Category: Word Of The Week

word of the Week: 20/6/16 - Shabbat

19/6/2016

Jewish Day of Rest - Friday night until Saturday Night

The word ‘Shabbat’ comes from a word meaning to rest. It is one of the best known and least understood of all Jewish observances. It is a precious gift from G-d, a great joy eagerly awaited throughout the week, a time to set aside your weekday concerns and devote oneself to spiritual things.

It's origins lie in Genesis: When God creates the Earth in Genesis 1 he rests on the seventh day and so made the day Holy. Jews therefore echo what they regard to be a divine pattern of work. So by resting on the seventh day and making it special, Jews remember and acknowledge that G-d is the creator of heaven and earth and all living things.

The observance is also a Miztvot (a law) from the book of Exodus: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord you G-d; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it” (Exodus 20: 8-11).

Many people tend to think of Shabbat as day full of "don't do's" But far from simply being a day of restrictions, a Shabbat observed at home is a day immersed in an atmosphere of rest, relaxation, and rejoicing. At a time when most of humanity only ate two full meals a day, Jewish tradition called for a sumptuous three meals on Shabbat (between sundown on Friday and just after sundown on Saturday) to ensure that one could relax and celebrate with a full stomach. Shabbat is a day for which you purchase wine and food for a fitting set of meals.

In order to enjoy a Shabbat free of household chores, it is traditional to clean the house before Shabbat and prepare all meals in advance, so that the food only need be warmed up to enjoy it (rather than cooked, which would violate traditional Shabbat restrictions). Shabbat afternoon is a time reserved for reading, talking, or studying Jewish texts such as the Torah, all activities that people often claim that they never have enough time to do.

Having said all this there are lots of things one in not allowed to do as set out in the Torah and relates to many areas of life:

It relates to farming and includes: sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, shearing wool, trapping, slaughtering, curing hide.

It relates to cooking: grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, salting meat.

It relates to household chores: washing wool, beating wool, dyeing wool, spinning, weaving, making two loops, weaving two threads, separating two threads, tying, untying, sewing two stitches, tearing.

It relates to work: writing two letters, erasing two letters, building, tearing a building down, hitting with a hammer, taking an object from the private domain to the public, or transporting an object in public.

It also relates to light and heat: extinguishing a fire and kindling a fire are not allowed.So in the modern era Orthodox Jews do not permit the use of electricity because it serves the same function as fire – to light or heat.

word of the week: 13/06/16 - Ali

12/6/2016

Islamic name meaning "high" or "exaulted".

The death of Muhammad Ali on June 3rd has raised a number of key issues that are of interest to Religious Studies students: most obviously issues of pacifism, racism and conversion. Cassius Clay, as Ali was originally known, was born into a Christian Family and was subject to all the “normal” prejudices that Black men and women were subject to at that time in the USA. In 1961 Ali was introduced to Islam and converted by 1964. At this time changed his name from Cassius Clay to Muhammed Ali citing that Cassius Clay was his “slave name”. This encapsulates the reasons for Muhammed Ali’s conversion and the political and racial campaigning that was to follow. Ali famously refuse to fight in the Vietnam War stating that “my enemy is the white people, not the Vietcong”.

So why the names Muhammad and Ali? Most people would recognise that Muhammad is the prophet of Islam and the most revered man in Islamic tradition. Many Muslims give their children his name out of respect and a wish for them to emulate him. But why Ali?

Well, Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad. He was the son of Abu Talib, Muhammed's uncle, who protected and cared for Muhammad after the death of his parents. Ali is said to be the only person to have been born within the Kaba, the "Black box” at the centre of the Muslim world. Muhamed highly influenced and tradition has it that he became the first Muslim, migrating to Medina with Muhammad and being central to the developing religion. He fought alongside Muhammad against The Mecans, and was appointed as leader by Mohammed after his death.

