A Dangerous Delusion

Last night, the University of Bristol hosted a debate based on the following motion: Is God a dangerous delusion? Debating for the motion was Susan Blackmore, and against was Alastair McGrath. Each had 20 minutes for their proposition, and 7 minutes to rebut.

I found the actual content of the debate quite disappointing. Neither of the two seemed to answer the question very well. Blackmore, who actually had green hair!, spent the first 4-5 minutes stating that God was dangerous, but not the God of the philosophers. Spouting 'cruelty' and 'war', etc., she barely explained what she was so upset about. She then briefly mentioned Sam Harris' critique that any amount of blind faith can generally erode the veracity of reason within a given society. She hardly mentioned it before moving on.

But the bulk of her 'critique' of religion was spent on explaining the origins thereof. She put forth her assertion of memes, and asserted that since religion was natural, then therefore not true. Obviously this critique fails- regardless of how religion develops, it could still be true. Indeed, this is why religion has (almost) nothing to do with science- it simply isn't falsifiable. Further, and as she mentioned, the religions that we have are the ends of the branches, more developed that the previous models. Religion, according to her, holds sway simply because it has latched onto a few good ideas. Or trickery. Either or.

Her last point is hard to swallow. The assertion of memes surely does not follow genes 1:1, but a comparison should be applicable. We don't assume that the result of evolution is only something that 'looks' useful to the species, but something that IS useful. As well, introducing memes into religion, in the way she did, implies a certain value in religion. Once that is granted, it can just as easily be argued that the 'newer' religions have validity.

McGrath was only slightly better. He broke the question into two parts. The first being whether God is a delusion. He claimed he had evidence for religion, but never provided it. At least he pointed out that the evidence necessary wasn't on the same level as science or maths. He countered that democracy is not demonstrably a better system (although, I would argue that it is) but that, nonetheless, we would all agree that it is. There are so many things that we take for granted, and are not able to sufficiently explain, but nonetheless, take for granted. To make his point fuller- as JSM observes, any telos cannot be proven.

Nonetheless, McGrath offered no proof whatsoever. He simply suggested that his belief in God, or specifically Jesus, makes science, and existence, all the more real for him. This notion seems dubious, but nice for him if it does. I've heard theist argue this before, but it doesn't seem to actually make sense. They claim that beauty can only be explained by the existence of God- surely we perceive it as more than just atoms and neural reactions.

That point is irrelevant though. No matter what the source, that does not (necessarily) create an objective concept of 'beauty.' Beauty may be an objective form, such as within Plato's extreme realist philosophy. Even barring that though, we can still accept a strong form of beauty- we can't genes make beauty the same way that God would?

McGrath then actually got to the point- it is not religion, per se, but any ideology, that is dangerous. And, more specifically, it is the fringes of any ideology that seems to brood violence. Countering the claim that theist convince themselves of God because they already want to believe, he claim that atheist are the same (if not worse) Atheism was the natural extension of the Enlightenment's view of the autonomous man.

Looking back, perhaps they said more than I though they did. But most of what the did say seemed 'old hat' to me. I guess I've been through these arguments for too long. Likewise, many people find Dawkins' arguments profoundly revealing- I find them to be nothing more than the recycling of old arguments.

Nonetheless, I think McGrath won. But only because he bothered answering the question a bit more than Blackmore did.

But, to my money, the actual contents of the debate were the most intriguing part of the night. The attitudes of the debaters, as well as the audience, seemed to exhibit certain particular patterns. As should have been expected- people tended to think that those they already agreed with, had won the debate. Further, they felt that the opposing side was rude to their favored side. In other words, the theists thought that Blackmore was just insulting to their beliefs (though she was trying to be a bit) and the atheists (or those more skeptical of religious belief) thought that McGrath was giving unsatisfactory answers. It was interesting how partisan the interpretations were.

But that was hardly the most interesting aspect of the debate. Much more interesting was the demeanor of the debaters. Blackmore was fairly condescending towards other people's opinions- she considered herself the bastion of rationality. McGrath, on the other hand, was patronizing. But he was more than that. He seemed almost to go out of his way to be nice- so that if his arguments did not suffice, he would gain the psychological advantage by his disposition.

More shocking, and also more obvious, was the terms in which the debate were framed. Although it was supposed to be a debate about theism, supposedly in general, it was actually a debate about Christianity. As I am wont to say: the God that atheists of this country deny is Jesus. Islam was denigrated to a degree greater than Christianity, and religions other than Christianity were taken to be obviously false- without any need for proof. The supposed superiority of Christianity was so obvious to the audience, that a questioner objected to grouping Christianity into the debate at all. As if Christianity has never been the source for conflict in this world. Never mind the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the 100 Year War. Nope, perfect religion. And demonstrably so.

