Debatephobia: It's not just politicians

Jamaica is gearing up for its next general elections, where potentially a new prime minister could take office in exactly four days, and absolutely no national political debates will take place. Not between the current prime minister and leader of the opposition, nor between candidates vying for the crucial role of minister of finance; no debate will take place. The story behind such a state of affairs is one almost too bizarre to merit a lengthy discussion here - suffice to say that Prime Minister Simpson-Miller never had any talent for political debates and happily found an excuse to avoid this one when Opposition Leader Holness called her a "con artist." This, notwithstanding the fact that the political debates aren't really designed for the candidates to interact with each other, but instead to field questions from a panel of interested members drawn from the corporate sector, civil society, youth leaders, and the general public. Alas, the prime minister has been stricken by a severe case of debate-phobia; much like that which affects the highly religious from time to time.

The Yardie Skeptics have encountered our fair share of religiophiles afflicted with debate-phobia, some terminally so. And ironically it is those one would least expect to shy away from a debate; the formally trained theologians, the celebrity Jesus freaks, and the social media spokespersons for heaven. For every one Christian who steps up to dialogue with the Yardie Skeptics, no less than five have turned us down for no other reason than an aversion to honest debate. The excuses generally come in one of three flavours: a) the previously vocal holy roller suddenly realizes they need "expert" training to debate their own views, b) debates are a waste of time and an inefficient medium to challenge ideas, or c) the Yardie Skeptics are irredeemable heathens who should simply repent and stop interfering with the "anointed." In truth, the reason for debate-phobia is much more simple; cowardice. A cowardice which comes from the recognition that, at the core, your talking points would never hold up to serious scrutiny. And this is what debatephobic pastors and politicians tend to have in common.

At the very least, no one should be shocked that such a reality would occur right before the general elections in Jamaica. The two major political parties have both had their turn at ignoring essentials of the democratic process, whether it be free and fair elections or a commitment to accountability. Moreover, Jamaica has never had a tradition of throwing ideas into the arena to allow them to duel to the death and the sound ones emerging the victor. Political allegiance, much like religious devotion, has always been about tradition, emotions and insecurity. Just as how children are indoctrinated into the religion of the household, so too do they become indoctrinated into the political allegiance of said household. And the religion and the political party are passed down between generations, not because they've passed any litmus test for legitimacy but because that is how it has always been.

And because it "feels" right.

Religion has a knack for encapsulating its adherents in a psychological safety blanket. Devout behaviour in the form of church attendance and tithes are rewarded by the psychological reassurance of being beamed up into paradise at the end of days. Politics is no different; both political parties in Jamaica are buoyed along on the backs of zombie like devotees who will surrender their livelihood, and even their lives, for the political spoils whether real or imagined. It's no accident that politics and religion are so intertwined in Jamaica, to the point where political leaders have been given the names of biblical figures like "Moses" or "Joshua." Just recently the prime minister held the election date hostage until she received a divine touch from her "master" and candidates from both parties have often beseeched divine intervention when fresh ideas are short. In essence, Jamaican religious expression prepares one for their political expression later in life - a near complete surrender to a saviour, whether in heaven or in parliament, who will see to the deliverance of the faithful. Why even bother with a debate?

Politicians and pastors are fully aware they have very little to gain from participating in debates. Just recently I saw this statement in a Facebook post on my timeline:

"Mi navel string cut from PNP, nuh matter what nobody can change me." (my emphasis)

This statement comes from a university educated individual, from that tiny sector in Jamaica referred to as the "articulate minority." That group which, presumably, would be most interested in hearing what candidates have to say in the context of a debate. But what we instead see here is a defiant oath to loyalty regardless of what the light of reason might show. In Jamaica, political allegiance, like religious piety, is a deck of cards, surround by a glass house, built on shifting sand - as fragile as it is insecure. Debates only serve to reinforce positions of bias at best, or cause mental meltdowns at worst. You afterall can't use reason to change a stance which wasn't arrived at via reason in the first place. For the vast majority of Jamaicans, it is a seamless transition from the birth canal to the baptismal pool, and the transition into political allegiance tends to be just as seamless. Questioning this paradigm can result in social reprimand, family disavowal, or sadly, even death. Those being called upon to debate need not worry since the content of debates has little to no impact on the "faithful."

It is the small fraction who are undecided, but willing to commit, which will be left out in the cold by the absence of a national debate. For them, they will simply have to flip a coin and cast their ballot or skip the entire process altogether. And who can blame them? If there is no forum for the ventilation and scrutiny of ideas, whether for political or religious issues, then allegiance can only come via blind faith. For the discerning among us, this is untenable. For the legion of sheep, let the church say "Amen!"


-Cool Dude.

