How could Dawkins suggest such a thing?! Some people really annoy me.

So here we are again. Another day, another Richard Dawkins Twitter outrage. This time it's about the morality involved in knowingly choosing to have a child with Down syndrome. Dawkins had the audacity to state his view in reply to a question that the moral thing to do would be to abort and try again. Naturally this being Twitter, one does not have the luxury of expounding on philosophical points of view; however, even before Dawkins' apology and explanation (you can read it here), it ought to have been a matter of a two second consideration to be able to imagine the line of thinking. I’ll put forward mine quickly before moving on to the main point of this post.

                                                                             

At the point at which a mother would discover through testing that her offspring has Down syndrome, the offspring would not be remotely close to the blurry lines of personhood. Even if it was one's determination to attribute personhood at this stage, it's hardly important beyond the realm of religiously conjured ethics anyway, and if that’s your case then your problems go deeper than what’s addressed here. What matters in the real world is suffering. At the time of an abortion, a foetus would not have the capacity to suffer. It would not have a conception of suffering even if it could. It would have no historicity to protect. And it would have no capacity for any preference on the matter whatsoever. For that reason, when a mother learns that her offspring has the incorrect number of chromosomes (in this case, 21), from that point in time she has a choice. Assuming she wants a baby, should she bring a new life into the world with severe disabilities, or should she bring a new life into the world without disabilities? Remember, the starting point of the dilemma is at the point of knowing the diagnosis, assuming the matter of concern is the welfare of the potential child. The investment made either physically or emotionally before that point is irrelevant to that concern and only has a part to play in the case of total selfishness in the agenda of the mother, e.g. “I want a child now”. Again, the choice is simple, should she choose to have disabled baby, or choose to have a fully able baby? If one accept that the more moral action is to give her offspring the best possible chance at a long and healthy life to the fullest of human potential, then one also would have to accept that the more moral choice would be to abort. The extent of the likely scale of disability that comes with Down syndrome is not the determining factor; it merely amplifies the extent of the moral case. For the same reason, the fact that some people with Down syndrome lead relatively able lives (Hu Yizhou from the China Disabled Peoples Performing Art Troupe, being one example) ought not to be a factor in the decision. This is not about accepting or valuing disabled people, this is about not actively choosing to create disability in the first place.

With that two second thought process out of the way, it is clear that if one’s morality is based on causing the least amount of suffering, then the tweet from Richard Dawkins would indeed qualify as true (in fact, I don't believe there is such a thing as a true moral statement, but that’s a discussion for another time). Thankfully, for those of us who would rather less suffering, it would appear that most women in that situation would make a similar judgement because they do indeed tend to abort and try again, thus causing less suffering than they would be likely to otherwise. 

Now on to the irritating point of all this.

What then proceeded to occur on Twitter and, of course, on Facebook, was the customary hysteria. In Dawkins' apology, he categorised the main types of responses and their motivations (I advise you to double check what they were so I don't have to repeat them) but there is one group that he appeared to leave out - explicitly at least - and it is the one group that I seem to notice crawling out from their intellectually dingy holes every time something of this nature happens. First we get the statement of fact or reasonable judgement from Dawkins (this includes the cause of the last outrage when the swine had the raw nerve to suggest that saying one thing is worse than another thing within a category does not mean that one condones either), then we get the outrage from those who suddenly find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to deal with reality, and then, as certain as day-break, we get the enemies of reason, in their vast hordes, leaping up excitedly, ready to re-grind their axes, exclaiming, "See! I told you Dawkins is a bastard (therefore everything he says is void, evidence or not)!" These people don't care whether or not the statement is true, whether it's supported by reason, whether there's an array of evidence behind it, all they care about is scoring a propaganda point for their cause. Their cause is nearly always irrational, frequently religious, and very often sinister. 