He was arguably the first Caliph, the leader of Islam after the death of The Prophet. However this divides Islamic world; Sunni Muslims believe that the Caliph should be elected by other Muslims (and so Abu Bakr was the first Caliph) and Shia Muslims who believe that Caliph should be of the family of Muhammed and so it should be Ali. Ali lived during one of the most turbulent periods of Islamic history and died after an attack by other Muslims.

It would seem that Muhammed Ali had little to say as to why he so chose this name in particular but in 1964 when interviewed he said “Cassius Clay is a slave name. I didn't choose it and I don't want it. I am Muhammad Ali, a free name - it means beloved of God, and I insist people use it when people speak to me." (1) I like to think that, like him, Ali was a convert and fighter, and that parallel was what drew him to it.

Word of the Week: 6/6/16 - Materialism

3/6/2016

The theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements. There is therefore no soul.

The views of the Materialists such as Richard Dawkins leave no room for an immaterial, separate soul. His commitment to the empirical method is presumed to provide the only true source of knowledge. ‘Soul one’, the Cartesian ghost in the machine, is an impossibility. I shall set out how he justifies this below, but is this a coherent view? This post will argue not.

Firstly, materialism says that all that exists conforms to physical laws, including causation, and so, using those laws, we can predict the future in an increasingly determinist way as we understand better the science. Liberty in our thought-life, and even of a separate self, is an illusion because in reality thought, feelings, ambitions and desires are all electro-chemical phenomena, increasingly observable through neuro-imaging. Thought is a complex neuronal activity of stimulated synapses responding to sense-data. “I” am an abstraction from this process, as we shall see below.

Now, for Dawkins it must be said that this makes our sense of an independent self and our ‘qualia’ (properties and experiences experienced by a person) into materially explicable brain responses, and so they can be examined and ultimately predicted: our brain is simply a data-crunching machine and our freedom is a useful illusion. Ultimately all behaviours will be predictable because they are determined by our brains and hence by our genes (and memes – see below).

However, if this is true, my reason for believing Dawkins can only be that I am genetically programmed to do so, it is predictable, I obey causal laws. So I do not believe him because he is right and has persuaded me, but because it was always going to happen, granted my biochemistry. Some argue that this circular argument invalidates a fundamental assumption of Dawkins’ and shows it to be incoherent: it does not make sense to adopt this position.

Secondly, many look at the computer model of consciousness he embraces and argue that it is flawed in its own terms. His view is known as Functionalist, namely, he believes that mental life is a product of the physical life of the brain and has no meaningful separation. It is ‘uncannily computer-like’ (River Out of Eden) because bytes of programmed self-replicating data have evolved to co-operate for the ‘survival machines’ that we are, even to the extent of creating the mind mirage as a useful fiction for planning our own survival. Our brain is hardware, our mind is software, a product of programmes set deep in our genes and playing out a virtual life of their own. Our brain is data-crunching binary-coded neurons that have learnt to survive together and in doing so now project a mind in order to handle their own functioning better. The mind and its sense of self or “I” has no real existence and no real influence, no more than an image on a screen – neuro-science has long since shown that the effects of a putative soul can be replicated by electrical charges, drugs and other biochemical research.

Many argue that this view does not add up, not just because it is contradicted by other evidence, but in its own terms it is incoherent because it ignores the very content of those thoughts and mind: qualia, perceived experiences, the individual sense of developing personhood and the indeterminacy always of being able to ‘change one’s mind’. In other words, what it is like to be me. The genome cannot give the content of our memory. In ignoring this Dawkins has shown a prior commitment to his theory, often eloquently expressed and using Biblical imagery (e.g. he starts River out of Eden by referring to Abraham), and then he attempts to squeeze the evidence into it. This is the very opposite of the empiricism he claims to follow, and so this is an incoherence in his argument

Thirdly, Dawkins has borrowed the idea of a ‘meme’ and developed it in order to fill in gaps in his argument. The meme is virus-like transmitter of culturally accrued understandings, fashions, preferences and behaviours which have been found to have survival advantages and so have survived and reproduced. Memes are bytes of cultural data which have worked with the genes in our evolution to produce increasing consciousness and even a sense of a separate self that can aid our survival better. One meme-myth is religion, another the soul. The Cartesian soul no longer has any survival value for us, though, and so should be rejected: neuro-science is now explaining our identity and functioning and providing improvements for our inner life much more than a separate soul could ever do. Soul two is this modern Functional soul, sometime also understood in terms of Identity Theory.