On True Sacrifice

Over the past few days, I've been engaged in several discussions with theists on the subject of Easter and the story of Jesus' sacrifice which, as most would argue, was the most significant event in the history of Christianity (notwithstanding the fact that the Gospels make a holy mess of corroborating the details surrounding the event). Unlike Christmas, the other big Christian celebration, Easter tends to be decidedly more sombre, as well as generally less commercialized, and is usually treated as a time of quiet reflection as opposed to joyous celebration (notwithstanding the fact that Jamaica Carnival - a hit with local Christians - actually occurs around this time). But just like Christmas, any attempt at interrogating the tenets on which the holy day was founded tend to be met reactions which range from dismissal to outright rage. Such was my experience when I questioned the authenticity of Jesus' alleged "sacrifice."

Incidentally, what sparked my online discussions was a question from a Christian, one not uncommon around this time of year - "Why did Jesus have to die?" A simple and honest question, one which I imagine any well thinking Christian would've asked upon first introduction to the horrific and macabre episode which is the crucifixion. As the Bible shows, Jesus' sacrifice follows a long line of blood sacrifice practised in Hebrew mythology for atonement from sin - whenever you incurred the wrath of the Hebrew god Yahweh, an animal (or humans a few times apparently) had to be sacrificed to appease his anger. In Christian mythology, Jesus represents the last sacrifice; a pure "lamb" lead to the slaughter for the remission of the sins of all mankind, everywhere, forever more. The whole foundation of Christianity is hinged on this death - asking why it had to happen cuts right through to core of the belief system. The answers tend to be well rehearsed platitudes regurgitated from Sunday school lessons - "he did it because he loves us so much", "there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood", "sin is so awful that a life had to be sacrificed on our behalf" and so on ad infinitum. From where I stand however, no sacrifice took place.

Assuming we are using the standard definition of sacrifice - which is to give something up to gain something else - what exactly did Jesus lose? We know it was not his life. The story indicates that Jesus went into his own crucifixion knowing full well that he would "die" on Friday evening but be up and about in time for Sunday brunch. Additionally, if we accept Catholic dogma, there was no break in the continuity of his life - he went from the cross, to the underworld to preach up a storm, back up to the surface to say goodbye, then flew off into heaven. So, technically speaking, Jesus did not sacrifice his life - he appears to have sacrificed a couple days on planet earth. And, how genuine could such a sacrifice be anyway when you are fully aware, without a shred of doubt, that what you lament about giving up will be returned to you after two sundowns. You cannot claim to have sacrificed a thing, but yet it still remains firmly in your possession. Jesus gave nothing up.

So why then did Jesus have to die? My alternate explanation is that this is just how the most enduring hero epics are written - the hero dies a martyr. What better way to accomplish the following:

1. Adding instant credibility (if not outright vindication) to your cause - your life, after all, is no easy thing to gamble with. A hero however sacrifices their life since the cause is more valuable than the life of any one person, including the hero. 
2. If there was any doubt among followers about the authenticity of the hero, martyrdom removes it. 
3. Related to the point above, followers are now imbued with the necessary confidence and certitude to carry the cause through to completion. Indeed, many heroes have accomplished more by their death than they could've ever accomplished in ten life times. 

Who could deny the appeal of such a story? Which believer would not be stirred to action by such a brave act? The "Passion" story, like several other hero epics before it, all follow the same general melodramatic template - a tumultuous adventure filled with conflict and strife, culminates in a climatic finale where the hero of the story must forfeit their life for the greater good of the cause.  It is literary gold, even if historically it never actually happened. Such appears to be the case with the Easter story - a sacrifice which never was, for a cause which, at present, seems to be in decline. 

Cool Dude. 

Unabridged version of guest column that appeared in the Sunday Gleaner of April 20, 2014 [http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140420/focus/focus7.html]  in response to Ian Boyne's column of April 13, 2014 [http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140413/focus/focus2.html]

Onward Boynean straw men marching as to war

In a column entitled Why Science Is Not God, my friend Ian Boyne generates a storm of sophistry to blow down the straw men of “scientism” and the hubris of “scientistic atheists”.    This storm is powered by Ian’s theology that science and faith are both equally valid epistemologies and that there is no warrant for granting monopoly status to the former, to the exclusion of the latter.  For Ian, science and reason have epistemological limits that can only be remedied by resort to the epistemology of Christian deism.

 Ian thus relies on a classic god-of-the gaps theology to proclaim, inter alia, that:

(a) science is not the only measure of truth; and that gaps in science (such as the origin of life) can be filled by theistic explanations; 

(b) there are truths that reside outside of the purview or detection of science;

(c) science is incapable of proving things like objective moral values; and

(d) that a “fine-tuned” universe is evidence of godly provenance.

At heart of the matter is a battle over epistemology – what do we know, how do we know it.  Any epistemology that’s worth its salt must be able to demonstrate some fundamental properties, including the capacity to distinguish between truth and falsity.  As George Smith pointed out more than 40 years ago, for a proposition to earn the status of truth, it must be capable of being justified by evidence.  The proposition must also be internally consistent and be capable of being integrated into previously existing knowledge. Knowledge requires the twin processes of acquisition and verification; which, in turn, demand the application of reason (as opposed to faith).  Epistemology, as a branch of philosophy is, to my way of thinking, committed to the discovery of truth, and is not, nor can it be rationally concerned with defending a particular set of beliefs.   Of necessity this excludes theism as a valid epistemology, despite Ian’s contention that it is “philosophically robust”.   It’s worth noting that one of the major epistemological disqualifications of theism is its incapacity to distinguish between fact and fiction, a disability that is not shared by science.    In its arrogance, theism tends to regard itself as above the conventional probative requirements demanded of non-religious, scientific hypotheses.

Science is epistemology in action. Unlike theism it does not rely on revelation and faith to ground its findings, but uses the tools of observation, reason to systematically interrogate and map nature/reality in all its dimensions, including the dimension of moral values.  Science, unlike religion, operates on the principle of falsifiability, with its hypotheses, theories, and laws always being subject to review or repeal if new evidence so warrants.  By comparison, Ian’s “robust philosophy” of theism relies on being manacled, through faith, to un-falsifiable doctrines (such as the Adam and Eve origin of humanity) regardless of whether they’ve been comprehensively debunked by theories such as evolution.   Unlike scientific theories, theism has no explanatory or predictive power; and ultimately, must be dismissed as pseudo-epistemology at best.  In this regard, I like to think of theism as a species of “wishcraft” (to borrow a term from author Linda J. Falkner). 

Based on the foregoing, it is not at all arrogant to consider science as the only legitimate measure of truth; it is certainly far less arrogant than assuming, without evidence, that we humans represent the pinnacle of some deistic creation odyssey completed over seven days.

Ian, like many other theists posits a false dichotomy between science and morality. Despite Ian’s contentions to the contrary, science, in its broad sense, is not divorced from morality; and in key ways, serves to explain it in ways that religion, with its emphasis on divine absolutes, cannot.  As George Smith argues, there is indeed a “science of ethics” based on the proposition that (a) science is concerned with the discovery of, and classification of facts into a coherent, integrated system; and (b) ethics seeks to discover human values, and integrate them into such a system; and (c) that insofar as ethics seeks to discover and systematize factual knowledge of values, it is science.

It’s curious that Ian refers to “objective moral values”, without perhaps realizing that objectivity is one of the defining features of scientific inquiry in general, and the science of ethics in particular.   Ian contends that the inability of science to “prove” moral values reduces morality to a “social construct” or to “an evolutionary adaptive mechanism”.  Well Ian, that’s exactly what moral values are – as explained and understood by the science of ethics, with the help of other sciences, including biology and anthropology.  Non-human animals have also been observed to demonstrate ethical behaviour- seemingly without the supervision of any supernatural policeman.  Having disposed of these preliminary observations, I would argue that the science of ethics can, and does indeed guide us on matters of concern to Ian, including slavery, human trafficking, and the matter of robbing Keiran King of his theatre receipts or his payment for Gleaner columns.

Amusingly, Ian deploys, and at times, distorts the language of science to storm against the “hubris” of science, atheists, and rationality.  Citing Christian apologist William Lane Craig, he contends, “our one known scientifically confirmed universe is “exquisitely, minutely fine-tuned”.   He also implies that the degree of improbability involved in this fine-tuning process evidences some unseen deistic (Christian) creator.    First of all, “fine-tuning” is not a scientific concept – it’s a theological concept that has been desperately engrafted onto science by Christian apologists to shoehorn their god into his biblically ordained role of creator of the universe.   This of course violates Occam’s Razor (the principle of parsimony), which requires the elimination of premises and constructs that cannot be shown to be necessary for explanatory purposes.  

Secondly, “improbability” and “probability” are concepts from science – particularly the discipline of mathematics.   Probability is simply a human (scientific) measure of likelihood of a given event occurring or having occurred.  That measurement can only take place with regard to that which is measureable in the world of nature and reality, and not the wishcraft world of the supernatural.  In any event, where an improbable event has occurred, all that has been established is that an improbable event occurred; it does not establish the cause of such any event, much less establish deistic causality. 

Space does not allow for a detailed review of Ian’s storm of sophistry or to help clear the debris of the straw men left in its wake.  As a parting shot, it seems to me that the Goliath of Ian’s straw men resides in the title of his column ((Why Science Is Not God).  I don’t recall any “scientistic atheist” (like Keiran King) ever claiming the contrary. What has been claimed is that theism is not, nor can it ever be the epistemic peer of reason and science.  It’s as simple as that. 

Hilaire Sobers is an attorney-at-law, and co-host of the social media programmes Skeptically Speaking and Yardie Skeptics.  Email: hilaire.sobers@gmail.com.