Zone5 Claims Victory in Science vs Religion Debate August 1, 2008
Posted by Graham in : Science and Rationaltiy , trackbackIn her recent comment on the last post, Alanna Moore, Geomancer, Dowser and Animist Pagan, has confessed that her beliefs are religious in nature and therefore have no scientific credibility:
“Could you kindly remove all references to me plus my contact details from your blog. You are infringing my privacy as well as my religious freedom (I am an animist pagan, by the way - and there’s nothing new-age about paganism)…”
Now, this is very interesting because in an early email exchange with Maddy Harland, editor of Permaculture magazine, Maddy told me quite explicitly that she at least did not see belief in Geomancy as being religious or superstitious, but claimed they were backed up by evidence.
Below: Exuberant Zone5 supporters celebrate a dramatic victory for common sense
This welcome and brave admission that her Geomancy beliefs are religious can only mean that they should not be promoted as part of Permaculture.
It would be great now to see a letter in PM Magazine explaining this and putting the matter straight.
While it is true that many animists have been drawn to Permaculture and may use it immensely well, I believe that it has a great tendency to promote itself as pseudoscience which has a corrupting effect. The lines between faith-based and evidence-based views becomes blurred and permaculture moves further and further away from what it is really good at: using the lessons of the ecological sciences to design sustainable settlements.
Should we design by careful observation and measurement, monitoring and refining as we go, checking our experience against others, always questioning and being on guard to avoid blind alleys?
Or should we just go ask the trolls.
Update: The “Troll” reference was to a video clip on Moore’s Geomancy website in which she flies to Sweden to interview some people protesting the siting of a mobile phone mast because it is “disturbing the earth energies”; when asked from where they got their information they replied- and I am NOT kidding- “from some very large 10 meter-long TROLLS”.
Below: A Troll
By tolerating the use of permaculture as a vehicle for promoting New Age religion we alienate not just rationalists or atheists but people from other religions as well. Where is the Islamic version of permaculture, which may entail rituals from the Koran to increase plant growth? Where is the Jewish permaculture Principles, which must incorporate aspects of Judaic law to be effective?
It is an irreconcilable contradiction in any unproved belief system that it finds itself at odds with other beliefs; no amount of multi-cultural tolerance can overcome this because all belief systems and ideologies necessarily involve some level of evangelism. To exist, they have to believe, ultimately, that they are the only truth- yet they have no methodology to prove this.
For me as a permaculture teacher it becomes a very practical problem: how can you teach the Laws of thermodynamics and the PC ethic of Limits to people who believe that it is their mind creates reality? How can can you develop Critical Thinking skills to people who are fed a diet of pseudo-science which relies ultimately on the belief that “if you believe in it, its true?”
In addition to this issue comes another one: religious beliefs, the present discussion being a prime example, do not like being challenged. It is just considered not nice to do so, and most people, skeptics and rationalists included, abide by this taboo as strictly as they would to not going naked in public. No one likes to cause offense, and often a simple retort of “How could you say that? How arrogant!” is all that is required to prevent debate. We are expected to humbly acknowledge our “respect” for these beliefs and politely agree to differ.
Update:
In “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Daniel Dennett describes how this taboo on critisism acts as a crucial defense mechanism for religions:
If i were designing a phony religion, I’d surely include a version of this little gem- but I’d have a hard time saying it with a straight face: ‘If anybody ever raises questions or objections about our religion that you cannot answer, that person is almost certainly satan. In fact, the more reasonable that person is, the more eager to engage you in open-minded and gongenial discussion, the more sure you can be that you’re talking to satan in disguise! Turn away! Do not listen! It’s a trap!’
Pseudo-science likes to play it both ways- demanding the respect afforded genuine authoritative scientific research on the one hand, while claiming diplomatic immunity on the grounds of religious freedom when found out.
But we have a civic duty to be rational, and to require others to be rational also. We should not accept that any claim no matter that it contradicts the laws of physics should just be accepted as “equal” to scientific views. The consequences for society for allowing this are already considerable. Deluded people can be dangerous, especially if they are in positions of power, and we should not be complacent about directly challenging claims that have been disproved or that lack evidence.
A lot of the critques of the New Age religions- which neopaganism is of course one- are part of a wider critque of Post-modernism, which has taken the mantra of “all things are equal” to a dangerous extreme. Science has developed an extraordinarily effective way of deciding between two apparently equally valid hypotheses and the scientific method is one of humanities’ greatest discoveries. We need to guard it like a precious child.
