"All right action flows from the breath"
- Hajakujo

Recent comments

Friday, September 07, 2007

A Reason for Atheism



I had never pursued a biography of Alan Turing, someone I admire greatly for his contributions to computing and the dedication and brilliance that allowed him to achieve so much so young (something I cannot hope to emulate anymore - he was 24 when he solved the Entscheidungsproblem).
But I have just read of how he died, and the gross injustice and humiliating details of the case sparked a sense of outrage I rarely feel about this jaded world. In short, having been forced by circumstance to admit to a homosexual affair in 1952, he underwent a bizarre hormonal treatment to avoid jailtime and had his security clearance revoked so that he could not continue his current work. Two years later, he was found dead, apparent suicide by eating a poisoned apple.

The whole thing, though it was long ago, disgusts me in a way I can't really express. The fact that it is close to home (geographically, not personally) is important, I think. With all the religiously apologised (if not motivated) pain and suffering caused around the world, it strikes me that perhaps it is time for a third way. Liberalism has been neutered. Conservatism has been overtaken by fundamentalism. Can there be a role for our creaky old continent to show a way to live by application of reason, following of common sense and respect for others? Not just on the level of the individual, but on that of nationstates as well.

I can't claim to be politically well-informed, but if there is a power other than China that is at least partly aetheist, and thus neutral in the religion wars, it must be Europe. If we could have risen above such dogma-driven intolerance as the Turing denouement within 50 years, perhaps a more proactive role in world affairs would allow us to show that the means by which we rose did not produce the end of apathy and impotence, but nor did it take us full circle back to technologised barbarism, as in the U.S. How far they have fallen from their Enlightenment founders! As for a new European Enlightenment - could we define it as a counting problem: how many places in the world today would it be safe to be Alan Turing? As to that, two things are needed: the generation of ideas, ideas powerful and universal enough to be worth following even in competition (though preferably not) with religion; and the organ of transmission that will allow people to hear. And I have no idea where to find either (mayhap it'll come in time). I imagine Turing would have had one or two.

[A nice article on Turing in the New Yorker]

18 comments:

Patrick said...

Well, now that homosexuality isn't illegal in most 1st world countries, I think he'd do ok.

Unknown said...

You see, it really isn't the ins and outs of particular legal frameworks that I'm interested in, but the overall trend of secular nationhood and the bizarre and inhumane trickledown effects on society and law that come from negative dips in that trend.

Homosexuality wasn't illegal in Britain for very much longer after Turing's death, and after millenia of religious strife, most European countries seem to have finally achieved true seperation of church and state. Not least thankfully my country, where the church run schooling and child 'welfare' systems are notorious worldwide (Christian brothers, there's a misnomer!).

And yet, while our backs were turned, the original secular democracy, the good ole U.S. of A., has gone and 'got religion', all the way through its political system. The fundamentalists are on the march, and those of a moderate, rational bent must do more than say "Ah, let them at it, it'll all blow over soon enough"...

Chris said...

A few thoughts... China may be an atheist state, but many of the older religions ("Chinese folk religion" i.e. Taoism, Confucianism et al) are still practised there by vast numbers of people. Atheism is not a synonym for "nonreligious" or "irreligious".

And I don't believe Europe is really "neutral in the religion wars", although it is "partly atheist".

In fact, I question that atheism implies neutrality in "the religion wars". Many atheists are extremely partisan, after all.

If Europe can act as a neutral party in this regard, it is because of the widespread popularity of agnosticism, not atheism (at least in my opinion).

Well, just idle thoughts tumbling from my addled mind... ;)

Best wishes!

nomad said...

Good to see you are still alive and kicking. ;)

I saw this little piece that brought a smile - think it might give you a giggle in all its morbidity.

Hope you doing well.
-n.

Anonymous said...

How do the jews fit into all of this?

nomad said...

Of course the link got lost in transit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6976167.stm

Unknown said...

"In fact, I question that atheism implies neutrality in "the religion wars". Many atheists are extremely partisan, after all."

Yes, but a nation that maintains the seperation of church and state cannot help but be neutral in conflicts of nations that dress their true reasons for aggression in religious dogma (not to say that the true reasons can't be religious discord).

European countries that are involved in imperialism, are involved because of economic concerns. Britain's role in Iraq, far from being a just war for democracy, or the actions of a lapdog to the Americans, are simply a continuation of an unwavering 90+ year old foreign policy with regard to controlling the oil. The government has been allowed to do that because its what its always done, and British people are used to it.

That's not pleasant, but to my mind at least it's better than Bush, who gets the mandate of the people to go bombing and invading because he says "God speaks to me".

As for China being far from an atheist state, because most of its population practice Taoism or Confucianism, this is just plain nitpickery. You said yourself these are atheist religions. They also focus on social mores, are extremely forbearing of other belief systems, and would be highly unlikely to incite anyone to fundamentalism. Just look at how well they've integrated in Japan, even mixing with Japanese Christianity to a degree.

