Blog Archives

w/c 28.7.14 - Genesis

30/7/2014

Genesis

The first book of the Old Testament recounting the events from the Creation of the world to the sojourning of the Israelites in Egypt
The coming into being of something; the origin.

Every week there will be a post going up here outlining the “word of the week” - at the same time that word should be on whiteboards around the Religion and Philosophy department at School.

As this is the first post it seemed appropriate to start at the beginning!

“Genesis” has a two derivations within Philosophy; the first is the first book of the Jewish and Christian bible. The book sets out a “history” of the earth and humanity from creation until Joseph settles in Egypt. It begins with the famous words; “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”, tells of Adam and Eve’s temptation and ejection from the Garden, Noah’s flood, the promises to Abraham to make his offspring a great people and eventually Joseph’s dreams and dream interpretation.

There has been a great deal of interest in recent decades on how Genesis should be interpreted made famous by scholars such as Richard Dawkins who have criticised those Christians with a literalist/fundamentalist view that all scripture should be interpreted literally. The reality is that most Christians do not see Genesis as a literal account of how the world began, rather it is better interpreted as allegory or aetiologically. This means that Adam and Eve’s sin is a story about human nature and everyone’s failed relationship with a loving God, Babel is an ancient story trying to explain the diversity of language and Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac is an examination of faith in extreme circumstances.

A very good documentary which examines this issue is “Did Darwin Kill God” presented by Conor Cunningham - you can watch it here: http://youtu.be/9x3JJILFmU4?list=PLvdMe5Deq6Zodtalew25fx6d_rq4qlStC

The second meaning of the word to philosophers is the generation of an idea or the creation of a concept. For example; “Hard Determinism had its genesis in the order and predictability of Newtonian physics”. Quite how philosophers are supposed to come up with new ideas… that is much more difficult to blog about!

Is Sport a Religion?

23/7/2014

The Commonwealth Games started today and this has already been a summer that seems to have been packed with sporting events; The Football World Cup, Wimbledon, The Open Golf and Test Matches to name but a few. When you see the fanaticism of fans, the dedication of supporters and the god-like status of the sport-stars it is easy to see why people sometimes equate sport with religion - indeed some argue that for many it has replaced religion altogether

In this post I want to examine what the similarities are, but also suggest that it is a false dichotomy to suggest you must have one or the other.

Messi the Messiah?

Arguably the most obvious way that sport seems to be like religion is in the way that sport-stars like Messi, Bolt and McCaw are worshipped and adored by their fans. Having their names screamed by thousands, their names on the back of replica shirts and their images all over the media. They surely are as close to super-human as we can get! Some scholars believe that fans are highly committed to their favoured stars and teams in a way that gives focus and meaning to their daily lives (Barber).

Stadia - Modern Cathedrals

Just as the Cathedrals and Abbeys were built in the Medieval era to demonstrate the prowess of a nation or ruler, the same could be said of modern stadia - "cathedrals [are] where followers gather to worship their heroes and pray for their successes."(Wann, et al., 2001, p. 200). You only need to think about the massive building projects that accompany modern Olympics or World Cups - Beijing 2008, London 2012 and Brazil 2014 have all seemingly tried to outdo each other. These building inspire awe and wonder in the modern era just as Cathedrals still have the power to do.

Rituals of Sport

Just as religious devotees do, so sport fans also wear ritualistic clothing, have special colours, wave flags, and sing anthems together. Individual sportsmen have odd customs too such as lucky socks, putting on their kit in a certain order and offering prayers before taking to the pitch.

The Experience of Sport

Another obvious comparison with religion and what modern sport offers people today is a wonderful experience - Rudolf Otto defined the term ”Numinous” - the realisation of the divine and the wholly other. Many would argue that participation in sport or watching sport is the closest thing to this that many experience. Being a spectator can provide moments of elation and transcend ones everyday existence. This can be seen in negative terms - Sam Harris has suggested that sport is the new “opiate of the people” after Karl Marx’s critique of organised religion. But is it fair to suggest that sport is just escapism for the humdrum of everyday life?

Sense of Community and shared values

Sport also provides people with an instant community - people who love the same thing as each other and buy into the same values. The Rugby Football Union calls itself "the community game" and emphasises the shared values of Rugby which include fair-play, discipline and tolerance. In modern Britain it could be argued that the church used to provide these values but for many sport now fulfils this role.