The post-modern obsession with “rights” especially “right to respect” has lead to a highly unbalanced culture by ignoring the essential counter-weight of responsibility: beliefs have real consequences in a real world and we have to take responsibility for what we promote.
The onus is on everyone to take a stance against pseudo-science; to de-construct it and learn how it works; to educate ourselves and society in general about the difference between faith-based beliefs and evidence-based beliefs.
Science and rationality is ultimately the most democratic path, a path open to everyone: no matter a Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Jew or Atheist for that matter, an object of equal weight will always fall at the same rate in the same medium.
The insane excesses of post-modernism have gained enormous power and influence in society and cause immense damage. David Colquhoun sees this as the “Age of Endarkenment“:
The past 30 years or so have been an age of endarkenment. It has been a period in which truth ceased to matter very much, and dogma and irrationality became once more respectable. This matters when people delude themselves into believing that we could be endangered at 45 minutes’ notice by non-existent weapons of mass destruction. It matters when reputable accountants delude themselves into thinking that Enron-style accounting is acceptable. It matters when people are deluded into thinking that they will be rewarded in paradise for killing themselves and others. It matters when bishops attribute floods to a deity whose evident vengefulness and malevolence leave one reeling. And it matters when science teachers start to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. A minor aspect of the endarkenment has been a resurgence in magical and superstitious ideas about medicine. The existence of homeopaths on the high street won’t usually do too much harm. Their sugar pills contain nothing and they won’t poison your body. The greater danger is that they poison your mind.
There is really nothing more divisive than ideology, secular or religious, because it is not important who is right but rather what is right.Our survival depends on it.
Comments»
[...] friend Graham has just posted his latest response in an ongoing debate which is well worth reading. I’m with Graham all the way! Thanks for [...]
Wallace Town has a post on this discussion- and a nice photo-cartoon- here:
http://markwallace32.blogspot.com/2008/08/woo-woo-wound-two.html
Poisoned permaculture
Some weeks back I asked the ‘moderator’ of this blog to remove references to me,
as they were full of hatred and slander (such as stating that I was a fraudulent quack)
and this has not been done.
I have been polite in my communications so far but only received incredible rudeness in response.
So now the time has come for me to say how I feel about my experience of this blog site.
I have been shocked by the way people are encouraged by GS to trot out their bigotry
and attack people with a self styled righteousness of religious scale fervour.
And I personally have never been so insulted in my life!
It makes me feel really angry.
Fortunately I know how to channel my anger into positive pursuits.
Rational ratbags
The greatest evils of this world are big business (backed up by science), plus the monetary system, right?
So whose sides are you guys on?
It is obvious from my interactions with a great many people,
especially the people of the land, the farmers and permaculture practitioners,
that no-one gives a rat’s arse about scientific credibility,
in fact they are understandably sceptical about science and scientists.
So there is absolutely no point in wanking off about it.
Some of my colleagues are scientists, who write for my magazine and are in my books.
They are also dowsers. We just get on with doing the best we can to help the planet.
In comparison, the hatred peddlars of Z5 just come across as sick, sad and ineffectual.
If you are going to peddle poison,
poison will come back to you.
The Z5 blogs have been inciting others to express and develop hatred of subjects
which they know nothing about.
Yet they want to make it their business to express opinions on these subjects.
Has anyone who has been commenting read my books?
Do any of you know anything about me?
You’ve done plenty of guessing…
People have been allowed, encouraged, on these sick pages
to go right on and try to trash my good name.
Without any moderation from the ‘moderator’.
In fact, he is the worst !
A suggestion that he apologise to me has not been taken up.
(Apart from “apologises in advance” for an unspecified purpose.
Fortunately I maintain an excellent reputation, so public insults
would have to be more damaging to the perpetrator than to me.
Meanwhile the perpetrator has a lousy reputation amongst ex-students.
I have been told by several ex-students of their high levels of dissatisfaction,
including relentless, totally unwarranted attacks on their personal views.
This is not permaculture people care, nor is it sustainable.
It is an abuse of power of the teacher/student relationship.
I shall be encouraging any more ex-students I meet to vent their hurt feelings
on the Z5 blog pages.
Zone 5 is mostly negative.
