Zone5

Update: 16/07/09

See Dan Dennett on “Belief in belief” here

Updates: I’ve just put a couple of updates for clarification and a couple more links. I’ve marked them in the text.

I also want to say, whatever about my concerns regarding the ideology behind Transition, there is heaps of great work being done in the movement, which is hugely influential in exploring  responses to Peak Oil and Climate Change. I am particularly looking forward to reading the “Can Totnes District Feed Itself” report- I hope it has some recipes in it!

I paid a visit to a forum on Transition and permaculture over at Transition Culture recently- wow, I only just got out in time before they lynched me! Apparently, post-modern lunacy is alive and well in the Transition Land where in a very interesting discussion on Transition, Permaculture, inclusiveness and the like, it became apparent that some things are just not on the table for discussion- yes you guessed it, yours truly raised the old chestnut of the evils of faith and all Hell broke loose. I quickly found myself embroiled in a disappear-up-your-own backside post- modern attack on my freedom of speech and left the forum just before the hounds were let out to accuse me of “bashing people of faith”.

The trouble started because of my comment:

“Faith is the one thing that will not help us deal with what is coming down the line!”

To which Rob replied:

“As fascinating observation, but, to my thinking, complete nonsense, and a somewhat dangerous perspective. I understand where you are coming from, that religion is not based on science, that it is irrational, ‘The God Delusion’ etc. etc. That is as maybe.

However,there are many many people around the world in crisis right now, whether it be through illness, war or whatever, for whom their faith is one of the key things that gets them through, logical or not. Of course one can construct an intellectual argument that says that we should be aiming to move people away from that, but there is, I would suggest, a deep arrogance to that.”

Now the charge of arrogance is predictable coming from Rob- all to easy a put-down and way of avoiding the issue. It should not be hard however to think of some of the evil consequences of faith (belief without reason):

-suicide bombings

-jihadism

-oppression of women

-institutional child abuse spanning decades in Irish industrial schools

-promotion of and support for quack medicines that dont work and might put people’s lives at risk;

-support for Man U FC (just joking- that’s not really evil, just demented).

I’m sure you can easily think of more.

Update: Here are a few more:

-the cynical exploitation of the bereaved by charlatan spiritualists;

-the dumbing down of education by the insistence on teaching Creationism as a theory of equal standing with the facts of evolution;

-the stiffling of stem-cell research

OK, you could argue that not all of these are a direct result of the faith in question, but in the case of the kind of institutional child abuse of the kind described in The Ryan Report- which has been widely referred to in the public debates as the Irish Holocaust- it is the special treatment demanded by churches over the years and the deference paid to “people of faith” as a special category who should somehow be revered and exempt from scrutiny and criticism which allows such horrors to continue unchallenged for so long.

On a forum such as Rob’s it seems a sad day that I should have to defend my right to criticize faith in a general sense and ask for more rational approaches to life, but this just shows that there is still a strong post-modern influence in the Transition movement.

This could be described as the “mean green meme”- a phrase from the stages of consciousness model Spiral Dynamics, which I have written about before here:

Instead of looking ahead to what the next Emergent meme may be, Green thinks it has found Nirvana already and in a paroxysm of narcissism and naïve romantic views of what life used to be like back in the good old days it destroys the goose that laid the golden egg- the very scientific method that lead to the deeper Green ecological understanding in the first place.

Incidentally, I don’t subscribe to SD as an accurate model and feel that it has cultish aspects itself; however it does provide a useful framework to discuss  cultural values and attitudes.

The Green or Post-modern Meme has certain characteristics which actually work towards oppression and restriction of free speech:

-over concern of political correctness and concern about how things are said rather than what is being said;

-a contradictory stance that claims all beliefs are equal -but some (their own) are more equal than others;

-a rejection of science- usually selective- as being “just another belief system”;

-this can lead to for example a tolerance and even promotion of pseudoscience and superstition which claim “equal status”;

-an over-sensitivity and concern with feelings over facts which tends to take offense at the first opportunity, thereby making intelligent debate impossible;

Update: The insistence that I drop my arguments or modify my tone because “I am so sure I am right but my view is really only one amongst many” is a particularly insidious argument that could be seen to be the hallmark of post-modern hypocrisy and delusion. It is only, note, used as a defense against the requirement of evidence for beliefs, never with regard to beliefs that we all know to be true: climate change is mainly man-made; peak oil will usher in an energy descent we are ill-prepared for.

When considering the evidence for climate change, for example, we are not likely to hear the objection:

“Ah, no man, you’re so arrogant!! You seem to think you’re right!! Why can’t you see you’re view is just one amongst many- and all views deserve equal respect.”