A False Dichotomy?

Having discussed how sport might be seen as the new religion - I still personally have my doubts. Whilst sport has many of the features of religious practice this does not mean that it has replaced faith. In Britain and Western Europe it is true that religion has declined massively in recent decades and at the same time the interest in sport has hugely increased. This is however a western phenomenon and in many other parts of the world such as Eastern Europe, Russia and the Americas participation in religion has been massively increasing (Davie).

It is therefore not surprising that many sportsmen credit their successes to the divine and see their faith as integral to their sport - the Brazil football team prayed together throughout the World Cup (although it did not seem to help them against Germany! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28202816). Some psychologists even argue that it could be advantageous to be religious and help improve the performance of athletes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18893284).

It is not only the competitors who are religious; “Sports fans are fairly religious” (Barber) and in research before the last Super-Bowl half of the fans believed that the supernatural has a role to play in the success of their team (http://publicreligion.org/research/2014/01/jan-2014-sports-poll/)

I am sure that over the next weeks as the Commonwealth games plays out you will see a number of religious acts; Athletes crossing themselves, offering a quiet prayer after success (e.g. Mo Farah) or thanking God publicly for their achievements. In my mind it does not need to be one or the other, this is a false dichotomy.

References

Is Sport a Religion? | Psychology Today, Nigel Barber, 2009 http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200911/is-sport-religion

Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators, Wann, D. L., Melznick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Pease, D. G. New York: Routledge. 2001.

Sport is new opium of the people, Harris, S. J. (1981, November 3). Democrat and Chronicle, p. 3B.

Religion in Modern Europe, Grace Davie, OUP, 2000

Assisted dying - lessons from the past?

18/7/2014

A debate on assisted dying went on in the House of Lords today and passed it’s second reading - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28352680 (follow it’s progress here: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/assisteddying.html) however it is unlikely that the bill will pass regardless of the vote today due to the lack of time left in this parliament and a lack of willing by David Cameron. Never-the-less the debate has sparked a huge amount of public interest and 130 lords have requested to speak in the debate - a record number.

Scholars should always be looking backwards to events of the past to help answer the questions of the present; with this in mind I have decided to compare it to the change in the law in 1967 which legalised Abortion. Although these are not perfect comparisons, I believe there are some illuminating things to think about.

Letting the Genie out of the bottle?

One lesson that should be remembered is that once any such law is past there is almost no way to go back. The Abortion Act, passed 47 years ago, has totally changed british attitudes towards abortion. It has normalised it and made it far less taboo option for women who find themselves pregnant. I am not saying this is a bad thing - arguably thousands of women have been liberated by not having to have an unwanted child.

It could well be the case that a law enabling assisted dying would have the same impact - could dying early become normalised or even expected? This might put extreme pressure on the old and vulnerable. Equally, it might liberate people who feel like a burden and free families from looking after an ill relative for years or decades. Whatever the outcome, just as one could not imagine modern Britain without abortion, so the country would be changed forever, for better or worse, by such a law.

A “Slippery Slope”?

When the Abortion Act was debated in the 1960’s there was little expectation that so many abortions would be performed and yet a huge number has been the reality - 189,931 in 2013. In a debate on the issue on the Today Programme this morning (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0499n5z - 1hr 56 mins) Lord Falconer tentatively predicted that the figure in the UK, if it matched the statistics from the State of Oregon, would be about 1,600 people every year. Indeed he said “there would be no slippery slope”. Does the Abortion comparison show us that such a prediction is rather dangerous? Or are the two not comparable?

Two doctors providing a safeguard?

Another striking similarity between the two cases is that two doctors are required by law to authorise an abortion and the Assisted Dying Bill would demand the same safeguard. The intention of the “two doctor rule” was a good one, to protect doctors from prosecution and ensure that the process would only go on legitimately.

However, the reality 47 years on is that in many cases the doctors work for the same clinic whose sole income and raison d'etre is to perform abortions. There is no way in reality that one is going to prevent the other from going ahead. Indeed, some are now calling for the removal of this provision (Hall, p6). Would we see the same eventually in assisted dying? Would this safeguard become defunct?

Preserve of the rich?

