As I look out my window, I see a rich landscape of plants against a rather picturesque valley between quite imposing ridges of a mountain range. Closest to me are some familiar small trees, deliberately planted to provide a buffer from a road that is very busy on public holidays, but otherwise quiet. Beyond are a sprinkling of natives, some very large and old, some relatively young but pruned savagely to head height and other saplings finding their way into adulthood.
By happy accident, those closest to the house turned out to be a fire-resistant species and offer protection from wild-fire; those further away drop a layer of humus every year which accumulates into a tinder dry layer of fuel.
I have conscientiously grazed and cleared this areas, not just because they represent a fire risk, but I am paranoid about snakes, amongst the most venomous in the world; not because I am frightened of these snakes, per se, but because transporting someone bitten to the nearest emergency centre is a minimum of one half hour travel, not matter the transport medium - if one of my children were bitten, they would certainly die while waiting for anti-venom. I have coached my children to steer clear of snakes and this strategy has served many who live in rural areas well.
Further from the house, one can identify a line of the endemic species, the Manna Gum, along the river flats, isolated to a thin strip on otherwise completely cleared land. On the slopes even further beyond, a limited set of species of tree can be found with a distinct lack of undergrowth - you can walk freely to the top of the ridge, hindered only by your fitness in scaling slopes of between 20 and 30%.
To the untrained eye, this landscape is unremarkable. It is probably repeated in thousands of locations across Australia. With some exceptions. Few people are quite as fastidious about the trees they choose to plant. Some have little care for the native exotic divide; many do not investigate the properties of the trees they plant - their response to frost, fire, soil type and drought. I do, but only in regard to my block of land - I am not a botanical encyclopaedia.
Now imagine you came upon my block, in study mode, perhaps as a student of rural development. What might you conclude about the area in which I live? What scientific standards might you apply to your study? What kinds of evidence are more or less useful in ascertaining the truth?
From the road, you would note a species of wattle easily identified by its stone blue leaves. You would quickly observe that these are exceptional in the area - not a single instance of this tree can be observed in 20 kilometres of valley. You would quickly conclude that this is an introduced species. Since the trees are all young, you would conclude that this was recent. Furthermore, since the individuals are on private property, you would conclude that the introduction was via an agent under my control, whether it be deliberate or accidental planting. Accidental planting is less likely given the extent of plantings that are not endemic amongst the obvious signs of garden beds, selectively cleared areas and plants obviously pruned and managed.
What would confuse you, however, is the apparently random planting of these trees. Two stand close to one another, another is almost 100 metres away and another close by it. As you know the tendency of humans is to plant in clusters or rows, this might be explained by the planter having a kind of organic pattern in mind - don't plant things too regularly otherwise it doesn't look natural.
The truth is odd but not weird. Two original individuals of the same species were purchased and planted simultaneously. The intention was indeed to defy a regular pattern. One suffered from an natural ailment of wattles - old age - and rotted away. The other suffered an extraordinary event - it was hit by a car in an accident. Both (quite old) specimens had dropped seeds, some of which now flourish as saplings and came up, naturally, after a sequence of very hot then very wet weather. The rotten individual I cut down - the accident victim fell over and was eventually removed.
If you were a better student, you might have asked me about these plants and the truth would have been revealed promptly and more comprehensively. But relying on my witness is fraught with problems. First, my memory for many things is hopeless; I might just lie to you and I may be confused.Whichever way you approach it, getting to the truth is going to be difficult, problematic and laborious. You would have to find evidence of the original specimens or seeds spread in a pattern which could only indicate a mature individual reproducing.
On the contrary, putting a 'spanner' in the 'works' of your thesis is child's play. How do you know that the seeds have not been introduced by a vehicle that picked them up in their tyres and drove in both places? Could they not be an endemic species, long suppressed by grazing, emerging because of a unique set of conditions that I have imposed as custodian of this block.In terms of intellectual effort, discrediting a thesis takes almost no effort in comparison to forming and proving it in the first instance.