Those people, together with the groups identified by Dawkins, make up the vast majority of the internet outrage. They are all expected. They are an irritation, but even they are not what concerns me most. I am concerned more by those who claim to happen to agree with Dawkins, but then align against him and even the point at hand, because they believe they will score some brownie points by criticising the directness of his method. If you agree with the statement but then join in with the ad hominem against it, then you are an intellectual coward. By saying that you're an atheist, for example, but that you don't support the behaviour of atheists who don't capitulate to religious censorship, then you're an intellectual coward. You do not get any points for trying to present an image of yourself to others as someone special because you have the decency to keep your thoughts to yourself, truth be damned. You certainly do not get any points for desiring to be so liberal that you will avoid facts and reason, and even seek to socially censor both, just in case it steps on the toes of one group or another that doesn't happen to react kindly to facts and reason. That makes you... no, not a nicer person... an intellectual coward. Furthermore, that is also precisely what you become when you claim that someone ought to keep their mouth shut on an issue with which you assume they have no personal experience. It is censorship, it’s fallacious, and it's the product of a weak and feeble mind.  

Freemasonry's Prohibition On Atheism Still Ridiculous

Last night I read an article in which it was argued that Freemasons should continue their practice of unjustly refusing to admit atheists into their fraternity. In 'For No Atheist May Be Made a Freemason', by Bro. Joshua L. Rubin, the case is made for maintaining the ban. The author tries to update the case to give a more reasonable basis than is more often put forward.

You can read his argument here: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/atheism-freemasonry.html

And here is why he's wrong:

I think this paper certainly had some positive points and the intention of updating the position is to be commended. The recognition of the flaws in the main arguments against atheism in Freemasonry was a positive step forward for example. However, the author ultimately failed to make a good case for his final position. His argument was circular. I suggest that there is still no clear argument that stands up to scrutiny for maintaining the discrimination against atheists who would otherwise give every bit as much of themselves for the Freemasonry.

Briefly adding to his critique of the standard discriminatory and prejudicial arguments put forward in the Masons regarding atheism, I feel that it should also be pointed out that not only are those who apply reason capable of high morals, it has very frequently been the case that those with faith, motivated by faith, or acting in the name of faith, have shown themselves to behave appallingly towards their fellow man. Let us not sweep under the rug the violence and oppression perpetrated by religious groups of all sizes throughout history. Faith in a supreme being of any kind does not make you more likely to be more moral. The argument fails logically and empirically and should be dismissed by all. The argument gets worse when you consider the nature of a divine moral code. Whose code? Where does it come from? If it comes from scripture, which parts do you use? If it comes from past Masons, how did they derive it? No matter which way you slice it, you are left with the reality that morals are cherry picked. If that is the case, and it is by necessity, then there must be an independent source of morality external of that code in order to achieve said code. That means all theists have done is add a middleman, which is perfectly fine, but it doesn't improve their moral status.

It should also be noted that the question of moral soundness opens up Freemasonry to a charge of hypocrisy. If someone is motivated by the prospect of reward or punishment in the afterlife, they are not acting from a particularly virtuous position when they help their fellow man. By contrast, someone who does the same action but motivated by the conviction that it is right or just, without the coercion inherent in a belief a Deity, can reasonably be seen as more moral. Masonry, which is supposed to be about the relationship of man to man, and is supposed to promote brotherhood, instead casts out the man who is naturally good or has reasoned to virtue, in favour of the man who acts because he believes he has been told to or through divine fear. These virtuous men if given the chance could prove themselves to be every bit the Brother a theist might be. Why so cruelly abandon potential Brethren? It seems the policy in these terms is to the detriment of those good men and to Freemasonry.

I suspect part of the problem is the precarious nature of faith in the supernatural in the face of reason. Not one known human has to this date managed to present a sound argument for the existence of God, and there is no evidence that has ever been presented to support the hypothesis. These facts cause difficulty to those who decide to make faith the foundation of their conceived world. It means that when their faith is challenged, their world is challenged. This is probably why religious people tend to become violent more readily when their views are questioned. Someone who bases his views in science will not face those problems because it is a self-correcting mechanism. The base can be replaced without a house of cards collapsing. This typically means that theists will go to great lengths to minimise their contact with anything they may perceive as a threat. Hence the tendency to claim to be offended and shut down debate as soon as someone says something difficult. I fear that the Masons have done just this. To be clear, I am not suggesting that Freemasonry is inherently irrational, but because only theists are permitted, there is unlikely to be a body of thought within the fraternity that favours reason over belief. In other words, members, with their theist hats on, are engaging in self-preservation as theists, not preservation of the Craft as Masons. This is clearly a betrayal of their moral cause.

