DOES REASON MATTER?

Reason, we believe – it’s a matter of faith, of course – is what distinguishes the human species from all others. Or, rather, articulate reason: it’s quite clear from observation that some animals possess and use intelligence, and work things out for themselves by a process of reasoning, but they cannot exchange thoughts with us about it or anything else in a meaningful way, as adult human beings can do.

For centuries there has been an ongoing battle between reason and faith. Religious faith, being grounded in the supernatural – itself a speculative concept – claims human reason as its handmaiden, and always seeks to trump it in any argument. One sometimes feels, in arguing with religious people, that they are convinced they know all the answers: they know them right or they know them wrong, but they KNOW them. Their faith is invincible, so why bother to argue? Does it really matter whether the Earth is flat or globular, or whether prayer actually works? Yes it does; because if people base their actions on false assumptions, awkward consequences are bound to follow - not only for the perpetrators, but also for many others who don’t share their beliefs.

Logical reasoning, which is the basis of scientific method, proceeds by testing the probability of various hypotheses against the available evidence to obtain the best ‘fit’. Reasonable people are prepared to abandon even a cherished hypothesis if this is overtaken by a more convincing one. The upholders of faith are not; they know what they know because they BELIEVE it, sometimes against all the evidence. Evidence is not important to them; only faith is. The faith of many believers is grounded in a Holy Book which they are convinced was written by, or at any rate dictated by, a God. The trouble is, there are many Holy Books to choose from, and how do you know which is the “right” one? Jews have the Torah; Christians have the Bible; Muslims have the Koran; Mormons have the Book of Mormon; Christian Scientists have Mrs Eddy’s outpourings, and Scientologists have the works of L Ron Hubbard. A rich smorgasbord of faith! But according to each, theirs is the only true Word of God and the others are all fakes. A good beginning for harmonious inter-faith relations!

The irony of it is that, while denigrating reason, the religious use ingenious displays of it to bolster their irrational creeds. Their persistent casuistry is quite remarkable. The Pope, for instance, loses no opportunity to denounce the insolent hubris of the Enlightenment, an intellectual project which forms the foundation-stone of Western democracy and technological progress.

And of course, religious people are the first to avail themselves of the wondrous creations of modern science such as the internet, the jet airliner, and life-saving medical drugs. With few exceptions, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, they do not refuse to benefit from the very thought-process which they are constantly denouncing as impious. But where would we be, I wonder, if religion had succeeded in stifling independent scientific thought? Still convinced that the earth is flat and the centre of the universe? [There was, and maybe still is, a Flat Earth Society presided over, I believe - ah, there we go again…- by a Mr Huttle-Glank.] Still travelling by foot, or on horse, camel or mule? [“That person who invented the wheel, impious they were, knew better than God, they did; good thing we put a stop to that by crucifying them! If God had meant us to travel on wheels, He would have built them into the human frame.”] Still relying on witch-doctors and herbal remedies to treat cancer, tuberculosis and malaria? Still burning harmless old women as witches?

Which reminds me, apropos of nothing, of the tale about the hell-fire preacher haranguing his subdued audience about the dismal prospects awaiting them in the nether regions. “And there will be weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth” he yelled. A little old lady in the front row quaveringly piped up: ”But I haven’t got any teeth.” “Make no mistake, Madam”, the preacher retorted, “TEETH WILL BE PROVIDED!”

Creationism is now the religionists’ favourite wheeze for attacking scientific method. It is a hypothesis based entirely upon faith, not evidence, but they want it to be taught in schools as a possible alternative to evolution – a hypothesis with a great deal of evidence to support it which has stood up for 150 years. I have no objection to Creationism being taught in schools, but not as “science”. It should be taught, if at all, as part of religious studies, or to illustrate the crucial differences between faith-based and scientific thinking.

The more religionists succeed in their attack on reason and its proper use, the more the world will descend into a chaotic, strife-ridden mess. It’s time to call a halt to the revolt against reason.

SOCIAL CHALLENGE

The cold-blooded and pointless killing of the lawyer Tom ap Rhys Pryce, whose murderers were given life sentences this week, has forced many people far beyond the circle of those working with actual and potential delinquents to reflect on why there is apparently a growing cult of mindless ‘clockwork orange’ type violence in our society. Tom’s father wrote a moving and compassionate article in “The Times”, saying that he still cannot begin to understand the world of the killers. I’m sure this is true of the vast majority of the ‘comfortable classes’, but the effort has to be made if there is to be any hope of remedying the situation.

A recent research report from the Economic and Social Research Council concluded that street robbers and muggers often carry out their vicious attacks “for kicks.” This is scarcely news for those who remember the rash of ‘happy slapping’ episodes, one of which led to the death of a gay man sitting peaceably on an Embankment seat. Violence on television and in pop culture is routinely blamed. Parental neglect and educational failure are other tabloid targets, as is multicultural Political Correctness which deters social workers and the police from interfering in situations where their intervention might be branded as ‘racist’.

What needs emphasising far more in this discussion, IMHO, is the failure of socialisation – the inculcation into very young children of the awareness that they are not just isolated individuals but also members of society, with rights and also obligations to others. I am an individualist to the uttermost – I abhor the Nanny State and the creeping, nowadays more like cantering, interference by officialdom and self-appointed busybodies in other people’s affairs. I agree with Socrates in Plato’s Republic that justice is about people minding their own business. But part of what each individual needs to understand is that a duty of care and concern for others and their welfare is an important part of one’s own business.

Blair blathers on about ‘education, education, education’ – which he absurdly seems to believe will be well served by divisive ‘faith schools’ [who will ultimately decide what is taught in them, I wonder?]. Any education will be useless without the essential groundwork. There are, in my view, only two essential ideas that should be inculcated into every child. The first is what I call the “Shylock principle”, after the famous speech in the Merchant of Venice – that epic of inter-racial and inter-faith hatred – where he says :”Hath not a Jew eyes?.....If you prick us, do we not bleed?.....and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” In other words, whatever race, creed, or country someone else belongs to, they are as REAL as I am.

The second is the negative version of the Golden Rule – never do to anyone else what they would not want to have done to them [heeding Bernard Shaw’s warning that their tastes and yours might differ].

We live in an increasingly angry, frightened and divided society. This grim reality is not going to be magicked away by government spins and media soundbites. David Cameron adjures us to “hug a hoodie”, but I very much doubt whether he is actually going to personally befriend Tom ap Rhys Price’s murderers during and after their imprisonment, as the late Lord Longford did to the Moors murderess Myra Hyndley, and got heartily sneered and jeered at for his pains.

Nor must we take refuge in pious platitudes about ‘original sin’. Every human being is a complex mixture of good and bad impulses. But I am not one of those who believe that some are ‘irredeemably evil’, and can therefore be written off and mis-treated with a good conscience by the rest of us.

Tough love by all means. But it has to be firmly grounded in realism – and suitable action.