| home |
WiC discussion on ‘Secularism, Ethics and Morality’19/8/05 (see below 14/8/05, 11/8/05, see also refs. on ‘ethics’) There is a useful difference between the way the words ‘morality’ and ‘ethics’ are used and understood. The idea of ‘morality’ presumes some transcendent ‘good/bad’ and ‘right/wrong’ from which is derived a set of principles to guide human conduct. The transcendence implies a belief system, which can include that of orthodox science whose practitioners pretend to be ‘above’ morality, but actually believe: ‘good’ is freedom to experiment and invent regardless of consequences, and ‘bad’ is anyone/anything getting in the way of that. Advocates of science also assert that ‘right’ is ‘the universe is a machine’, ‘wrong’ is all ‘alternative’ conceptions about how the world lives and evolves, and any notion of mystery. ‘Ethics’ is more about the theory and rules behind moral conduct, and so can be rethought on a new pragmatic basis. In permaculture we have the ethics of ‘earth care’, ‘people care’ and ‘fair shares’, in that order because humans have degraded and squandered planetary ‘resources’ for the last 10K years, and especially over the last 300, so we’ve got to give remaining wilderness conservation and land regeneration priority, and find ways of living sustainably – as well as more richly in terms of health, work and community. I’ve suffered from disabling ‘death dread’ for much of my life, due to an atheist father telling me the stark facts of death when I was eight years old and my beloved grandfather died. I rather envy and sympathise with people with at least a religious fallback as insurance against fear of oblivion. Some atheists insulate themselves from death dread by feeling superior towards the superstitious ‘silliness’ of others. I feel we should just let people be on that one. But religion and all that should be kept away from politics, whether from the business of existing nation states or from discussions on the basis of future socialist decision making procedures. That is why I raised the concern of secularism currently being undermined in the US, India and elsewhere. Beware epistemic violence; dangerous things, words. Consider ‘materialism’ and ‘science’. John M Allegro was the only atheist in the team translating the Dead Sea Scrolls. Later he wrote a ‘blasphemous’ book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, setting out the philological underpinnings of his theory that Christianity, other ‘religions of the Book’ and Classical mythology, derive from an ancient fertility cult originating 10,000 years BP in the fertile crescent of the Near East. What is interesting for our present discussion is that these beliefs and practices were originally useful (‘materialist’), given their role in sustaining economies based on settled agriculture. Science is similar. Deriving from the Age of Enlightenment, Bacon’s experimental method, controlled manipulations of nature, later Newton’s laws of motion, later still Justus von Liebig’s NPK fertiliser – all that relied ideologically on the idea that nature doesn’t have needs or feelings ‘like ours’. [Vandana Shiva’s Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development is good on the science/exploitation connection.] (Incidentally, the same idea was necessary to Slavery: it was claimed that the negro was like an animal & supposed not to have feelings ‘like ours’; only short term memory…) This materialist, mechanistic science ideology (‘scientism’) suits capitalism beautifully: fine to exploit nature, destroy forests, establish land-degrading monocultures, pollute even human habitat (muck is brass) because it’s all just matter, no needs or feelings ‘like ours’. And in common usage ‘science’ still usually refers to the empirical method, the cogs, ballistics, test tubes, all the hard paraphernalia; it’s less comfortable with relativity, quantum theory, the involvement of the experimenter in the outcome etc. let alone Goethean science, Sheldrake’s morphic fields, Bohm’s implicate order, or any other non-mechanistic model of how the world lives and evolves (rather than ‘works’). Ecology can be OK science as long as it’s statistical: counting bugs in a meter square. Stuff like chaos theory and some of the new science has been tamed by bringing in mathematical modelling: replicate it on computer and it’s orthodox. And so it goes… Interestingly, science and religion are quite comfortable bedfellows: remember the ghost is in a machine. ‘Science’ has (had?) such a respectable reputation that everyone wants to cuddle up to it: Christian science, indigenous science, Scientology. Some permies like to say permaculture is a science. Usually they prefer to focus on design. Maybe that’s what Bush means when he says ‘Intelligent Design’ should be taught in schools – I don’t think so. Anyway, ‘science’ has ceased to be a term of approval for me, as a socialist (and