So far this has nothing at all to do with the interests of Freemasonry. What it boils down to is that theists don’t want atheists threatening their sense of certainty and so atheists are excluded because currently only theists have a say in the matter. Perhaps theists believe that if atheists engage in the same rituals it will undermine what they have come to believe is uniquely for them. This brings us to the history and ceremony side of the argument. In my Great Grandfather’s Masonic Bible – printed in 1947 - there is a section before the Old Testament which explains the history of the Masons and explains how it relates to religion and the Holy Bible. In that section it emphasises that freemasonry is not a religious practice. It says that theology is not to be included. It says that Masonic ideology was based on a collection of ideas in many different forms. Some of these were poems, some were parts of the Bible, some were other religious texts, and there were still further sources. The inclusion of Biblical materials was not to base Freemasonry in religion, but to use it as data as part of an argument that shows freemasonry as having a tradition that stretches back through Biblical times. Maintaining the use of religious forms is symbolic but latching on to them for their theological value is missing the point. From a historical perspective, the inclusion of religious elements in ritual is neither here nor there in terms of what freemasonry claims to be about. It is ritual, and ritual binds people together whether they take the symbols literally or symbolically. Also from a historical perspective, an increasing use of religious rhetoric and language could very easily be a product of the times. There was no choice but to be religious. If freemasonry wanted to exist in an environment that was essentially a theocracy then it would have to present itself as not being in competition with that norm. The author of the paper to which I am responding points out that the argument from history points to a fallacy of relevance, because it is clear that the world in the 21^st century is very different than it was in the 18^th century. What was appropriate and perhaps necessary then, is not appropriate and necessary now. In terms of history, there is no case for excluding atheists now that there is sufficient doubt over the relevance of past norms, especially when you add to that the destruction of the arguments about morality.

It looks far more likely than not, that religion, both in the context of protecting moral codes and in historical perspective, was secondary to the main purpose of freemasonry. The religious elements served to protect freemasonry in a time when the arguments presented were useful. However, it is fair to acknowledge that for much of its history those conditions did exist and have thus gone some way to influencing the nature of the language used in the Craft, not least in ritual. The author was fair to point that out and it is worth looking at. Unfortunately, here he seems to really fall down however. Several times he says that because of the nature of the ceremonies, atheists would probably feel uncomfortable taking part (why atheists shouldn’t be capable of deciding that for themselves I cannot tell), and that the language is not geared towards atheist thinking. The argument becomes Freemasonry shouldn’t admit atheists because freemasonry doesn’t admit atheists. That’s not a very strong argument. The justification would be broken simply by changing the norm. It’s circular. He does make a fair point when he essentially asks, “These are our rituals, why should we change them?” I agree that the rituals should be left largely as they are. Only minor changes would be needed, to the extent the prohibition on atheism is removed. Atheists could easily engage in the same rituals and use the same language. Even those who believe in some creator have no idea what it is. It could be anything. It thus might as well be nature. Perhaps the higher power is entropy. Since the religious elements are symbolic, it really doesn’t matter. The theists can import their theological ideas into it to suit their sensibilities, and the atheists can take it as allegorical or simply poetic. The meaning behind the lines is the important thing, and that is about the Brotherhood, not theology. The language is not prohibitive to atheists. The only thing in the way is the theist desire to maintain a theist monopoly.

A far better way would be to accept atheists and realise that they are not a threat to Freemasonry. One’s own personal relationship with their God or their lack of one should be kept out of meetings, just like politics should. Theists can borrow the ceremonial language to give extra meaning to their own theological ideas if they wish, but the meaning behind in terms of Freemasonry is applicable to all men. There is absolutely no need to exclude atheists in the 21^st century. Within the Craft, theists and atheists can all muck in together. Furthermore, as humans gain more knowledge, the space left for the supernatural decreases substantially. If freemasonry hopes to continue with its primary mission, while the numbers of self-identifying atheists, secularists and humanists increase, and not just be an organisation representing a minority in the future, then it will have to change. It might as well get a head start. I move that the United Grand Lodge of England re-examine this outdated philosophical mode, and put Freemasonry ahead of theism.