The perceived incoherence here lies in the old rhetorical problem: it is one thing to state a view and make a claim, it is something else to provide proper explanation. Proper explanation is not a matter even of listing one’s reasons for holding a viewpoint, it is instead a matter of persuading by well interpreted evidence and successful refutation – not mere mockery – of other views. Scientifically a ‘meme’ cannot and does not exist, and so it contradicts an empirically-based argument for a ‘soul two’ i.e. consciousness explained by neural networks.

In stating Functionalism and Identity Theory so loud and clear Dawkins has brought out into the open much important debate and has challenged those who prefer property dualism (Greenfield) or substance dualism (Hick, Swinburne, Ward) to fashion better arguments. But despite this important function in continuing debate over Body and Soul, many suggest that Dawkins’ own theory cannot stand as it is incoherent.

Word of the Week 16/05/16 - Discipleship

17/5/2016

To follow the teachings and practices of another person; Specifically Jesus Christ in Christianity.

A disciple is literally one who “sits at the feet” of a teacher; he or she is a learner, follower and dedicated to a this leader. Whilst there are lots of examples of disciples throughout history the most famous group must be the disciples of Jesus. We often focus on “the twelve” - the closest of Jesus’ followers who tried to emulate his life and continued his message after his life - but there were of course many more disciples than that, including women such as Mary Magdalene and figures such as Joseph of Arimathea.

But of course Christians today also try to be Jesus’ disciples and try to enact the teachings and example of him in their lives. We can perhaps identify three features of Discipleship that are both in the Gospels and in the lives of Christians today:

Calling:

During his ministry Jesus called the disciples to follow him - he sought them out and called them by name. They just seem to drop everything (including family and livelihood) and follow! So it also for modern Christians than many claim they have been called by Jesus. They feel they have a vocation (a calling) to act out their own ministry. This does not necessarily mean to be priests, but it could be to play a certain kind of role in their community and act out the Christian message.

Follow:

The disciples literally went where Jesus went. Whilst modern Christians cannot follow in his footsteps (except perhaps on pilgrimage) they aim to act in the ways that Jesus taught. For example by following the guidance set out in the Sermon on the Mount, being Agapeic towards others and following the command to love God and Neighbour.

Evangelize:

Finally, Jesus commanded his disciples to go out and “make disciples of all the nations”. At this point the disciples became “Apostles” - one who is sent. So it is that Christians also feel they should be evangelists to the world and spread the word of God. This is why at the end of every communion service the congregation is commissioned and sent out into the world to spread the Gospel.

So it is that Discipleship is made up of three elements; the feeling of having been called by God, the desire to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and to be evangelists and spread the word of God.

Word of the Week 09/05/16 - Animal Rights

14/5/2016

the rights of animals to live with special consideration, For example being free from human exploitation and abuse

peta.org.uk

Those who argue for Animal rights such as the charity PETA, make the case that certain things are wrong as a matter of principle, that there are some things that it is morally wrong to do to animals. Human beings must not do those things, no matter what the cost to humanity of not doing them and human beings must not do those things, even if they do them in a humane way. Many people have no concern with granting such rights to humans, so what is the case for also granting them to animals and what are the counter-arguments?

The Argument For

The argument for animal right might look like this in a syllogism:

Human animals have rights
There is no morally relevant difference between human animals and adult mammals
Therefore adult mammals must have rights too

The weakest premise in this sequence is the second one but might be justified on these grounds:

They have similar levels of biological complexity
They are conscious and aware that they exist
They know what is happening to them
They prefer some things and dislike others
They make conscious choices
They live in such a way as to give themselves the best quality of life
They plan their lives to some extent
The quality and length of their life matters to them

Because of all these things animals are said to have 'inherent value'. Beings with inherent value are equally valuable and entitled to the same rights. Their inherent value doesn't depend on how useful they are to the world, and it doesn't diminish if they are a burden to others. Thus adult mammals have rights in just the same way, for the same reasons, and to the same extent that human beings have rights.

The Argument Against

A number of arguments are put forward against the idea that animals have rights.

Animals don't Reason
Animals were put on earth to serve human beings by the creator (see Genesis 1)
Animals don't have souls and so are metaphysically distinct from Humans
Animals don't behave morally and therefore do not merit moral treatment
Animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment - the do not have agency or autonomy in the samne way that humans do.
Animals are not members of the 'moral community' - this was put well by Mary Warnock: "May they [animals] be hunted? To this the answer is no, not by humans; but presumably their rights are not infringed if they are hunted by animals other than human beings. And here the real difficulties start. If all animals had a right to freedom to live their lives without molestation, then someone would have to protect them from one another. But this is absurd... (M Warnock, An Intelligent Person's Guide to Ethics, 1998)

All of these arguments make the case that Humans and Animals are fundamentally different to one another and therefore the same inherent value we give to human life cannot simply be transferred to animals.

Ultimately it comes down to whether, philosophically speaking, you can make a better case for commonality (humans and animals being on a continuum of development that means one is no "better" than another) or dominance (that humans are morally allowed to dominate animal species.

What do you think?

Word of the week: W/c 14/03/16 - Debate

12/3/2016

To argue about a subject - especially in a formal manner

By Ian Scott (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

This post is both a plug and discussion of principles - first the plug…

On the 21st March we will be welcoming to our school Professor AC grayling to give a talk entitled “Why study the humanities”. In an age where the focus of education is on grades and future employment, we can sometimes forget to stop and think what 'studying' really means. For many students, studying the Humanities comes with a question mark over future employability - 'what can I do with a Philosophy degree?'. In this talk, Professor AC Grayling will argue a case for studying the Humanities on the grounds of immersing oneself in the 'great conversation of life'. To study the Humanities is to take off one's spectacles and think about our values, our history and the best way to live our lives.

Professor Grayling is a world renowned philosopher who, in 2011, founded and became the first Master of the New College of the Humanities (http://www.acgrayling.com/). He is passionate about the importance of the Humanities and communicating how crucial the skills and learning developed in studying them is to employers, society and our economy. If you, your students or your son/daughter is in the process of selecting which university courses, A levels or GCSEs to take then this talk will help them weigh up the merits of different courses.

Local schools and Teachers are most welcome - In order to help us gauge numbers of people attending – please private message @berkophil I will then send you more details.

Now for the principled bit…

I have been disappointed that some of my colleagues in the Religious Studies community have been very negative about AC Grayling coming to speak - he is Patron and vice president of the Humanist society. AC Grayling’s opposition to Sharia law and faith schools has often been expressed (for example in this “Comment is Free” piece in The Guardian). But more often than not, he looks to make the positive case for Atheism as in this interview. These negative views about religion have led some to suggest that he should not be speaking at a school like Berkhamsted and we should offer him no platform. I think this is precisely the opposite of what one should do.

We need to encourage debate and discussion in society - not stifle it. If you disagree with what AC Grayling says come and ask him about it, try to convince him of the counter arguments, make a case.
I could turn to Voltaire for support here who reputedly said; "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. But instead I will turn to the leader of the free world - president Obama and a 2015 speech he gave to a group of college students. I think he says it rather well:

Word of the week - Dukkha

6/3/2016

The concept of Suffering within Buddhism

In the west today we live pretty comfortable lives. Many of us do not lack food, shelter, or suffer from illness or disease. Therefore it is perhaps difficult for us to contemplate a philosophical system that is centred around the removal of suffering. For this indeed is what Buddhism is.