Honestly, if I were to give climate deniers some advice, I would say, take a page out of the New Age book- throw the “scientism” or “science is just another belief system” argument at them! Failing that, just claim your climate -denying beliefs are sacred -they are part of your religion and therefore cannot be challenged.

(Ironically, I just found this story of a climate change activist using the special priveledge afforded religion to defend his case!)

Do we really have to still have this corrupt and turgid debate about epistimology, even amongst ourselves as we prepare for the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced?

Let’s all join hands in a circle and repeat after me:

-not all beliefs are equal

-evidence is better than faith

Really, our future may depend on this. The views of New Agers regarding science as “another belief system” that cannot answer “holistic questions” are false. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. You would think really that we should be able to state that in the context of a debate on Transition without being dismissed as being “arrogant”.

These Post-modern positions have had many dire consequences for society over the last several decades and have been criticized for such things as

-giving more resources for perpetrators of crime rather than their victims;

-a complete inability to deal with extreme beliefs and fundamentalism which are explicitly opposed to the post-modern agenda itself (“I’m sure if we could just bring Al Quaeda to the Heart and Soul Group, reach out to them and really show that we respect their beliefs they will be happy to work with us”);

-the existence of homeopathy degrees.

In the forum- which was Rob’s response to Sharon Astyk’s astute critique of Permaculture and Transition- the discussion covered many interesting topics and many opinions, but several people clearly had issues on the “hold-hands-in-a-circle-and-share-your-feelings” aspects of the inner work often found within Transition groups, which is strongly influenced by the work of Joanna Macey.

The comment that best sums up the issues raised here- which were also common on Sharon’s forum- was this brilliant piece from Julian on Rob’s forum, in response to a commentator who complained that the discussion on faith in a debate on inclusiveness in Transition was not appropriate:

Maybe you could provide a profile of the type of chaps/chapesses that you would like to “wander” in and join the circle and be made to feel welcome in to the light of the infinite sun.I have already witnessed inquisitive folk “wander”off from transition meetings for the foreseeable even before the enlightened ones hands have clasped one another.Perhaps the speed at which this debate has moved from circles to religion to exclusion should tell us something!

Clearly this is a divisive issue and both forums had many interesting and useful comments on it. My own perspective on this is, yes circles and feelings can take many forms and can be very useful for personal growth work etc, and some people get a huge amount out of them. For myself, I have done more than my fair share of this kind of thing and no longer feel the need. I worked with Joanna Macey many years ago and at the time was hugely influenced and inspired by her work; however I do feel it is ideological and lacks a critical component- hence the “cultish” aspects that can put people off (including people of other faiths.)

Sharon has already discussed this in her blog, personal development work is important for some but there should be more  models available.

I am not claiming TT is a cult, far from it, but this represents a “cultish aspect” that maybe should be avoided- or at least made less prominent. The ideological basis for Transition is hard to deny – and the New Age influence, particularly in regard to the promotion of Alternative Therapies in the Transition Timeline should be of concern to everyone who undertands the movement is dependent on a good understanding of the science that underpins climate change and peak oil.

Nor am I “bashing people of faith”- I have no problem working with “people of faith” but I do take strong issue with ascribing them a special privilege with ring-fences their beliefs putting them above critical appraisal. You want arrogance? Hard to beat an inviolable and unchallengeable belief in the Supernatural.

And that is the whole problem with Faith- by its very nature it demands that it is not questioned- believe in it and it and it will be true is I think the  basis of New Age pseudoscience- ie that your feelings thoughts and consciousness create physical reality- but underpins much more traditional religious belief also, eg the Power of Prayer- God will answer your prayers if you just believe in him enough.

I was accused on the forum of making assumptions about people’s faith, that they must be stupid or something. Sharon herself kindly responded and did not seem to find me arrogant but made a couple of very revealing observations:

I know few really religious people who haven’t experience with atheism. I’m sure there are some who don’t, but I don’t think it is a majority experience – how could it be, if you are a reasonably thoughtful person who has reasonably thoughtful considerations of the question of G-d? The reality is that more people go through atheism and come out at faith than vice versa – and far more in times of difficulty. To some, I’m sure this looks like an irrational strategy, or an inability to tolerate the truth. To others it will look different.

Most people of faith may question their faith; it is often seen as a virtue to struggle with these doubts and overcome them, thereby strengthening the faith. Maybe, though, many who profess faiths do not hold them strongly if at all- it seems clear that the “faith communities” are at least as much about community as about faith, but even so, the faith- aspect is surely a hindrance than a help precisely because these communities do not presumably foster and help develop critical approaches- the faith is a given even if you are struggling with it.