Fortunately an antidote is on it’s way.
‘Permaculture Ireland’ will be promoting positive action
with a free magazine and PDC / permaculture design certificate courses on offer next year.
We will be encouraging fun and laughter as part of the learning experience.
So if any prospective students might be reading this
they will now know that there is fresh new hope for sustainability here,
with wholesome, holistic permaculture on its way,
at a website near you.
There is no hatred being pedaled from either myself nor anyone who has commented here.
There is however an attempt to challenge your beliefs and opinions- which is surely everyone’s right to do so.
Your personal details have never appeared on this website.
I cant see that any of the points raised in this debate have actually been responded to by yourself- As far as I can see, the debate is over- you yourself have accepted that geomancy and animism are religious views, and you have yet to explain on what basis you can claim they are part of permaculture.
Obviously, my posts here have been in response to your articles in permaculture magazine and your website- it is you who have put this in the public domain, so surely in the interests of truth and sustainability you should welcome an open and honest debate- and be big enough with your celebratory status to accept some criticism.
Instead, it seems that the fluffy “love makes the world go around” facade of new-Ageism has well and truly fallen away.
I repeat, there is no hatred or wish for anything nasty of any kind to happen to you or anyone else on account of your or their beliefs or for any other reason.
In this comment you merely the repeat the bizarre contradiction found throughout pseudo-scientific literature: first you dismiss science and rationality as part of the problem; then you invoke the support of your scientific colleagues, just as you have continuously claimed scientific credibility for your own work.
It doesnt make sense, Alanna- but then, from what you say, it appears that making sense is not your intention.
You say:
“The greatest evils of this world are big business (backed up by science), plus the monetary system, right?
So whose sides are you guys on? “
Well, that is a big statement- I feel it might be worth adding in “religion” in this group- and you by your own words are promoting religion.
The key difference is this:faith-based religions are not open to crticism or debate; they rely on people being too cowed to question them.
Science, on the other hand, relies on facing challenges from its critics- the validity of a scientific view depends upon its ability to withstand attacks from other viewpoints.
Any open and honest person would welcome critical debate of their subject, no matter what it was.
The rest of your comment consists of ad hominem remarks aimed at discrediting me or other rationalist commentators personally without any reference to what is actually being said.
All my own remarks throughout this whole debate have been internally consistent and rational arguments aimed at specific points that you have written. I have not made any personal comments about you (or your gardening abilities, for example) and even the odd bit of sarcasm and fun-poking have been aimed at specific comments you have made. I have not cast any negative assertions about you as a person.
Your own comments come much closer to “hate mail” and libel than anything I have written.
You have attempted to dismiss myself and other commentators on this blog as being “ignorant” and not knowing what we are taking about and yet have not engaged in any way with what is actually being said, which has mainly been a discussion of evidence and critical thinking and the dangers for permaculture and sustainability of the spread of faith-based views which are not open to critisism.
What right do you have to make comments here about my course or the perceived grievances of my students? you do them a disservice as well: they are all quite capable of expressing their own opinions
and indeed that is of course the whole point of teaching critical thinking- as opposed to your own stance which seems to consist of nothing more than an desperate attempt to squash any debate at all costs.
Are you inciting my students to send me hate mail? When I first approached this subject on the course and stated that there is no such things as fairies, I was told by one student (an excellent student and an otherwise very nice person) that I “should be lynched for saying that”. I have never, ever heard a rationalist express any such sentiment towards believers, even in jest (which this was not).
Unfortunately, as you are also showing, beneath the “caring for the earth and the people” facade of these religious beliefs often hides a noxious violence.
It is quite redundant of you to encourage them to post their comments here- the whole debate is part of their critical thinking reading list. I have always pointed them here and some have posted their comments- most of which have been in support of the rational stance, so how do you explain that Alanna?
One comment from a student last year read:
“Thanks for getting people to base their view-points in reality instead of mumbo-jumbo”.
I assure you, many people -including staff at Permaculture Magazine- have thanked me personally for having the courage to raise these issues and open a debate which is long overdue.
You owe us all an apology.
If really think that “that no-one gives a rat’s arse about scientific credibility”, why get so upset about my blog? And why continue to try to claim scientific respectability for your religion?
The reason New-Agers are so anti-science is because they dont understand it and because they only speak to each other. My wish is to try to point people to other views and teach them how to weigh up the evidence and think for themselves.