SIddhartha Gautama, now known to his followers as the Buddha, live in North East India and from an early age was intrigued by the suffering of the world. He grew up in a Hindu household, Legend would have it that he was the son of a king and his father was determined that he should never see suffering and so was locked up inside the palace. However inevitably Siddhartha did see suffering: His mother died when he was young, and he was not satisfied remaining within the palace and wish to see outside of the walls. So he instructed his chariot driver Chana to take him outside and show him the world. Here he saw for sights that changed his philosophical outlook forever.

He saw an old man.
He saw a sick man.
He saw a dead man.
And he saw a holy man.

Siddhartha asked how he could avoid getting old, being sick and dying and recognise that one way might be to become like the holy man. So he stole away from the palace and tried to lead an ascetic life - the life of a monk. The legends have it that he managed to get down to eating one grain of rice everyday, and he stabbed himself. But he realise that this was not making him satisfied and he could not concentrate on achieving peace because he was so hungry. So in the end he decided to sit down Under the shade of a Bhodi tree until he achieved enlightenment. eventually after many struggles with his inner demons he managed to realise the truth of the world - he had become a Buddha.

Buddhism is the teaching of those truths - what is known to Buddhist as the Dharma. Buddhism is not in fact all that relaxed and liberal, as some people might have you believe. Rather, it is full of lists and traditions that the Buddha passed onto his followers and they try to remember and practice today. These include the learning of the four Noble Truths, the five moral precepts and the eightfold path. The aim of all these practices is detach oneself from the material things of this life, whilst not depriving oneself fully, to reach a state where at death one will pass into Nirvana.

The Buddha realised that suffering cannot be avoided completely but one can take steps to limit its influence upon oneself and so reach the ultimate goal.

Word of the Week: w/c 08/02/16 - Ash

7/2/2016

Powdery, nitrogen rich, residue left behind after burning a substance

Wednesday this week sees the start of the season of Lent as Christians celebrate Ash Wednesday. This is normally marked with a Eucharist including the imposition of ashes - the cross is drawn on the forehead of each person using ash. But why do Christians do this? Why ash?

First of all the ash is made from the burning of last year’s palm crosses given out on Palm Sunday when Christians remember Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. This is symbolic of where the season of Lent is heading to - Ash Wednesday is the start of this penitential season and Christians are look forward to Holy Week which begins with Palm Sunday.

Another major symbol of ash is that it reminds them of their mortality - as the ash is placed on their foreheads the priest says: “Remember you are dust and to dust you shall return. Turn away from sin and be faithful to Christ”. This is an echo of Genesis chapter 3:19 when Adam is cursed following his sin with the words “"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return”. This is also picked up the book of Ecclesiastes when the writer says “All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return“. “Dust to Dust, Ashes to Ashes” is also part of the funeral liturgy. So it is that Christians are focused on the shortness of their lives and the need to be faithful to God during such a short time during Lent.

Ashes also have a long history of being used to express grief and repentance in the BIble - for example Job repents when he doubts God in chapter 42 of the eponymous book of the bible and says: "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes”. And Jesus himself talks of this practice when criticising the scribes and pharisees: “If the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago (sitting) in sackcloth and ashes." (Matthew 11.21). Early Christians such as Tertullian suggested that Christians should confess their sins accompanied by lying in ashes.

Finally Christians might like to reflect on the power of ash - out of such an apparently dead thing comes new life. Ash is a fantastic fertilizer and this seems to be a perfect metaphor for the message of Easter when Christians believe that Jesus used his death to secure new life for the world in the resurrection. Christians remember how in a few short weeks they will celebrate that in Jesus’ death and suffering their future salvation has been bought.

Word of the Week: w/c 01/02/16 - Genocide

31/1/2016

The act of systematically trying to wipe out an entire race or people

The term Genocide was first used in in 1933 by the Lawyer Raphael Lemkin in a paper presented to the League of Nations (the body that later became the UN) to describe the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians between 1915 and 1918.