A final comparison is the similarity in availability of assisted dying today in Britain and Abortion pre-1967. Before the abortion act it was the preserve of wealthy to hire private doctors (Hall, p4) whilst the poor had to resort to risky “backstreet” abortions. The act made this much more egalitarian and gave access to many more people - this resulted in fewer unnecessary deaths.

Similarly, the wealthy can still travel to countries such as Switzerland if they wish to die; Dignitas alone claim that 694 people traveled from the UK in 2009 (The Guardian). Those not wealthy enough to enlist the help of such organisations have to risk prosecution here at home and only have amatuer skills to perform the act. Legalising it might have the same egalitarian effect and arguably be more compassionate?

The Weakness of any analogy

As I said at the start of this post - this analogy may not be a good one, but I hope it has highlighted some interesting debates.

References:

Memorandum submitted to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry: Scientific developments relating to the Abortion Act 1967 September 2007, Lesley A. Hall http://www.historyandpolicy.org/docs/abortion_act_1967.pdf

Assisted suicide statistics: the numbers Dignitas helps to die, by country, Simon Rodgers, 2010 http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/25/assisted-suicide-dignitas-statistics

Can war ever be limited?

17/7/2014

The news today of Air Malaysia Flight MH17 which was shot down over The Ukraine (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28354856) has highlighted, yet again, how warfare and conflict is not nicely contained to a war-zone, but spills out to affect people with no connection or influence upon the war. This has also been seen this week in Gaza where innocent bystanders have been killed in Israel's attempt to kill Hamas leaders (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/innocent-gone-israeli-strike-gaza-kills-four-children-n157301). These kinds of incidents lead us to consider carefully what the limits of modern warfare are and how politicians, strategists and ethicists should respond.

There is a long history of thinkers suggesting that there should be a distinction made between combatants and non-combatants. This goes back as far as the Middle Ages when in the 10th century leaders of the "Peace for God" movement “forbade all acts of warfare or vengeance against clerics, pilgrims, merchants, Jews, women, and peasants” (Bellamy, 31) and was most clearly articulated by St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century when he wrote that there should be “complete prohibition on killing the innocent” (Bellamy, 40). This was and is held in high regard by followers of Thomas and remains part of Modern Just War Theory. This is categorised as part of Aquinas’ Jus in Bello - conditions to be regarded during warfare. Modern Scholars such as Brian Orend state that terrorist attacks aimed at non-combatants are “always an impermissible tactic, since it involves the killing of innocent civilians” (Orend, 70)

The principle is clearly very hard to argue against - as a principle. Those who are not killing others, regardless of their political views, nationality or location should be left alone. I have always regarded this as a “quid-pro-quo” sort of argument. You would not want members of your own society to be killed or injured in such a way and so you should not kill others. Kant would thoroughly approve.

But does this principle work in reality? Can a nation or group start a conflict and really hope to keep innocents out of it?

Well before you say no - and start to slag off St Thomas Aquinas - it might be worth remembering that warfare was very different in Thomas’ day. There was, quite literally, a field of battle; rulers agreed through negotiation where and when the battle was fought and codes were followed as a matter of chivalric honour. This was wonderfully satirised in Asterix in Britain (click on the image to enlarge)

With this in mind it is not surprising that Aquinas views the killing of innocent with moral horror. You would have had to go out of your way as a Knight of foot soldier to kill bystanders. You could be in the next village, out of ear-shot, and not even know a war was going on! However in the modern era, with weaponry that would have been unimaginably powerful to Thomas and totally indiscriminate when fired or detonated, the death of innocents has seemingly become an inevitability. Added to this war is not fought under the same strict conditions and, as can be seen in Israel/Palestine and The Ukraine at the moment, war is not necessarily even “declared” as such.

Has warfare changed so much that the JWT is now redundant?

On the one hand you could say; it is a principle, and the principle is a good one even if it is not often maintained in the modern world.

Or you might say; warfare is so powerful and indiscriminate that you cannot go to war “morally” in the modern world and so one should not go to war (the thinking of Contingent Pacifism)

References:

Bellamy, Alex. Just Wars. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006.
Orend, Brian. The Morality of War. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2006.
https://blogs.montclair.edu/tae/files/2010/11/TAE-Vol.-1-Issue-1_Just-War.pdf

w/c 28.7.14 - Genesis

Is Sport a Religion?

Assisted dying - lessons from the past?

Can war ever be limited?

Archives

Categories