Ciao!

nomad said...

Though I appreciate the broad debate on religion and definitions thereof I see a very strained correlation between the content of your post and your heading.
Religion is only one pretext to have an issue with homosexuality. Narrow-mindedness is a disease often afflicting religious folk - but is neither a constant nor limited to this criterion.
It is my belief that someone is not narrow minded because they are religious, rather they are religious because they want simple answers to difficult questions.

Though to give credit to Chris's comment - traditional Chinese will tell you homosexuality is an invention of the west. If this is due to Confucianistic (and might I add patriarchal) dogma or something else I'll leave for you to ponder.

Unknown said...

"Religion is only one pretext to have an issue with homosexuality"

Yes, and to scorn the homosexual discrimination/persecution of certain religions, is only one pretext to have an issue with religion.

The piece on Turing was intended as a colourful introduction to a wider ranging discussion...and also serves to illustrate how quickly societies can change out of all recognition. It is hard for me to really conceive of such a society as the England of 50 years ago, and I think that serves as a lesson. We should be awake to the potential for societal trends to move in directions we don't like, and prepared to do something about it.

Unknown said...

Also, I must point out that homosexuality is only in conflict with Taoism and Confucianism if it is practised to the exclusion of heterosexual relations, thereby to prevent siring of children. These 'atheist religions' do not consider it a sin, as Christianity. It has been common practise for the cultured classes* there, and in Japan, for millenia.

*As to the uncultured, common classes, well their lives are usually less well recorded so I don't know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China

nomad said...

"Yes, and to scorn the homosexual discrimination/persecution of certain religions, is only one pretext to have an issue with religion."

Certainly. And perhaps I am being nit-picky to the point of circularity - but I'd remove the "certain", it is a pretext in regard to religions in general. Nothing easier than finding a scrape goat. I have no issues with relgions themselves, only certain manifestation thereof.

As for the changes of the last 50 years. I think we forget that was we now consider our basic rights are a dream many fought hard for, that our way of living is heretherto unparalleled, and that our level of consumption is utter madness. Sometimes I get a preminision that all of this is transitory - that we are building smoke-screens and mirrors to pretend that we have progressed. The cracks show. I'm not saying we haven't taken many a step forward. Only that in doing so we would be fools to think that we have come further than we have, to forget the price at which many things did come, and in the spirit of your post: be mindful of our step.
Well, perhaps I am simply repeating what you put more concisely -

"We should be awake to the potential for societal trends to move in directions we don't like, and prepared to do something about it."


Thank you for the wiki link! I am now (somewhat) the wiser. From what do you derive the conclusion homosexuality was a common practice? I suspect Turing was described as "ill" rather than a "sinner", circumventing the need to define "sin" *. Is your definition of sin restricted to the one outlined by the three large mono-theistic religions?
Surely defining something as "imbalanced and destructive" is the same as titling it as madness? And "against the Confucian natural law" similar to saying that homosexuality is unnatural...
But rather than turning this into an etymological discourse, I'd be curious to understand how much "curing/shaping" was going on, and whether the arguments used by the communist regime during persecution of homosexuals were supposedly founded on taoism or Confucianism.
(I think I might have a friend who could give me some answers, if he does I'll let you know.)


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin

Unknown said...

I'll tell you one reason why I think homosexuality was common practise, and I won't try to back it up (although I did once see a film about my very point, starring Beat Takeshi and concerning gay samurai).

My reason: war was common practise. Men trained for and fought wars, women were not always in attendance, and the sexual urge will out.
Quid pro quo.
Or maybe not, depending on your own views!

nomad said...

*grins* Mate, samurai (a.k.a. men in diapers) are a different breed altogether! :P

Kris McGlinn said...

"Britain's role in Iraq, far from being a just war for democracy, or the actions of a lapdog to the Americans, are simply a continuation of an unwavering 90+ year old foreign policy with regard to controlling the oil. The government has been allowed to do that because its what its always done, and British people are used to it."

Hmmmm, are you trying to say that the British people are "allowing" the war in Iraq for economic reasons? I don't know if the majority of British people would agree with that.

As for Bush going to war because God speaks to him. Well, Bush is an oil man, his Dad is an oil man, he has surrounded himself with oil men. In fact, Bush constantly went on about an "Energy Crisis" before 911. So he may say one thing, but be motivated by other reasons.

That the American people put up with a president who says he speaks to god is what concerns me more than him saying it. Although, I have a feeling that the support he receives is a lot less than is made out in the media.

It is always wise to remember that the economies of the west and the vast populations those economies support are built upon oil and the free movement of oil, and the USA in many regards protects that flow of oil.

The question on my mind is, are small wars with nations who refuse to share their oil with the wider global community preferable to global recession and a possible stock market crash?

Unknown said...

Kris: The british are more permissive of foreign wars, because they have always been involved in imperialist foreign wars, and are used to it. It is their way.