The discrediting or denial leans on a natural concept of justice - 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If you are going to be thrown into jail or I am going to invest billions on the basis of your thesis, I don't want to be wise after the event. I want all based covered. The science required to quench doubt is horrendous.
Indulge me further with my analogy. In examining my property, the obvious planting of a fire-resistant species close to the house, combined with the clearing of a buffer zone, devoid of fuel, around my house, point directly at a consciousness about fire. Complementing this, the complete absence of fire scarring except in isolated burn piles demonstrates a regime of burning fuel to reduce fire risk. A line of trees of varied species, none fire-retardant, on the western side (the direction of the strongest winds), various heights in a pattern consistent with a wind break , indicate intentional planting for a purpose - thus, the fire control measures in planting are unlikely to be accidental.
The truth is, they all are. The burn piles are actually for the purpose of a New Year's bonfire - they are coincidentally useful in removing fuel. The cleared areas are snake prevention and grazing horses for recreation and coincidentally useful in reducing fuel. The fire-resistant species are completely accidental - I was dumbfounded to find that a species I planted close to the house because it grew well on our soil, was the right height, had a pleasant habit and soft leaves, turned out to be fire-resistant!
Your thesis was wrong. You might have introduced even more comprehensive proof of fire-planting and they would all have been wrong - yet, the thesis was compelling and not 'wrong' in any sense we consider erroneous. Only privileged information can strike it down. Or further science. The most comprehensive analysis of species across the block would show that several trees stand in positions which create a significant fire risk - most notably a blue gum at the corner of the garage, its fuel falling into gutters on the garage and on the ground in an area difficult to clear, creating a fire hazard.
When it comes to refuting a thesis, only more and more science can get us closer to the truth. Denialist claims, selecting just one item that breaks the thesis, may not be incorrect, as the example above illustrates. But, denial leaves no way forward. Only further theses, all equally breakable, with accompanying laborious, resource hungry science, can bring us closer to the truth.
What evidence could I muster to show that the landscape in which I live has been profoundly affected to nearly 200 years of grazing; endemic cedar and ironbark are completely absent from the landscape? What small detail could a denialist bring to show that my thesis of profound change is unfounded? Seasons have varied greatly lately, and this suggest that predicting the climate in this place over the last 200 years might be impossible, therefore making my thesis about degradation by grazing as likely as degradation by natural attrition.
Upon discovering the bones of a Diprotodon close by, a herbivore that could not be supported in a landscape so heavily wooded, could I conclude that human habitation and practices, most likely fire-stick farming by Aborigines, was responsible for a previous dramatic transformation of the botanical landscape from savannah to fire-adapted forests? Could a denialist bring evidence that humans co-existed with Diprotodons for a long time in some places as the 'chink in the armour' of this thesis?
As Andrew Bolt, that arch-denialist, adequately demonstrates in his blogs, the fine art of denial is to find one single item that throws doubt on the thesis and then let your audience's natural scepticism or self-affirming beliefs do the rest. After all, who is going to resource the science needed to support a revised thesis? And how easy it will be to find yet another vulnerable point! And how easy it is to see that, given all the right conditions, that denial could be just the right level of analysis needed to plunge an unsubstantiated thesis into oblivion, the only 'moral' path to take, in the service of us all!
In the US, science denial continues unabated. A court case was needed to establish that ID was not science and that its objections to evolution did not constitute grounds for teaching an alternative view or break evolution as a thesis. Perhaps, in the face of denialism generally, we need a Court of Scientific Integrity, established specifically to examine all claims to truth according to a standard of 'reasonable probability' based on the evidence available presented by advocates and experts.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Why Islam isn't a religion of peace
I have viewed recently the debate, Islam is a religion of peace at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGvMo47pw7Q
The late great Christopher Hitchens and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, two men I admire greatly, shared more than a massive intellect. They both believed that it was moral and right, by whatever means, to rid the world of dictators. It is a motherhood concept with which few would disagree. We all like to see the downtrodden get revenge on the bullies. Hitchens probably got his mindset from days at boarding school - Bonhoeffer was immersed in a sea of power plays in both his theological and day-to-day life.