Wake up and come out of your bubble and realise just how goofy these beliefs seem to many other people, both within and without the environmental movement. Several people I spoke with about this debate last week had trouble believing me. They though I was joking.
They think you must be Off Your Troll. (With thanks to Rick for the headline!)
Graham & Alanna,
I think it’s time for a ceasefire! While the ‘discussions’ have been of interest, they are only so up to a point. This sort of debate could go on and on and on. I think the place for ‘resolution’ of these issues for permaculture is eventually within the relevant permaculture organisations and those dealing with the curriculum for courses. ( I am not involved on any of these bodies). I would see a parallel between these discussion and e.g. how in medicine you have conventional medicine and then other forms, which include some which do not have the same ’scientific’ basis.
The posts and comments around climate change / peak oil and the global / local responses (such as the courses you have just posted Graham ) are I think, more relevant and are more tangible .
But Liam you havnt told us what you yourself think! Religion clearly has no place in permaculture- this can be verified simply by reading Holmgren and Mollison. There is no debate about this. But there is no “official” permaculture organization that can or will make any proclamation over such issues- permaculture has always been anarchic and decentralized in its structure, but in fact many permaculture courses may indeed include some aspect of this- I believe this is killing permaculture, and with the adoption of New Age beliefs by Permaculture Magazine, the future of the concept does not look so bright.
I am myself of course professionally involved in the writing of permaculture curriculum at Kinsale FEC with a responsibility for over 50 students each year. There has never been any question of including religious or superstitious practices.
A key part of the curriculum is the understanding of pseudoscience.
This exchange between Alanna and myself provides an excellent example of how it works:
1) Claim scientific basis for superstitious or religious views; claim evidence and references;
2)When challenged, cry blue murder and claim the reverse, ie that science and rationality is the problem we should all be fighting against;
3)This is frequently accompanied with vague threats of karmic retribution for being so nasty as to challenge someone’s beliefs.
So please let us know what you think- do you “give a rat’s arse about scientific credibility”? Or are you one of those “sick” people who who think it is important to speak out against superstition and see the development of critical thinking as essential for the creation of a sustainable culture?
For example, what meaning does climate change or peak oil- or permaculture for that matter -have if we reject science?
Graham,
Firstly as Rob suggested earlier it is better to take care with the language of our discussions of the issues so as avoid a ‘put down’ of the person while at the same time having a robust discussion.
Of course ’scientific credibility’ is the basis of our Governments, public bodies and most NGOs approach to the issues such as sustainability and of course I and most people concur that approach.
I am not one who supports superstition. I do however come to the issues as many others do from both a humanistic and religious perspective. For me both perspectives are not in conflict. There are quite a few within the Christian churches who because of their faith are working hard on sustainability initiatives and at the same time adopt a scientific approach. I dont think in these cases it is a question of ‘victory’ of science over religion but rather religion giving impetus and a sense of dedication to their tasks.
Well Im glad to hear that you support a scientific approach.
But would you claim, for example, that there is “scientific” basis for Christian beliefs? What about Creationism in Christianity?
I have not (so far) had a Christian in my class claim that Permaculture should be aligned with Christianity, or that belief in Jesus will help the plants grow; nevertheless, there are certain aspects of Christianity that are associated with new Age pseudoscience, such as the Power of Prayer which are claimed to have scientific evidence. this is closely attached to the (in my view) retarded and reactionary ideas about the Laws of attraction expressed in the film “The Secret”. This involves the belief that everyone gets exactly what they deserve- the poor deserve to be poor, the rich to be rich etc..
Because they have become cloaked in pseudo-scientific language they have become very popular amongst certain sections of the environmental movement.
Superstitious practices such as moon planting are commonly believed to have scientific backing, and no amount of evidence seems able to shake these delusions.
They wont help us they will lead us astray!
But I am interested in something else since you bring up your Christianity- how do you, as a Christian, feel about New Age religion- under the guise of pseudoscience- being the religion of choice for permaculturalists/environmentalists?
The title of this post was more intended as “Victory” in the sense that Alanna had admitted that her views are religious, while previously claiming they were science-based.
And just one more thing- do you think you could have a “robust discussion” with an influential person- a role model and teacher and published author- who base their information about environmental damage on the hearsay of Trolls (10-meter long ones) ?