The act of systematically trying to wipe out an entire race or people was formally made illegal under international law in 1946. The UN defines the act as being “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. There of course have been many terrible historical examples of such acts ranging from The Holocaust (see last year’s WOTW; Shoah), the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the slaughtering of Muslims in the Bosnian War and the Civil War in Rwanda.

But how do such terrible events come about? They certainly don’t just occur overnight and indeed build up over years or decades. We would all like to believe that such an event could never happen in our own time and nation, but one can easily envision that this was also said by ordinary Germans in the 1930s or by Bosnians in the 90s. www.genocidewatch.org suggests that there is a process that tends to occur, based on the work of Gregory H Stanton:

One might argue that to ensure that we never reach stage 7, Extermination, it would be very sensible that we ensure we never even get to stage 1. But can you think of any groups in our society that may already be classified as different? Travellers (Gypsies) and significant populations of immigrants in the UK both strike me as groups that certainly run the risk of being classified as different - programmes such as “My big fat Gypsie Wedding” seem to fan the flames of such classifications. Whilst the actions of one particular landlord in Middlesbrough reported last week in The Times also serves as another example of behaviour that could contribute to the later stages of Stanton’s model.

This week our Year 11 IGCSE pupils will take part in a visit to Northwood Synagogue where they will hear directly from a survivor of the Holocaust. This is only one part of the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust to make young people more aware of the events of the past so they can ensure that it never happens again. To use the slogan of HMD 2016 #Dontstandby

Word of the Week: w/c 18/1/16 - Vision

17/1/2016

A vision is something seen in a dream, trance, or religious ecstasy, especially refering to a supernatural appearance that usually conveys a revelation from the divine.

A religious vision occurs when an individual believes that they have seen or heard something supernatural or a supernatural being. It is a form of religious experience that can be utterly convincing and life changing to those that experience them, but often fail to convince those that are sceptical. Often students I teach are rather obsessed by the question of whether visions of God, Jesus or the Virgin Mary prove the existence of God, however this question is in my opinion a rather fruitless one - it is much more interesting to think about what they tell us about religious belief and the insights they might give into human nature.

There are 3 broad ways in which the individual may experience a vision:

1. An intellectual vision brings knowledge and understanding such as a revelation from God. One such example is Julian of Norwich, the 14-15th century mystic. In The Revelations of Divine Love, she recounted one vivid experience: ‘And he showed me more, a little thing, the size of a hazelnut, on the palm of my hand, round like a ball. I looked at it thoughtfully and wondered, ‘What is this?’ And the answer came, ‘It is all that is made’. I marvelled that it continued to exist and did not suddenly disintegrate it was so small. And again my mind supplied the answer, ‘It exists, both now and forever, because God loves it. In short, everything owes its existence to the love of God.’

2. An imaginary vision where something that strengthens faith is seen with the mind’s eye such as Jacob’s vision of a ladder to heaven (Genesis 28: 10-22) or Joseph’s dream to protect Mary and Jesus and take them into Egypt.

3. A corporeal vision is where the figure is externally present such as St Bernadette’s visions of the Virgin Mary. St Bernadette was 14 years old when she had visions of the Virgin Mary over several months. At first the figure she saw did not even speak to her but later Bernadette was given instructions by ‘The Immaculate Conception’ (The Virgin Mary), that the spring water at Lourdes had healing powers and that a chapel was to be built on the site.

Bernadette's Vision - Source: Flickr.com

Julian of Norwich - Source: Wikipedia.com

What all these visions have in common is their sense of the Numinous - a term coined by Rudolf Otto in 1936 to describe the feeling of being in the presence of something greater than oneself. It is intriguing that this sense is reported by so many people over history and from a huge range of cultures - does this give it more credibility or is this simple evidence of a shared psychology brought about by a common Human nature? Either way the ramifications for our understanding of humanity are fascinating.

<<Previous