But the rather disappointing element of the Hitchens and Bonhoeffer thesis, shared with that most articulate and compelling Islamic critic, Ayaan Hirsi Ali , is the disregard for the history that underpins the rise of dictators to power. There is something almost deliberately delusional about ascribing evil to a dictator, conveniently ignoring the mass of factors that sweep a dictator to power.
If you choose to see the Holocaust as the end game of a demented mind, then the answer obviously is to rid the world of demented minds. Much more difficult and complex, however, is deep analysis of what conditions prevailed that made that demented mind so attractive to a nation so noted for its depth of culture and thought. Did the fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire by Protestantism create such disunity amongst Germans that any unifying force, no matter how sinister, was welcomed? Did the oppression of a newly unified German by wounded superpowers create such resentment by the 'underdogs' that the invasion by extreme ideology was only a matter of time, not personality?
As an historian, I cannot respect the two-dimensional views of events as simply driven by personality. It is both too glib and too convenient. But far more dangerously, it forgives the masses of their crimes of collusion. In the fervour to rid Libya of Gaddafi, we lost the clarity of perspective that would lead us to conclude that Gaddafi was a rather loose cannon in the armoury of European and US foreign policy, courted when convenient, vilified at leisure. We also ignore the decades of collusion by the population of Libya in accepting him. Why didn't this Arab spring emerge two decades earlier? What kept people quiet?
And, in the West, we still tolerate the fascism of Saudi Arabia - or rather we turn that blind eye, that eye so very useful in absolving our guilt.
A close look at Islam and Mohammed tells a story that is neither extraordinary nor exceptional. Rejected amongst his own, Mohammed finds a ready audience for his religious fervour in a place where religious turmoil was hardly foreign. His personal quest to revenge the rejection he suffered in Mecca almost certainly complemented the political imperative of Medina to challenge the dominance of Mecca.
A sour zealot gets much too much traction for his ideas and rides the back of an unlikely military victory to notoriety. Such is the accidental nature of history. An almost failed assassination attempt by an obscure Serbian, accidentally successful, on an insignificant European aristocrat lights a fire in Europe which burns beyond any of the intentions of the assassin. In what sense can we attribute the cause of the fire to the match when the heat-wave and the mountain of fuel are so obvious?
If the unifying effect of Islam first on the Caliphate and later on arguably the most successful Empire of Europe - the Ottoman Empire - is down to one man, one book and one God, then its time for historians to close down their university faculties and go work at MacDonalds. If religion does more than simply post-rationalise ideologies that rise out of the ashes of failed power, then we really are doomed, because an American president, when things get really bad in the US, really will press the button to annihilate those whom God rejects.
It really is time we stepped out from behind the mantel of personality and religion based schemes of guilt and recognised the inherent propensity of us all to follow blindly the dictators, whatever they may be. There is no less compulsion in profligate capitalism, where a bank or country can be too big to fail, to serve a master than in the dark streets of Islamic Iran.
There is no religion of peace. Peace is that period when hawkish forces do not dominate. No religion creates this, just as no religion drives people to hostilities or atrocities. Only the human inclinations towards contentment or domination drive peace or violence, via the complex machinations of power structures. The whole "religion is the author of ..." thesis is fundamentally flawed and we should, frankly, "get over it".
You can quote as many Qu'ran verses as you like, make as many claims on Mohammed as you like and give as many facts about the actions of Islamist as you like, but in the end you are colluding with those who build elaborate smoke screens for human nature. No God, Bible or dogma makes you act either peacefully or violently - these are choices made from complex social and neural impulse and imperatives which we are still struggling to understand.