For the sake of openness, I should declare (if you hadn’t guessed) that I am not a Mason. My great grandfather was W.Bro. Chas Dobson, a Worshipful Master of the Coronation Lodge No. 2922. He was also a Knight Templar. I also know several other accomplished Masons. If the rules were changed to permit those like me, I would probably like to contribute to Masonry as I believe it is fundamentally a force for good in the world. 

Christopher Hitchens - A Call to Arms

I did not know Christopher Hitchens personally, much to my eternal disappointment, but he shall always remain a personal hero. He was one of our species' greatest friends. Inspiring millions, he was one of the big guns in the fight for rationality and intellectual honesty. By now there will be hundreds of websites online telling you all about the specific great work he did, so I won't drift too far down that road; just do a Google search. What I will say is how important his place in the world was and what we should do next.

Hitchens, along with people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and James Randi (there are of course others – I personally like Tim Minchin!) represent the line in the sand in the battle for reason. For the majority of human history, we have been slaves to the superstitions of others (even of our own) and this has caused suffering on an unbelievable scale. Not only has it led to countless wars and persecutions, the slaughter of innocents, the murder and abuse of women and children, and the theft of property, it has dramatically held back the advancement of knowledge and learning. You don’t even have to look to history for the evidence; the modern day Middle East will serve just as well. Whilst we in the UK have come a long way in comparison to the intellectual, cultural, and technological stagnation of faith based societies, they are not alone in their ambition to drag the rest of the world back to their level.  The United States of America, the most powerful nation in the world, is dominated by superstition and its politicians (like Rick Perry) compete to out-God each other, in an attempt to win over the dangerously irrational majority of voters. Given half a chance, these increasingly fundamentalist characters would waste no time in embarking on an agenda of intellectual regression, much like that of the Middle East. Americans are lucky though, because they have been given protection from their beliefs, by the foresight of the secularist Founding Fathers. The United States, whilst dangerously faith dominated in many ways, is actually not faith based, but derives from the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment was one of humanity’s finer moments in history. It marks the fight back of reason over superstition. This was when the species finally began to wake up. Hard fought intellectual battles took place against religion, but it is still ongoing even today. The simple fact of the matter is that it has taken a high degree of effort on the part of individuals to stand up for the truth and rationality, and every time there is a relaxing of that effort, the enemies of reason take ground (Hitchens was one of these people, and I aspire to eventually be one too). There are more people than ever before, now willing to stand up and admit they do not believe in God and/or do not follow any religion, but far too many of them also say that it is not for us to tell other people what they should or should not think. This is a view that is fundamentally flawed, because by not doing so, they contribute to the potential loss of the freedom to hold and express that view. It is those who do fight faith that have won the degree of freedom we currently have. Those who claim to be an atheist because they have arrived at that conclusion through reason, but who then say those like Hitchens or Dawkins are wrong to push it so forcefully, are like the conscientious objectors to a war who are more than happy to languish in the freedoms and protections that others have worked for, fought for and died for. But make no mistake, without that effort, we would face persecution for free thought, science would halt, women would be enslaved, and children would be abused physically and mentally on a far larger scale.

Christopher Hitchens’ passing then should not result in a day of tweets and then business as usual. A huge gap has been left in rational society, and our task now is to fill it. It is our duty to plug and reinforce humanity’s defences. Rather than simply say how sad it is that we have lost a great man, we need to collectively pick up the flag of reason and charge en masse. What could be a more fitting tribute than to collectively continue his work? We now need a mass movement, to step out from the virtual world and with one voice, ‘Hitch Slap’ every irrational, superstitious, faith-monger in a position of responsibility, be they priests, imams, politicians, or popular personalities. It is up to us to instigate the next Enlightenment, and Christopher Hitchens has showed us the way. This is a call to arms.