a point by the apologists, is not helpful. The question is not why we fight invisible monsters but why others do not. Why are many non-believers in gods and ghosts not in the arena contending these ideas? It is an epistemic and human duty to do what one can for others. The irony is that we are the ones who do not believe in post-mortem reward in a magical cities, with benevolent beings rewarding us for squinting harder than our fellows, for pressing our hands closer together leaving no gap between the skin. We are the ones who are not depending on these supernatural rewards but we try nonetheless to do our best for our species.

But many who should be in our ranks are simply not. The question then needs rephrasing: “why are you not fighting?” Many will argue that they are simply not “intelligent” or “interested”. If that is the case, then it is a dual failure―since this is not just a sexy intellectual thing to do, but one that brings with it many fruits for the mind. One grows with the knowledge that pounds the frontiers of the discussion, emerging wounded but nonetheless intact and the more able for it. To adjust a famous phrase by Plato, it is nothing short than an important way to live the good life; that is fulfilling one’s mind via the acquisition of knowledge by the pure thirst for more.

Those who do not engage in these debates might say that life is more important than fighting battles that are already won.

But they are not. A casual glance across many countries, like the US, Turkey, Britain and South Africa, will show that many people―the majority in schools or universities perhaps―believe Earth to be less than 6,000 years old. Of course intellectually, the merit lies with the science that states the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years: but unless that science is sold, delivered and packaged in a strategic way, its mettle fought by pounding it from different corners (those for, those against), we will continue to have confused and ignorant people on this subject. It needs constant supervision. Our biggest dangers to the collapse of reason lies in two corners: those who are against reason and those who embrace it but do not defend it. This does not mean that if one is rational, one is therefore a committed “atheist” or “sceptic”. One can be a person of reason defending his position on god, but one does this from a reasonable, rational standpoint, not assertion of dogma. Reason is based on bridging the gap between minds to initiate a discussion, to investigate on which side the truth or better argument lies – this is why appeals to dogma and assertion do not work, since one can not falsify them.

One can investigate and defend claims of psychics by investigating it in a scientifically verifiable way. Mere assertion, basing one’s claims on dogma and propping up faith as a virtue are not aspects of reasonable discourse. If we are to progress we need more reasonable discourse and this means anyone, regardless of whether one believes in psychics or gods, can partake of this. Even proponents of Intelligent Design are engaged in this, by (at least attempting) to use science to back-up their claims (the fact is, it’s not purely science but some science and mostly bad metaphysical conclusions, i.e.: a designer).

Thus, my appeal is to anyone; not merely those who believe similarly to myself. There is a great need to increase the volume of attention on the claims of the religious. The fact is, the religious have their established churches and their traditions; they are forced to confront their beliefs all the time, but mostly not in a critical way. Dispassionate non-believers do not have a platform to engage their beliefs―if they did, they would already be one of us.

The religious’ arguments and political influence find sway which affect all our lives: education, curtailing free-speech, safety for one’s life and so on. They have their churches, their inheritance via tradition and magical fallacies. We (mostly) do not: we have no Sunday services, no international TV channels, no world-wide appeal or bookstores that are found in most countries specifically aimed at combating bad metaphysics. Most people, including back-seat sceptics, are simply not self-reflective enough: either relying on what their imam, priest or religious leader says or, if not religious, simply dismissing it as something unimportant. But at least those who do accept the religious leader’s statement have something to say for their views of the world: they can suddenly find themselves picketing at abortion clinics, writing letters against articles that mock their faith and so on. The back-seat sceptic, however, is gazing out the window whilst all the scenery shuffles by. But we are in a losing corner if we do not get those who support us dispassionately to take a stand. Perhaps we also need Sunday services, TV channels and so on―which do actually exist but they are not nearly as ubiquitous as the religious―but it seems that the arguments themselves should be enough.

But they are not. Humans need socialising, engagement, something to stand behind. This means a rethinking of our strategy. We are already getting many―religious and not―into reasonable discussion but there are those who need an extra push. Perhaps now is the time to consider what that will be, how to do it and who should take the first steps.

In the midst of all these debates about god, Jesus, ghosts, psychic powers and other things that sound like something from a bad Superman comic, we tend to forget an important point: why we do it. Specifically, this is a question addressed to those who do not believe in god or ghosts (or think that the former is actually a form of the latter). It is launched upon us in exasperation, as those who defend the unfounded claims for bad metaphysics and psychics are grounded down by our inquiry. We know that are our arguments in the “god debate” are better, we understand that naturalism is more helpful to explain the world, that appeals to magic and the supernatural are unhelpful or pointless or harmful. The question then, aside from these points, is why we do it. Why do we fight against a god we don’t believe in, against powers we don’t think exist, against forms of existence we think go against rationality?
I think this question, like most of those offered as a point by the apologists, is not helpful. The question is not why we fight invisible monsters but why others do not not. Why are many non-believers in gods and ghosts not in the arena contending these ideas? It is an epistemic and human duty to do what one can for one’s fellow human. The irony is that we are the ones who do not believe in post-mortem reward in a magical cities, with benevolent beings rewarding us for squinting harder than our fellows, for pressing our hands closer together leaving no gap between the skin. We are the ones who are not depending on these supernatural rewards but we try nonetheless to do our best for our species.
But many who should be in our ranks are simply not. The question then needs rephrasing: “why are you not fighting?” Many will argue that they are simply not “intelligent” or “interested”. If that is the case, then it is a dual failure―since this is not just a sexy intellectual thing to do, but one that brings with it many fruits for the mind. One grows with the knowledge that pounds the frontiers of the discussion, emerging wounded but nonetheless intact and the more able for it. To adjust a famous phrase by Plato, it is nothing short than an important way to live the good life; that is fulfilling one’s mind via the acquisition of knowledge by the pure thirst for more.
Those who do not engage in these debates might say that life is more important than fighting battles that are already won.
But they are not. A casual glance across many countries, like the US, Turkey, Britain and South Africa, will show that many people―the majority in schools or universities perhaps―believe Earth to be less than 6,000 years old. Of course intellectually, the merit lies with the science that states the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years: but unless that science is sold, delivered and packaged in a strategic way, its mettle fought by pounding it from different corners (those for, those against), we will continue to have confused and ignorant people on this subject. It needs constant supervision. Our biggest dangers to the collapse of reason lies in two corners: those who are against reason and those who embrace it but do not defend it. This does not mean that if one is rational, one is therefore a committed “atheist” or “sceptic”. One can be a person of reason defending his position on god, but one does this from a reasonable, rational standpoint, not assertion of dogma. Reason is based on bridging the gap between minds to initiate a discussion, to investigate on which side the truth or better argument, lies – this is why appeals to dogma and assertion do not work, since one can not falsify them.
One can investigate and defend claims of the psychics by investigating it in a scientifically verifiable way. Mere assertion, basing one’s claims on dogma and propping up faith as a virtue are not aspects of reasonable discourse. If we are to progress we need more reasonable discourse and this means anyone, regardless of whether one believes in psychics or gods, can partake of this. Even proponents of Intelligent Design are engaged in this, by (at least attempting) to use science to back-up their claims (the fact is, it’s not purely science but some science and mostly bad metaphysical conclusions, i.e.: a designer).
Thus, my appeal is to anyone not merely those who believe similarly to myself. There is a great need to increase the volume of attention on the claims of the religious. The fact is, the religious have their established churches and their traditions; they are forced to confront their beliefs all the time, but mostly never in a critical way. Dispassionate non-believers do not have a platform to engage their beliefs―if they did, they would already one of us.
The religious’ arguments and political influence find sway which affect all our lives: education, curtailing free-speech, safety for one’s life and so on. They have their churches, their inheritance via tradition and magical fallacies. We (mostly) do not: we have no Sunday services, no international TV channels, no world-wide appeal or bookstores that are found in most countries specifically aimed at combating bad metaphysics. Most people, including back-seat sceptics, are simply not self-reflective enough: either relying on what their imam, priest or religious says or, if not religious, simply dismissing it as something unimportant. But at least those who do accept the religious leader’s statement have something to say for their views of the world: they can suddenly find themselves picketing at abortion clinics, writing letters against articles that mock their faith and so on. The back-seat sceptic is gazing out the window whilst all the scenery shuffles by. But we are in a losing corner if we do not get those who support us dispassionately to take a stand. Perhaps we also need Sunday services, TV channels and so on―which do actually exist but they are not nearly as ubiquitous as the religious―but it seems that the arguments themselves should be enough.
But they are not. Humans need socialising, engagement, something to stand behind. This means a rethinking of our strategy. We are already getting many―religious and not―into reasonable discussion but there are those who need an extra push. Perhaps now is the time to consider what that will be, how to do it and who should take the first steps.

Potato Preacher – a Sceptic’s Guide to Angus Buchan

When some 60,000 men gather in a rural area for a Christian-themed event, my senses begin twitching. Not only the number but the exclusive gender sent alarm-bells chiming in discord. This happened in April 2008 and it was/is called, disgustingly, the “Mighty Men” conference. Held at Greytown, here in my country South Africa, men – and only men – flew from all around the world to see the preaching of a man in a hat. (At one point, the largest tent in the world was used. Yes – in the world!)

His name is Angus Buchan. He first came to prominence after the release of his book, followed by a movie, entitled Faith Like Potatoes. As the IMDB plot-summary says:

Angus Buchan, a Zambian farmer of Scottish heritage … leaves his farm in the midst of political unrest and racially charged land. [He] travels south with his family to start a better life in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. With nothing more than a caravan on a patch of land, and help from his foreman, Simeon Bhengu, the Buchan family struggle to settle in a new country. Faced with ever mounting challenges, hardships and personal turmoil, Angus quickly spirals down into a life consumed by anger, fear and destruction. Based on the inspiring true story by Angus Buchan the book was adapted for the big screen … and weaves together the moving life journey of a man who, like his potatoes, grows his faith, unseen until the harvest

He began giving talks and preachings across the country soon after. As he told The Argus:

“God gave me a directive to turn fathers back to sons and sons back to fathers, to take back the family unit.”

Although he has been asked why there was no conference for women, he said his directive had been to challenge men to stand up and be counted: “To be prophet, priest and king. They must be the breadwinners, protect their wives and discipline their children.”

“God gave me…” – Yes, we have someone else who has a red-phone connection to god. The number 60,000 is quite staggering. Apparently, 80% of the men who attended were Afrikaners which only makes sense. There is a high religiosity amongst the Afrikaner people here in South Africa, of a particular conservative kind. I know quite a number and have been to church services – the passion runs deep to engage with their lord. They are friendly, open people neither racist nor stupid but certainly very isolated from having a figure that represents them on an international level. They have found that in Buchan.

Buchan himself is often shown to be the epitome of an Evangelical Afrikaner: friendly, passionate, warm and very conservative in his beliefs. To say that the Afrikaner people – or Christian people in general – are clutching at straws would be nearer the mark given his statements and views.

Call me paranoid, but I’m wary of anyone who speaks or knows something about the monotheist god that I do not. Or rather, I’m mortified by someone who has a real-time feed to god’s consciousness.

Buchan, in July,  drew an audience of 70,000 people at Loftus (also in South Africa). He tapped into iGOD and was able say: “God is here. The Lord is here” (3). The resounding cries of “AMEN!” could shake the fabric off any veil of reason.

Not only were over 70,000 people crying their hearts and eyes out, the event “was also broadcast live to about 500-million people around the world on GOD TV, one of the world’s largest Christian television networks.” (3) We are not dealing with small fish here. There was nothing particularly new, enlightening or incredible about Buchan – except for his readings of the Bible that sees the lowering of women to be “looked after” by the husbands and for the “discipline of children”.

Until recently…

Not a week ago, he was in my city of Cape Town defiling the air with nonsense. According to Buchan, prayer has cured homosexuality, illness and depression. I have problems with saying “prayer” does anything let alone “cure”. Let us avoid that and say rather a “positive outlook” cured the illness and depression (I don’t know one way or the other if prayer has ever had an effect but so far the view is still zero, alongside the Loch Ness Monster and fairies). Curing is great. But what on earth does he mean by “curing” homosexuality?

I find it hard to fathom that these talks, which he’s still giving around my country, is based on logic like this. This is an insult to reason and humanity. What is more insulting is the lack of rationalist critique. We are a fragile nation, prone to acts of violence against ourselves. We’ve seen it recently in our mad xenophobic attacks, our change of power – its a soil teeming with uncertainty. As I said, when someone like Buchan comes along, exuding confidence, Christianity and conservativeness, you have an engine roaring to go. The Buchan machine is moving through the country and, with his nonsense spewing out, he is continuing to defile the air.

Harsh? Hostile? Yes. I’ve never presented myself otherwise to a decent person’s reasoning. I’m angry not at Buchan – he can keep his views. I am angry, upset and largely disappointed that he is having sell-out shows. I am upset that no one is taking notice of people who are no doubt longing for some answers to our confused place in history. Where do we go, what do we do, who do we learn from? Our future president Jacob Zuma is drowning in a sea of corruption charges, fighting sharks invisible and real who are rightly placed to point their fingers at his abuse of justice.

I will now take the fallacy of the straw man quite literally.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3. Person B attacks position Y.

C. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

I have focused on his statements and shown the context in our volatile, fragile and somewhat desperate and desparate nation. But perhaps it serves a motif: All these people are clutching at straws and Buchan is that strawman.

He stands for racial equality and integration (speaking fluently in one of the many beautiful official languages in South Africa). But he misses the boat by relying in Bible (il)logic. This will not do. We must make a stand for reason, we must face the teeth of superstition with the hammersmack of logic. We are not so far gone as reasonable, decent people to invoke this man as a pathway to the numinous. We all long for the numinous and the transcendent. Religion’s usurpation of this longing, framed in the light to the “one god”, is relentless in using this as an undertow to a natural wanting. No more.

It matters not that the feelings expressed tapped into something. Remain at a cold-distance to those who know the mind of god and claim to cure homosexuality. Rather, we should remain sceptical of his approach until such time as he has given us reason to be other than suspicious of his rehashed, evangelical ramblings.