The late great Christopher Hitchens and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, two men I admire greatly, shared more than a massive intellect. They both believed that it was moral and right, by whatever means, to rid the world of dictators. It is a motherhood concept with which few would disagree. We all like to see the downtrodden get revenge on the bullies. Hitchens probably got his mindset from days at boarding school - Bonhoeffer was immersed in a sea of power plays in both his theological and day-to-day life.
But the rather disappointing element of the Hitchens and Bonhoeffer thesis, shared with that most articulate and compelling Islamic critic, Ayaan Hirsi Ali , is the disregard for the history that underpins the rise of dictators to power. There is something almost deliberately delusional about ascribing evil to a dictator, conveniently ignoring the mass of factors that sweep a dictator to power.
If you choose to see the Holocaust as the end game of a demented mind, then the answer obviously is to rid the world of demented minds. Much more difficult and complex, however, is deep analysis of what conditions prevailed that made that demented mind so attractive to a nation so noted for its depth of culture and thought. Did the fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire by Protestantism create such disunity amongst Germans that any unifying force, no matter how sinister, was welcomed? Did the oppression of a newly unified German by wounded superpowers create such resentment by the 'underdogs' that the invasion by extreme ideology was only a matter of time, not personality?
As an historian, I cannot respect the two-dimensional views of events as simply driven by personality. It is both too glib and too convenient. But far more dangerously, it forgives the masses of their crimes of collusion. In the fervour to rid Libya of Gaddafi, we lost the clarity of perspective that would lead us to conclude that Gaddafi was a rather loose cannon in the armoury of European and US foreign policy, courted when convenient, vilified at leisure. We also ignore the decades of collusion by the population of Libya in accepting him. Why didn't this Arab spring emerge two decades earlier? What kept people quiet?
And, in the West, we still tolerate the fascism of Saudi Arabia - or rather we turn that blind eye, that eye so very useful in absolving our guilt.
A close look at Islam and Mohammed tells a story that is neither extraordinary nor exceptional. Rejected amongst his own, Mohammed finds a ready audience for his religious fervour in a place where religious turmoil was hardly foreign. His personal quest to revenge the rejection he suffered in Mecca almost certainly complemented the political imperative of Medina to challenge the dominance of Mecca.
A sour zealot gets much too much traction for his ideas and rides the back of an unlikely military victory to notoriety. Such is the accidental nature of history. An almost failed assassination attempt by an obscure Serbian, accidentally successful, on an insignificant European aristocrat lights a fire in Europe which burns beyond any of the intentions of the assassin. In what sense can we attribute the cause of the fire to the match when the heat-wave and the mountain of fuel are so obvious?
If the unifying effect of Islam first on the Caliphate and later on arguably the most successful Empire of Europe - the Ottoman Empire - is down to one man, one book and one God, then its time for historians to close down their university faculties and go work at MacDonalds. If religion does more than simply post-rationalise ideologies that rise out of the ashes of failed power, then we really are doomed, because an American president, when things get really bad in the US, really will press the button to annihilate those whom God rejects.
It really is time we stepped out from behind the mantel of personality and religion based schemes of guilt and recognised the inherent propensity of us all to follow blindly the dictators, whatever they may be. There is no less compulsion in profligate capitalism, where a bank or country can be too big to fail, to serve a master than in the dark streets of Islamic Iran.
There is no religion of peace. Peace is that period when hawkish forces do not dominate. No religion creates this, just as no religion drives people to hostilities or atrocities. Only the human inclinations towards contentment or domination drive peace or violence, via the complex machinations of power structures. The whole "religion is the author of ..." thesis is fundamentally flawed and we should, frankly, "get over it".
You can quote as many Qu'ran verses as you like, make as many claims on Mohammed as you like and give as many facts about the actions of Islamist as you like, but in the end you are colluding with those who build elaborate smoke screens for human nature. No God, Bible or dogma makes you act either peacefully or violently - these are choices made from complex social and neural impulse and imperatives which we are still struggling to understand.