atheist with a maths & science background). I now tend to call it scientism. As for materialism, I prefer pragmatism – still an ism but hopefully with less baggage. Hi Byron and Arminius and others, Your replies actually point back to the concern I was trying to articulate. You focus on what people should believe - what is 'scientific' - even citing agnosticism buys into that. I was trying to say that what matters is not personal belief but the ethical basis of community or society, which comes before/over the business of politics and administration. Secularism means that this ethics is dissociated from belief of any kind, whether in some supernatural force or being or in some scientific, provable 'truth'. Secularism means basing society on agreed standards of proper and appropriate conduct, based on expediency really, not on some supposedly transcendent good/bad right/wrong. If we work that out - or agree that, come socialism (whatever that turns out to be), groups of people will have to meet to agree on this secular basis - it really will not matter what mix of personal belief, myths etc. individuals who join a community may have. Permaculture's ethics of 'earth care, people care and fair shares' has that overarching, secular quality, I think. But I admit that that is vulnerable to interference by people who insist on interpreting it in terms of 'spirituality' and all that. But people who insist on scientism or atheism or even agnosticism to avoid religion/spirituality messing things up are just as dangerous, aren't they?, which is where socialists are mistaken, I think. love, Chris --- In worldincommon@yahoogroups.com, "arminius@i..." <arminius@i...> wrote: I went to a packed multi-faith meeting yesterday organised through Exeter Mosque. The motive was to counter a rash of insults against people who ‘looked Moslem’ following the London bombing incidents. I say ‘multi-faith meeting’ because religion was the major focus, with readings from the Koran, a prayer by a local Christian clergyman – after which a Jewish woman in the audience asked to be allowed to sing a Hebrew prayer. There were loads of contributions from: a young veiled Moslem mother whose early experience as a bride arriving in a strange country were positive but gets hostile looks now, a black woman involved in addressing racial prejudice in Devon/Cornwall, the local MP, a local Councillor/ ex-lord mayor (citing anti-Catholic prejudice), a County Councillor, a senior police officer: all talking about unity, coming together, communication. It was a good meeting, the organiser and speakers obviously feeling very happy about it all. I had gone because of concern at the anti-Moslem backlash. But I also felt uncomfortable, not just because of the stifling atmosphere – no air-conditioning – but as an atheist, I felt like an intruder and excluded. The last official contributor sang to his guitar and then got everyone singing a Woodcraft Folk round – at last, I felt, something secular, and speaking to him afterwards, that was deliberate on his part. At the end 10 minutes were offered for contributions from the floor. Only one person took up the offer, and she spoke up for ‘Americans, atheists and trade unionists’: not all Americans support Bush, atheists have morals and principles too and could feel excluded by the emphasis on religion, and TUs have long had slogans about unity. I was very grateful to her. But – and this is why I’m bringing this to WiC discussions – there is a concern here beyond religious tolerance, which isn’t enough, so much so that it becomes a problem. Secularism matters. Gandhi, himself a deeply spiritual person, believed not just in religious tolerance, but in secularism, in having a secular state. India has lost this to Hindu extremism. America is losing its secular state to Christian fundamentalism. Our government is encouraging faith schools, teaching creationism is creeping in via city academies. Having said this, a reaction in the direction of scientism and anti-religion is not good either, it becomes another form of sectarianism. Also atheism at state level doesn’t have a good record with respect to human rights. And ‘spirituality’ at a personal level – the Gaia thing, paganism, Re-evaluation Counselling and other ‘personal growth’ sectarianism – can be dangerous too. I know we’ve had discussions about religious belief before, and I don’t want to set that ball rolling again. But if we’re working towards a ‘world in common’, we need a position on this. What is secularism? How are its ethics defined and pursued? If – post ‘oil peak’ necessitating energy descent and ‘an age of working with the grain of nature’ (Tim Smith on Devout Sceptics this morning) – the future is to be a network of local economies, how can/ need they be secular? By the way, Common Voice Issue 3 is nearly finished – watch this space! love, Chris PS 24/8/05 Common Voice Issue 3 is finished. |