I dont assume people with faith are stupid or have not considered atheism; it is not hard to find other reasons why they may be reluctant or unable to make the leap:

-as said already, the need for the community may be stronger than the need for critical thinking;

-the nature of faith itself- and especially the post-modern culture of political correctness and false concepts of “equality” suppresses the emergence of a strong secular alternative, which is largely absent from public debate;

-we have an evolutionary predisposition to irrational beliefs

(see also the work of Susan Blackmore)

-historically, the church has been very powerful and effective at indoctrinating us and scaring us as children with visions of hell which may still contribute to our reticence to take on beliefs in adulthood;

-it is also possible that they are, well, stupid… Update: or perhaps more vulnerable to exploitation by powerful groups who use the “faith is a virtue” card to manipulate and control and extort.

I have consistently tried to draw parallels between the kind of thinking that denies climate change or fails to recognize our dependence on oil and its depletion and the psychology of faith; this is why I see these issues as so important for Transition. This may translates into the transition movement as being an over-reliance on “vision” and less on realism and substance; and while it does not advocate any particular  faith (other than in Transition itself) there is a promotion of pseudoscience (which undermines people’s understanding of climate science etc) ; a tolerance of the Faith Communities as somehow privileged; and an intolerance of secular values and critical thought.

Rob says:

Is it a tenable perspective to suggest that we only work with and engage those that have renounced any world view based on anything other than rational science? Of course not.

Of course that is not what I am suggesting. The post-modern idea that we can work with anyone who supports the need for Transition doesnt work, because we wont work with the BNP and that is NOT because they dont believe in climate change; equally we might not tolerate female oppression per se, but what if there is a “faith-based group” which treats women as second class citizens but is very strong on adaptive strategies to PO and GW?

I balk at Rob’s idea of:

I am particularly taken with the idea, which has got me thinking feverishly over the weekend, about what Transition trainings might look like if the inner aspects were developed with people from different faith groups, and if those elements of the trainings were based in that culture and language. Doesn’t feel like we disagreed on the need for some element of an inner aspect to the Transition training, rather on where it is coming from, how accessible it is and how comfortable it feels…

There is an alternative. Transition could adopt specifically secular values, and have a Critical Thinking Class alongside every heart and Soul Group. This would educate people about science and the scientific method, an essential part I would have thought of transition.

Udate: The public understanding of science is very poor, which is one of the reasons people are still reluctant to accept the inconvenient truth- they are easily swayed by the deniers who use some of the same methods to discredit climate science as quacks use to confuse the public about medical evidence. The parallels should be obvious; but by exposing one, we cannot ignore the other.

There is no need to avoid faith-groups or in any way demonize them- although we must be bold enough to accept that some of them are indeed diabolical, but we must not give them special status because of their faiths.

The promotion of pseudo-science should be dropped and explicitly avoided especially with reference to health care.

Rational, secular and atheist approaches should be welcomed and promoted, they should not be dismissed as “arrogance”; with tools to develop critical faculties added to the tools for inner work.

The whole area of faith and the freedom to challenge it; of the public understanding of science and rationality, and evidence-based approaches are issues not just for Transition, but for society as a whole and for democracy. These issues concern what kind of values we hold and what kind of world we want to live in.

Update: Inner work -personal development- can be done in a secular fashion, and in fact Transition could be positioned to play a great role in developing this. There is already models out there; for any seeker of truth who is dabbling with religion, spiritual practice or personal development, I would invite you to try the work of Eric Maisel. I found his book The Atheists’ Way- Living Well without Gods- wonderful and I wish I had come across it years ago.It should be much more widely known.

The website Point of Inquiry has regular interviews on the subject of secular humanism.

There is plenty more material available once you start looking for it. The “inner work” bit does not have to be done in any context of religion or spirtituality, or ideologies of any kind, and would be far more effective and useful to people if it were not.

There are no gods, no spirits, the supernatural is a delusion- one we are however, all susceptible to believe at times.

Whether you can accept this or not, you should at least join me in making it normal and acceptible to have people express this view.

Ironic and appropriate then for us in Ireland that this debate takes place the week a Balsphemy Law is passed here- which has in turn spawned a new religion of Dermotology!

Not only that, but Sharon is quite correct: in times of crisis, people may turn in desperation to irrational faiths to save them- it was widely reported in the Irish media this week that hundreds of people are gathering at a tree stump near Rathkeel in Co.Limerick to pray around a tree stump where has appeared the face of the Virgin Mary. One commentator made the point that we should not mock these people -they are the same ones who put their faith previously in the Irish Banking system!

Ah the many angles and aspects of Faith- faith we can succeed; faith we are doing the right thing (are we?); faith things will be alright.

If we are to have Faith in transition, we must be free to speak out against the problems caused by faith. And if we succeed in this, maybe we will find a future world where faith itself  moves into transition, away from its privileged status which has held humanity in chains for so long.

Further Reading

The End of Faith Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris