The following is a text of the presentation I gave at the Center For Inquiry, Toronto, in the spring of 2008
On December 10 2007, 16 year-old Aqsa Parvez was found strangled, and succumbed to the assault within hours. Her father, Muhammad Parvez, has been charged with her murder. Initial speculation is that the murder was a result of her defiance of her father's request that she wear the traditional Muslim head covering called a hijab. Even if this was not the case, there have been similar incidents of violence directed toward women for perceived acts of disobedience toward traditions.
The resulting public reaction was generally predictable, and mostly consisted of expressions of outrage and disgust. Among the reactions however were some comments which show a lack of understanding of the situation, and which can cloud our judgement when it comes to discussing preventive measures. This I find disturbing, because it is my fervent hope that we can stop this particular brand of insanity, but in order to do so we must ensure that our efforts are properly directed. No energies should be wasted.
The comments we all heard in the aftermath of this tragedy came from all walks of life and from many philosophical positions, but I shall concern myself with what I think we as skeptics should express. As skeptics we should be able to present a rational and balanced view that considers it in terms other than the knee-jerk reaction that is all too common, a reaction which does not help us in any way other than relieving our immediate anger.
I should stress that I am not trying to reach any specific conclusions about the subject here, come to any consensus, or propose remedies and solutions, I simply wish to express my thoughts and try to figure out how we should approach these problems.
A few days after the event I heard a well-known radio commentator ask "Does this not invalidate Islam?" (I won't mention his name as it isn't really important, his job is to be controversial) He went on to state that there were many good and decent Muslims, but the implication was clear - he questioned whether the religion was valid. This was the one statement above all others which caused me to think about this subject.
In my opinion this act, horrific as it was, invalidates nothing. It does not invalidate a god concept, it does not invalidate religion in general or Islam in particular, and, as shocking as this may sound, it does not even invalidate the father's belief in the righteousness of his actions. For all we know maybe there is a god who wishes us to act this way. I don't believe that, and I feel certain that none of the readers will give the idea even a microsecond of consideration, but there is no invalidation of anything. This was the act of one man who did it for reasons of his own.
As an atheist I cannot blame a god which I don't believe in. The logical inconsistency in that is so glaringly obvious that no discussion is necessary. As a skeptic I cannot blame a religion which does not preach that women should be killed for such a thing. Intellectual honesty compels skeptics to learn the facts, and from all accounts the facts are clear. All the Koran says is that women should dress modestly - it does not say 'must', and prescribes no punishment for those who choose to dress as they wish.
As an evolutionist I am forced to not blame religion, but instead see this as an entirely naturalistic human failing. Here we have a man who should have possessed the paternal instincts, rooted in brain chemistry, which should cause him to protect, nurture, and love his daughter. Those instincts seem to have been so weak that they were overcome by his own personal interpretation of a vague religious edict. People who do this do not have parental instincts strong enough to prevent themselves from harming their own children or allowing them to be harmed, in a sense they are an evolutionary dead-end. There is no religious victory here, simply a human failing. If we blame religion we are shirking our responsibilities, as skeptics and as humans, to look for proper causes based on human emotions.
If we cavalierly dismiss this as an invalidation of something we are cheating ourselves as skeptics and rationalists by taking an easy way out, we are cheating society out of a chance to investigate and perhaps explain a very real problem that does need attention, and we are cheating Aqsa Parvez, a young woman who simply wanted to live her life as she saw fit. And we are not even certain about what religious convictions Aqsa herself may have had. For all we know she may have been conventionally religious, maybe even devout, but merely unwilling to go along with certain cultural strictures.
Where are these strictures found? Not in the Koran, but in the Hadith, a set of religious texts written by other Islamic scholars after Mohammed's death. Linguistically the word Hadith means: 'that which is new from amongst things' or 'a piece of information conveyed either in a small quantity or large'. Rather wishy-washy, as many religious texts are, you can invent meanings from statements, condense them or pick-and-choose, or expound on them voluminously to bamboozle the faithful. The implication is that if you wish to know what Mohammed said, read the Koran, but if you wish to know what he meant, read the Hadith. This is where the Koran's advice simply that women should 'dress modestly', with no description of how, and no punishment prescribed for those who choose not to do so, becomes the intolerant practise of telling women that they should be totally covered and subject to severe punishment for disobedience. Obviously the Hadith have as much credibility as an individual wishes to give them, they could be seen as gospels written by hands that were guided by a god, or they could be seen as a medieval version of a Jack Chick tract.
Many atheists will immediately see religion as a problem in all this, and they would be partially correct. But it is not religion per sè, rather it's in the way humans use, misuse, and abuse it, for atheists are not immune, as they can be as religious as anyone else. We bristle, and rightly so, when theists admonish us by saying that atheism is just another form of religion. It is not, but neither is theism, both are simply position statements, one believes that there is a god, the other doesn't. Another thing which infuriates many of us is the claim that the most barbarous and murderous states of recent times, and perhaps of all time, have been officially atheistic. Unfortunately they are probably correct. The caveat here for atheists is that if we are not careful to temper our philosophy with sound judgement and healthy skepticism we can become that which we claim to have shrugged off. Atheism is not a religion, although some can preach and practise it with a religious fervour, but atheists can still be religious. Some are, in my opinion, benign or even beneficial; I have often seen my naturalism as a form of religion and see no problem with it, although carrying it to the extremes that organisations like PETA present is, in my opinion, lunatic fundamentalism. Perhaps the most insidious form, at least in recent experience, is 'statism', the worship of the state and its ideals and progress. Leaders such as Josef Stalin, Mao Xe Dong, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Il have been almost deified, prophets at best and demi-gods at worst. Who of my generation can forget newsreel footage of thousands of uniformed Chinese waving their 'little red book' of quotations from Chairman Mao? There have even been incidents which imply a supernatural power; when Richard Nixon visited China in 1972 some of his entourage were taken to a hospital and witnessed an operation. The patient was awake and alert during the procedure (appendectomy I believe?), and was waving the 'little red book' while extolling the virtues of Mao. If that ain't religion I don't know what is. It turns out that the operation was rigged, it was a fervent volunteer who had been given massive doses of local anaesthesia. I would submit that China under Mao was just as theocratic as Afghanistan under the Taliban. In Russia the long lines waiting in Red Square to glimpse Lenin's body lying in state lasted for decades, continue in smaller form to the present day, therefore testifying to the enduring fervour attached to his name and legacy.
Religion is not entirely blameless, but it's an enabler at most. It's rather like the guy who drives the getaway car, but some drivers are dupes. It also doesn't care about who the passengers are; theists ride away claiming that their religion have never/would never do such a thing, and atheists hop on board and proclaim that their freedom from religion means that they could never do it. (At such times I have heard individuals from both groups invoke Anthony Flew's 'No true Scotsman' fallacy*) Those who are anti-religion or anti-Islam can just quickly dismiss it on that basis without any further thought. They are all wrong, as blood-soaked human history, both current and ancient, can all too easily illustrate.
If you wish to combat the excesses of religion go ahead, I believe it's a noble cause and I will stand beside you. If I can fit into my old uniform I might even lead a battalion. But I will only do so on two conditions: 1) That you realise that such excess is a strictly natural human failing which can exist independent of theism, and 2) We are therefore all susceptible.
* Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
-Anthony Flew, Thinking About Thinking - or do I sincerely want to be right? 1975
On December 10 2007, 16 year-old Aqsa Parvez was found strangled, and succumbed to the assault within hours. Her father, Muhammad Parvez, has been charged with her murder. Initial speculation is that the murder was a result of her defiance of her father's request that she wear the traditional Muslim head covering called a hijab. Even if this was not the case, there have been similar incidents of violence directed toward women for perceived acts of disobedience toward traditions.
The resulting public reaction was generally predictable, and mostly consisted of expressions of outrage and disgust. Among the reactions however were some comments which show a lack of understanding of the situation, and which can cloud our judgement when it comes to discussing preventive measures. This I find disturbing, because it is my fervent hope that we can stop this particular brand of insanity, but in order to do so we must ensure that our efforts are properly directed. No energies should be wasted.
The comments we all heard in the aftermath of this tragedy came from all walks of life and from many philosophical positions, but I shall concern myself with what I think we as skeptics should express. As skeptics we should be able to present a rational and balanced view that considers it in terms other than the knee-jerk reaction that is all too common, a reaction which does not help us in any way other than relieving our immediate anger.
I should stress that I am not trying to reach any specific conclusions about the subject here, come to any consensus, or propose remedies and solutions, I simply wish to express my thoughts and try to figure out how we should approach these problems.
A few days after the event I heard a well-known radio commentator ask "Does this not invalidate Islam?" (I won't mention his name as it isn't really important, his job is to be controversial) He went on to state that there were many good and decent Muslims, but the implication was clear - he questioned whether the religion was valid. This was the one statement above all others which caused me to think about this subject.
In my opinion this act, horrific as it was, invalidates nothing. It does not invalidate a god concept, it does not invalidate religion in general or Islam in particular, and, as shocking as this may sound, it does not even invalidate the father's belief in the righteousness of his actions. For all we know maybe there is a god who wishes us to act this way. I don't believe that, and I feel certain that none of the readers will give the idea even a microsecond of consideration, but there is no invalidation of anything. This was the act of one man who did it for reasons of his own.
As an atheist I cannot blame a god which I don't believe in. The logical inconsistency in that is so glaringly obvious that no discussion is necessary. As a skeptic I cannot blame a religion which does not preach that women should be killed for such a thing. Intellectual honesty compels skeptics to learn the facts, and from all accounts the facts are clear. All the Koran says is that women should dress modestly - it does not say 'must', and prescribes no punishment for those who choose to dress as they wish.
As an evolutionist I am forced to not blame religion, but instead see this as an entirely naturalistic human failing. Here we have a man who should have possessed the paternal instincts, rooted in brain chemistry, which should cause him to protect, nurture, and love his daughter. Those instincts seem to have been so weak that they were overcome by his own personal interpretation of a vague religious edict. People who do this do not have parental instincts strong enough to prevent themselves from harming their own children or allowing them to be harmed, in a sense they are an evolutionary dead-end. There is no religious victory here, simply a human failing. If we blame religion we are shirking our responsibilities, as skeptics and as humans, to look for proper causes based on human emotions.
If we cavalierly dismiss this as an invalidation of something we are cheating ourselves as skeptics and rationalists by taking an easy way out, we are cheating society out of a chance to investigate and perhaps explain a very real problem that does need attention, and we are cheating Aqsa Parvez, a young woman who simply wanted to live her life as she saw fit. And we are not even certain about what religious convictions Aqsa herself may have had. For all we know she may have been conventionally religious, maybe even devout, but merely unwilling to go along with certain cultural strictures.
Where are these strictures found? Not in the Koran, but in the Hadith, a set of religious texts written by other Islamic scholars after Mohammed's death. Linguistically the word Hadith means: 'that which is new from amongst things' or 'a piece of information conveyed either in a small quantity or large'. Rather wishy-washy, as many religious texts are, you can invent meanings from statements, condense them or pick-and-choose, or expound on them voluminously to bamboozle the faithful. The implication is that if you wish to know what Mohammed said, read the Koran, but if you wish to know what he meant, read the Hadith. This is where the Koran's advice simply that women should 'dress modestly', with no description of how, and no punishment prescribed for those who choose not to do so, becomes the intolerant practise of telling women that they should be totally covered and subject to severe punishment for disobedience. Obviously the Hadith have as much credibility as an individual wishes to give them, they could be seen as gospels written by hands that were guided by a god, or they could be seen as a medieval version of a Jack Chick tract.
Many atheists will immediately see religion as a problem in all this, and they would be partially correct. But it is not religion per sè, rather it's in the way humans use, misuse, and abuse it, for atheists are not immune, as they can be as religious as anyone else. We bristle, and rightly so, when theists admonish us by saying that atheism is just another form of religion. It is not, but neither is theism, both are simply position statements, one believes that there is a god, the other doesn't. Another thing which infuriates many of us is the claim that the most barbarous and murderous states of recent times, and perhaps of all time, have been officially atheistic. Unfortunately they are probably correct. The caveat here for atheists is that if we are not careful to temper our philosophy with sound judgement and healthy skepticism we can become that which we claim to have shrugged off. Atheism is not a religion, although some can preach and practise it with a religious fervour, but atheists can still be religious. Some are, in my opinion, benign or even beneficial; I have often seen my naturalism as a form of religion and see no problem with it, although carrying it to the extremes that organisations like PETA present is, in my opinion, lunatic fundamentalism. Perhaps the most insidious form, at least in recent experience, is 'statism', the worship of the state and its ideals and progress. Leaders such as Josef Stalin, Mao Xe Dong, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Il have been almost deified, prophets at best and demi-gods at worst. Who of my generation can forget newsreel footage of thousands of uniformed Chinese waving their 'little red book' of quotations from Chairman Mao? There have even been incidents which imply a supernatural power; when Richard Nixon visited China in 1972 some of his entourage were taken to a hospital and witnessed an operation. The patient was awake and alert during the procedure (appendectomy I believe?), and was waving the 'little red book' while extolling the virtues of Mao. If that ain't religion I don't know what is. It turns out that the operation was rigged, it was a fervent volunteer who had been given massive doses of local anaesthesia. I would submit that China under Mao was just as theocratic as Afghanistan under the Taliban. In Russia the long lines waiting in Red Square to glimpse Lenin's body lying in state lasted for decades, continue in smaller form to the present day, therefore testifying to the enduring fervour attached to his name and legacy.
Religion is not entirely blameless, but it's an enabler at most. It's rather like the guy who drives the getaway car, but some drivers are dupes. It also doesn't care about who the passengers are; theists ride away claiming that their religion have never/would never do such a thing, and atheists hop on board and proclaim that their freedom from religion means that they could never do it. (At such times I have heard individuals from both groups invoke Anthony Flew's 'No true Scotsman' fallacy*) Those who are anti-religion or anti-Islam can just quickly dismiss it on that basis without any further thought. They are all wrong, as blood-soaked human history, both current and ancient, can all too easily illustrate.
If you wish to combat the excesses of religion go ahead, I believe it's a noble cause and I will stand beside you. If I can fit into my old uniform I might even lead a battalion. But I will only do so on two conditions: 1) That you realise that such excess is a strictly natural human failing which can exist independent of theism, and 2) We are therefore all susceptible.
* Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
-Anthony Flew, Thinking About Thinking - or do I sincerely want to be right? 1975