Should I support the settlers?

This question has been bothering me for quite some time. Let's just lay some groundwork for my frame of reference. Though I am religious, and a Zionist, I am not a religious Zionist, and therefore do not buy that a necessary step of redemption is settlement of the land. Is it possible that the State of Israel has relevance to the redemption? Yes- but not in the way that Religious Zionists have construed it.

Let me first start off by saying that the settlers are, fundamentally speaking, no different than early Zionists who came to settle the land. There is a prevalent attitude that the settlers practice 'not my kind of Zionism.' Zionists tend to ignore the fact, and yes I did say fact, that there were people here before the state. No many, yes, but people were here nonetheless. As such, the current settlers differ in degree and not form. There are more Palestinians now than in 1850 (try over 10 times more)- and they are more so a cohesive unit. The idea of settling the land is Zionist through and through.

So, I don't have a positive reason from the standpoint of Religious Zionism. What about the supposed security they bring? As that is a rather disputable point, I don't see how I could sway definitely on either side. They probably do serve as a front-line bufferzone- but they also piss the Palestinians off (rightly or wrongly) and I'm not sure which is stronger.

What about international law? Well, here's where it becomes problematic. International consensus seems to be that the settlements are illegal. The law itself is not so clear. First of all, '67 would most likely be classified as a defensive law. As such, when Israel captured Judea and Samaria, its occupation thereof would be 'legal.' Perhaps a better word is legitimate. I'm still not clear how this affects the law. Those on the pro-settlement side tend to think that it validates it. Those against, obviously,think it does not.

But, there is a bigger point to be had. Can the 'Palestinian Territories' be properly considered occupied? Since the Arabs refused the Partition plan in 1947, how could it be operative now? In contract law, when one party refuses to comply, the contract is completely void. Although, this seems to bear problems for the legitimacy of Israel itself. It is further argued that since the Partition Plan failed, the British Mandate is still in effect. This either means that the land is completely up for grabs, or that it is slated for Israel. This reasoning sounds a bit dubious- Even Israel agreed to U.N. Resolution 242, (land for peace) and as such, it comes with the implication that Israel will have to give some, even if not all, land towards the Palestinians. (whether as a new state, or as part of Jordan, et al.)

These last two arguments seem to provide legal justification for the settlements. But, even when something is legal, doesn't mean it is moral, or even tactically sound.

A further argument can be made that we ought to support the settlements because of their locations in the heartlands of the previous Jewish state. Hebron, for example, was the original capital of Judah, and the second Temple state was located primarily in Judea. It only later conquered the North, etc. The question here is simple: does the current state of Israel need to acquire contiguity to the previous states? I think this question also has significant bearing on the nature of public religion in the modern state.

I think, at the end of the day, there are certainly two good reasons for 'supporting' the settlers. I put the supporting in quotes because the point is quite vague, and the ways in which I will extend my support aren't really that.

The first is simply that to be against the settlements is to pander to racism. Imagine that a peace deal were struck right now, giving the Palestinians all of Judea and Samaria. Do the Palestinians demand that the setters be evacuated? If so, that's when the true apartheid kicks in. Such a scenario would be likely. So, by evacuating the settlements, Israel would be encouraging apartheid, instead of the opposite. As such, allowing settlements mandates that the future Palestinian state (is it still gonna happen?i dont know anymore) would be morally 'on the level.' It would send the wrong message to the Palestinians to evacuate, as it would legitimize their racism.

However, such a consideration only mandates some settlements. To 'get the point across' Israel would not have to build anymore settlements. And, this would actually be a good thing. Assuming you don't buy into the whole 'Greater Israel' stuff, which, as I mentioned earlier I don't.

The second consideration is perhaps more cynical. In the eyes of public opinion, and in the eyes of foreign leaders, there is a balance to be struck between the competing interests of each party. The less the Israelis 'demand' the closer the pendulum swings towards the Palestinians. But the more radical demands Israel presents, the more the pendulum swings back towards the middle. But, Israel has, as would I, a problem with that- the Jews in Israel have consistently gone out of their way to tell the truth to their detriment.

When confronted by the British to determine who should take control of the Wall, the Jews argued that it belongs to G-d. The Arabs, on the other hand, staked full claim on it. Guess who won?

So, by having a faction that demands all of Israel, that becomes the radical sentiment. As soon as that is disbanded, then Zionism itself becomes the most radical claim available, marginalizing it, and making a 'one state' solution the only one available.