My point about Bush and God was much as yours - his motivations are what they are, but his mandate is hugely propped up by his religiosity. I don't think he's trying to conduct a holy war, he's trying to annex the oil.

"That the American people put up with a president who says he speaks to god is what concerns me more than him saying it. Although, I have a feeling that the support he receives is a lot less than is made out in the media."

I share the concern and the feeling. I think that's what this post has been all about.

"It is always wise to remember that the economies of the west and the vast populations those economies support are built upon oil and the free movement of oil, and the USA in many regards protects that flow of oil."

True, but of course we know there are other ways. The US may protect the flow of oil, but it doesn't do enough to look beyond oil. It is fixated, much as it was on gold 150 years ago. That fixation resulted in the genocide of several native american peoples, and the modern marginalisation of more. What will become of us due their oil fixation?

"The question on my mind is, are small wars with nations who refuse to share their oil with the wider global community preferable to global recession and a possible stock market crash?"

If Patrick's video is right about the nature of money, then stock market crashes are an unavoidable feature of the system. Like Neo, they are a systemic anomaly (whatever that oxymoron means).

Kris McGlinn said...

Well...you seem to be saying there is some difference between the British "way" and the American "way". I don't agree. You use the British empire to support your position that the British are used to war. I could just as easily say that it is human nature that drives us to war, it is our way, as humans we have been doing it from the very beginning and we should all be used to it (perhaps not in zep tepi ;) ).

American history is built upon numerous wars. They committed genocide against the American Indians (as you mention), they had their own civil war, took what is now Texas from the Mexicans. World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iraq...as well as two nukes on Japan. I don't see why you seem to think the British are somehow more used to war.

Ask the average Brit whether he supports the war in Iraq and I doubt you will hear them saying "well, empire has always required war for economic reasons, and as such I think I accept my leaders judgment that this is a necessary evil for the survival of our way of life". Then again maybe they would...from what I hear though from their own media sources, this is a hugely unpopular war in Britain as well as America.

I just don't see why you are making a distinction between British and American popular motives. Do you think the war is more just when done for economic reasons, and as such, (if the British did in fact feel that way) war on those terms is easier to accept? Personally, I cant say which I prefer...maybe I do prefer war if it seems to be done on a reasonable premise. I think you can easily substitute Americans "will of god" with their own feeling that their way is the right way, just as Britain feels their way is right, and their enemies way is wrong.

The one thing they do certainly share in common as far as I can see is their ability to project power and war abroad and control the resources they need to maintain this power (since mechanization and the move from coal, this has been oil).

And that brings me to your statement "but of course we know there are other ways" regarding oil. Well...is it just an American fixation? It was the British originally who switched to oil. If the Nazis had had access to the oil in the caucuses (which was the Werhmachts main push in the second year for the war for Russia) or in the Suez (Rommels push through Africa) would we have had a different outcome to the war? And would the world be a better place with the third Reich controlling oil? (should I mention Hitler and put an end to all reasonable discussion :D ) Maybe it would have been, for the blue eyed blond haired people.

It is not that there are alternatives, it is that oil is quick and cheap and those who control it can power their mechanised armies, while those who don't control it cant. Of course proliferation of nuclear weapons may change that. The choice then becomes which system on earth is best for controlling this resource? China perhaps? A united nation of Islam? Russia? The British Empire? The United States?

Maybe we have to come up with a better ruling system than the one we have. Perhaps absolute power will always corrupt absolutely, in which case....a one world government will require systematic anomalies.

Unknown said...

Kris:
There is some confusion here - firstly we're not talking about all citizens of a nation, just that politicised minority that forms a wavefront for those who are simply reactive, and gets a majority on polling and voting days, or has the strongest lobbies. The American situation is that conservative Christians have become that politicised wavefront.

England is clearly different, and the war there is deeply unpopular now, but not so much a few years ago during their last general election. Why is that? A war of international hegemony would not be supported in many other nations. I posit that it is because there is a conservative politicised wavefront who support whatever needs to be done to keep the money flowing (I have Londoner cousins who are just such). I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't see where I'd obtain such proof.

"Do you think the war is more just when done for economic reasons"

Actually, I do. That's plain Darwinian, whereas the practical survival benefits of ideological war are much more debatable. I wouldn't ever excuse war, but if I need to declare preference for motive, thats my choice. Sometimes you have to fight to survive. Why fight to impose dogma (unless it is defence)?

"oil...is it just an American fixation?"

I believe that the American state of mind is curiously more capable of zealous fervour than the European (and maybe many others) when it comes to money. Even the Christians are ironically worshipping this false idol of the dollar. No offense, american readers. Obviously, generalisations aren't meant to apply to the more discerning types who would be reading this.

Unknown said...

"Maybe we have to come up with a better ruling system than the one we have."

Noocracy. Let me just check that I'm smart enough to be on the right side of the noocratic divide...yes, yes I'm advocating noocracy.