Real meanings of Christmas
In response to the The True Meaning of Christmas
It is something pitiable and sad in Christianity today that it cannot appreciate the 2 000 000 year old traditions of human consciousness, the real meaning (of anything, including Christmas) for themselves and all humankind, and that Christian continue to narrow their world until it is unrecognisable beyond their own mind.
The Gospels demonstrate how the (real) followers of this charismatic teacher are happy to form Jesus in their own image, as does Paul and then eventually Constantine through to Calvin. Each iteration, while demonstrating precisely that religion, like all cultural phenomena, is whatever you construct it as and has nothing to do with objective truth, at the same time proposes a more exclusive club or set of rules and mores to which one must subscribe; eventually at the end of a sword, stone or baton.
The whole 'keep Christ in Christmas' movement is so much self-righteous slop, arguing only for 'my exclusive version of God or salvation'.
Far more interesting than 'real' meanings for Christmas foisted upon us by fundamentalism is the reality of how quickly Christianity and Islam were able to spread, mostly without the need of a sword (which came afterwards) and become a veneer over local tradition. It demonstrates an inherent human tendency to favour unity over dissent or a single universal theory over fragmented ones or a single monarch, no matter how unpopular, over a bunch of nobles.
China was stronger under a single Emperor, the United Kingdoms were more influential united and the US graphically illustrates that even unity steeped in the blood of brother and cousin brings prosperity like no other political imperative.
Just as curious in religion is the tendency for sheep like behaviour - the shepherd metaphor in Christianity, which should be derisive, since it seems to indicate little brain power to assert ones own thoughts, but instead is fostered - is none the less true. The iPod, iPhone, iSteve phenomena indicates another of our human attributes - that herd mentality. Yet this mentality can also lead the masses to overthrow a dictator. This, surely, is more interesting than whether you put an 'X' or 'Christ' in Christmas.
If there's a any message in Christmas its that we can be strong in unity while still appreciating our diversity.
It is something pitiable and sad in Christianity today that it cannot appreciate the 2 000 000 year old traditions of human consciousness, the real meaning (of anything, including Christmas) for themselves and all humankind, and that Christian continue to narrow their world until it is unrecognisable beyond their own mind.
The Gospels demonstrate how the (real) followers of this charismatic teacher are happy to form Jesus in their own image, as does Paul and then eventually Constantine through to Calvin. Each iteration, while demonstrating precisely that religion, like all cultural phenomena, is whatever you construct it as and has nothing to do with objective truth, at the same time proposes a more exclusive club or set of rules and mores to which one must subscribe; eventually at the end of a sword, stone or baton.
The whole 'keep Christ in Christmas' movement is so much self-righteous slop, arguing only for 'my exclusive version of God or salvation'.
Far more interesting than 'real' meanings for Christmas foisted upon us by fundamentalism is the reality of how quickly Christianity and Islam were able to spread, mostly without the need of a sword (which came afterwards) and become a veneer over local tradition. It demonstrates an inherent human tendency to favour unity over dissent or a single universal theory over fragmented ones or a single monarch, no matter how unpopular, over a bunch of nobles.
China was stronger under a single Emperor, the United Kingdoms were more influential united and the US graphically illustrates that even unity steeped in the blood of brother and cousin brings prosperity like no other political imperative.
Just as curious in religion is the tendency for sheep like behaviour - the shepherd metaphor in Christianity, which should be derisive, since it seems to indicate little brain power to assert ones own thoughts, but instead is fostered - is none the less true. The iPod, iPhone, iSteve phenomena indicates another of our human attributes - that herd mentality. Yet this mentality can also lead the masses to overthrow a dictator. This, surely, is more interesting than whether you put an 'X' or 'Christ' in Christmas.
If there's a any message in Christmas its that we can be strong in unity while still appreciating our diversity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)