Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tesco "value" religion?
Following on from a recent story about yet another Christian health service worker having their wrists slapped over wearing a piece of jewellery (crucifix) to work, here is an interesting corollary, Daniel Jones, the leader of the "International Church of Jediism" was recently banned from his local Tesco in Bangor (N. Wales) because he insisted on wearing a hooded gown; he has since made an official complaint against what he describes as religious discrimination. Apparently there are 500,000 followers of this particular organisation, putting it (numerically at least) on a par with say the Rastafarians or other minority faiths in this country.
The interest for me in this story is not really the validity or otherwise of his complaint but more as a thought experiment; if you strip away the tradition and authority of Christianity or Islam etc. then there is essentially no difference between these two cases. Both Jediism and Rastafarianism are simply ideas resting in the brains of many people, memes if you will. Ideas like these are powerful and certainly inform the behaviour of the brains they reside in, they can also provide the "user" with inspiration and comfort. In practice though the religious meme just sits there, unlike other kinds of ideas it does not advance, doesn't grow, and cannot improve, it's stuck in a time warp and constrained by an unfalsifiable fictional narrative laid down in the past (in the case of Jediism 1977!). When I compare this with the body of human scientific knowledge, which is also a set of ideas or memes transmitted from one person to another, the contrast is stark. Science is constantly growing, constantly improving and forever changing as parts of it are shown to be wrong or need to incorporate new facts; rational ideas seem to differ from superstitious ones in that they can evolve in this way, providing both utility and inspiration, regardless of the bling involved!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
"unlike other kinds of ideas it does not advance, doesn't grow, and cannot improve" - come on Steve, I thought you liked to be evidence-based! The fact that Judaism spawned Christianity, both contributed to Islam and then a miriad of splinters came from Christianity and Islam tells us that can't be true.
Speaking mostly about Christianity, the faith as it exists today is the result of 2000 years of reflection on Scripture and the life of Jesus, and a growing and changing tradition. Not to mention a constant and ongoing dialogue with philosophy, ethics, history, the arts and science. The Eastern and Western churches diverged in their theologies based on their different philosophical bases; the advent of humanism brought us a Protestant Reformation. My thought-world is completely different to that of the 1st century, and that reflects in teh way I live and the things I say, and the way I look at Scripture.
You may we're wrong, but there's no way we haven't changed.
Ah yes, but G, you're talking about different religions, Islam is not the same as Christianity is it?
I'm not suggesting that religions don't change into other religions, that is evident, but religions fragment they don't grow and improve like science does.
You are of course right when you say a Christian today interprets scripture differently from his 1st century counterpart, but why? Is it because an increasingly secular and scientific society has made 1st century ideas untenable (like woman's rights for example) or because the religion has decided to reform itself spontaneously based upon a new revelation?
G, another thought just occurred to me about what you said, correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you are suggesting later (historically) religions (like Christianity or Islam) are by definition more advanced or perhaps truer than earlier ones (like Judaism or Greek mythology) by virtue of the fact that the original meme is used as a basis for the derived one. That idea seems problematic to me, i.e. it would imply that Mormonism is more "advanced" (or true?) than say Catholicism for example.
I didn't say they get better... I'd have to be some kind of social evolutionist or member of New Labour to think things can only get better!
No, I was saying that religions change and grow. Both of which are true. And where secular views, or environmental ones, or New Age or Hindu ones, challenge us to revisit our views - which we do in the light of the Spirit and Scripture - I'm eternally grateful. The Scripture's not (on the whole) a rule book - it's an anthology. And where it is a rule book, those rules were mostly regarded as superceded by the late 1st Century AD anyway.
Doesn't always mean the secular or other view is right either, of course. If I were looking for a secular scientist I'd rather look at Richard Dawkins (when he's doing genetics)than at Josef Mengele.
But I'm happy that my religion is one that's been enriched by music, science and art - secular or religious. My faith draws on insights - from theology, tradition, science and the humanities - that the 1st century simply never had access to.
The constant change of science doesn't mean it's constantly improving - napalm, nukes, etc. Science is (hopefully) getting better at what it does, but not every scientific development is, by definition, welcome.
I'm sure scientists are glad that, like religious ideas, some parts of their field don't change or grow. It would be a bummer if 2+2 stopped equalling 4.
Like any philosophy, including logical positivism, religion rests on some core beliefs about what is true, and you wouldn't expect those to change. How those apply, and are interpreted, and the art, culture, society etc. inspired by those things, we'd expect those things to change over time. Same with science. Maths is the same as it was in Pythagoras' day, but how we use it is vastly different.
Back to my Aramaic bible and 1st century nose flute.
Hi dmk, I see what you mean about "improving", but I think we should be careful to distinguish between what people use science for and science as a process or an idea; much like we need to take care to distinguish between religion as an idea, and what some people do with it. Don't forget the Manhattan project and the Vietnam war were conceived by, paid for and executed by a Christian president and a majority Christian USA.
I think you might be misreading scientists WRT. your 2+2 point, I actually think it's the other way around. You get more kudos in science for showing something to be wrong than you do simply confirming something already known; the "best" science is often disruptive in nature; much like Newton being shown to be wrong by Einstein.
This goes to the core of my point really, I wouldn't argue that this kind of disruptive thought process doesn't occur in religion (like the reformation etc.) but it seems to end in fragmentation rather than evolution. Unlike the resultant Protestant and Catholic denominations, in science we don't end up with "Newtonians" and "Einsteinians", we just have physics.
Now where did I leave that death ray generator... ;)
Which perhaps comes back to a comment I made a few weeks back, that a more accurate point of compairson for religion is political ideologies, as a system of ideas and interpretations of the way the world is, rather than to science. After all, what most religious people are about is working out how to live your life, what counts as 'good', and how to achieve it. Those aren't the goals of science (though it may help us achieve them if used well).
Having said that, though there's organisational fragmentation (as there is in every sector: there are lots of research labs, all run by different people, etc.), there is still convergence over goals and objectives. You won't find many churches who don't agree on prayer, helping the poor, living responsibly, generosity, etc. Much of the organisational fragmentation is because one group thought that the other had lost track of the core objectives, and that they'd found a better way to attain them. I guess that happens in science too, as it does in the capitalism which bankrolls a lot of present day research.
This brings us back to evolution - it's not just straight line development, but proliferation and diversification.
1st Century religion can be compared to both contemporary science and politics because at that point in history they were the same species.
Today religion is neither science or politics and they each struggle to interbreed.
So perhaps we should describe them as different combinations of the Aristotlean description of ethics, logic and metaphysics which will gradually reintegrate before diverging again in an eternal cycle which drives the expansion of human knowledge, spirit and ability.
Hi OP,
I think you are right, if religion didn't attempt to address scientific questions or impose its dogmas politically, then there would be a lot less division in the world, there would still be scrapes over resources of course.
I suppose moderate religions like the CofE are already on that path, which is what makes them progressive in that sense; however they still seem reluctant to relinquish the political aspects of their influence; I'm thinking of the role in state education and Bishops in the upper house and all of that.
Steve, the first bit where I totally agree with you - there's no reason why the Church shoud have bishops in the House of Lords. But frankly I don't see why anyone else should get there by preferential treatment either, including New Labour Placepeople, TV presenters or former directors-general of the CBI. Also, I'd like the block on C of E clergymen standing for MP removed as well, if it's still in place. You never know what law someone has passed most recently... I never want to see another blasphemy law, either. In short I don't want religion privileged in any way - though I'd appreciate some either some more state money to keep the buildings standing, or a freedom from listing so we can let them fall down when we can't afford them.
On the other hand, some church schools are just so good... I mean, I had to get ordained just to get my son into our local one. Any less points than that and you've no chance...
G, I quite agree we should treasure our heritage and our culture; in this country that is a Christian one. I would not object to that at all, but as you say when it overlaps with politics then I don't understand why a privileged position is needed.
I'm not convinced on the schools thing; teach comparative religion of course but why segregate? - I know people say it isn't but lets face it that's what it is really.
I think removal of privilege as a way to increase fairness is perverse and doomed to failure.
Instead we should be opening up access to privilege more widely by sharing out opportunities more equally.
I don't have so much of a problem with the Lords Spiritual because the Bishops are elected representatives of the General Synod (itself an elected body from the regional synods), the Chief Rabbi is elected by the board of deputies etc...
However, it does require that we reunderstand what we mean by representation and secularisation in order to retain a consistent interpretation of our bicameral constitution.
Similarly TUC bosses are elected representatives of their organisations, but they retain official party links which are just as disruptive as other vested interests.
As for religious tutoring, such as for communion, to be consistent I think it can only be permissible after the age of criminal responsibility...
I would have no objection to Bishops standing for election like anyone else, presumably if their following was large enough then they would win - why would that be unfair?
Point of information - the Anglican bishops aren't elected members of anything. They're nominated by a committee consisting of various elected and non-elected people, and the final decision is up to the Prime Minister. Another reason I'm in favour of disestablishment, although to be fair that only puts them in the same status as the Unionists raised to the Lords, or Peter Mandelson.
I'd love to see a fully elected chamber, but not one as unbalanced by professional politicians as the lower house.
Thanks for the clarification G;
I hate the way that there is no accounting of "expertise" in our system, clearly certain people gravitate toward certain positions but in principal a lawyer can happily preside over technology focused roles and a scientist can preside over the arts.
Our political system sometimes seems to be stuck in the 19th century.
Steve I really should stop agreeing with you on things...
I was trying to think of a way of getting the "right" people in the upper chamber without being outrageously undemocratic. Couple of ideas:
1. Have one person elected for life, in each so-called region, every year. With that few candidates we'd get more celebs, famous scientists, bishops and local heroes like Hangus the monkey, and less political hangers-on.
2. Make the upper chamber consist of all the professors of Oxford & Cambridge universities, the LSE and Imperial. Sure it wouldn't be fair, but at least they'd know what they were talking about. NB I'm assuming the Scottish universities would have their own upper chamber, for Scotland. Aberyswyth would have to fend for itself.
G, LOL, I guess us "IT crowd" need to stick together :)
This thread has gone from Jedi in Tesco to electoral reform of the Lords. Nice work. What was the original question?
hi dmk, yes, meandered a bit haven't we; oh well, all good brain food :)
Post a Comment