All of our ancestors down through the eons of time have lived here on a small seemingly insignificant planet drifting aimlessly in the void of space, each of them living out their lives briefly on the surface of this planet, underneath the radiant sun for but a glimpse of cosmic time; totally devoid of realization to the true size of themselves in the universe. Through the eons, slowly but surely creating for themselves from the tools they had available, with the resources they had; cultures of grandiose sizes and eloquence, languages of sparse diversity, religions and myths to explain their origin, philosophy to contemplate their place among the cosmos, science to understand the world around them, art to capture their imagination, and all the things that now make our species what they are, slowly progressing as the planet they stood on slowly drifted aimlessly in the void. We were trapped in a long slumber to the rest of the universe we were. Waking only in recent decades with those same but more advanced tools of our origins, breaking the hold of the planet’s surface, boldly with courage verging into the unknown, into space; we found ourselves staring back at the small spec. It was in this awakening, that we found our true size, being much smaller than we had imagined; many gave a sigh to this realization. The anthropocentrism that long gripped our ancestors, the notion that all of life is for humanity and that he is the be-all-to-end-all; finally was challenged by the realization of the real size of our planet in the universe. Others averted their eyes from the places where they hung their heads and gazed upwards to new heights, to new distances, to new dreams. We have finally done it, finally we have broken free from the cage that has long held us stationary on this drifting planet and have opened the way into the heavens. With space travel and the notion of travelling into the unknown, it has given us humanity hope for the future, we have unleashed the imagination, and it is from the stars we make our dreams fully realised. Stars that had long been the fuel for our ancestor’s imagination, now give us insight as to our real origins, our real place in the cosmos.
Many individuals have emphasised the importance of a cosmic perspective; in 1980 Carl Sagan released to the world his “Cosmos: A personal Voyage” astronomy television series, that captivated individuals into the imagination of space and the future of human exploration. In it was emphasised the choice of life or destruction, many have through the eons chosen life over destruction; and thus we are still here. In our different lands, across our many oceans, we all are in some way apart of this choice. What we did and what we do is important. Valuing each opportunity to do it, takes time and effort, the road may be long and the path rough, but the voyage is not meaningless for it serves a greater purpose to our species, and to the way the future will span out. Whatever the road for you, or for your fellow man, one thing can be said for certain that the universe is a part of you and you apart of it. It sounds surreal, even overwhelming, but when you understand that the atoms in your body can be traced (as a prodgie of carl Sagan’s put it) “To the crucibles that were once the centres of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life.” Then one can realise that when looking out at the night time sky, or looking at the passing worker ants, what they do is as much of importance to life as we do. In our own ways we shine each and every day with unique qualities, we are able to do great things when we put our minds to it; and we may stuff up, we have stuffed up quite a lot, but yet we stand here together, only across separated boundaries made by ourselves. The fault is in our stars, as well as the glory is in our stars (Stephen fry); whatever we make of the life we have, is of us and when it is done our bodies will be broken down and recycled, with the memories of us being left within the people we have touched. Yet before that point we live within the moment, experiencing every good and bad thing that makes life worthwhile. That is what it means to live within reality. The cosmos is open to us as it has always been, but now we are just a little bit closer to reaching what lay beyond our solar system, what may lay beyond our galaxy, and dare one says the universe!
Enjoy the journey of life for what it is; a privilege.
In its most basic and simplest definition anarchism means “without rulers”, the common association of communities free of hierarchy or state rule. Through mutual arrangement (mutualism) and absence of central power, all men have autonomy of their own individual state and over their own interests, in which they exist as a part of a group of individual states working socially together without the need to invoke external overarching central power. Thoughts on anarchism are wide spread but generally Anarchism is divided into two philosophical camps and it is these camps that will later be revisited; the individual and the social. The Individual camp of anarchism known as individual anarchism focuses solely on the liberties, for the interest of the individual against state and social control of others; anti-statism and individualism are two main factors of this camp. Social anarchism focuses instead on the social or “collective state’s” liberties, everyone is to have an obligation to the interest of the community against the state; anti-statism and collectivism are two main factors of these camps. These are the main dividing blocks of anarchist thought and this is where the main contention line will be drawn, as these camps are important in understanding anarchism as a political philosophy. Equally as important when discussing philosophy and politics is the economic elements associated with anarchism which is to be noted, such economic systems that explain how the state will run once achieved and the theory has been put into practice; economic systems of anarcho syndicalism, examples of which are anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism. It is these economic systems that when added with the political philosophy, leads to what we understand anarchism to be. It is good to remember that words such as ‘Anarchy’ are misunderstood, generally considered to mean a temporary state of disorder; in popular television anarchy has been long portrayed as “disorder” or “chaos” this bastardization of the word has been at the forefront of people’s interpretation (to the honesty of myself, this generally had long been my understanding) yet what they do not realise is the word has been butchered by pop-culture and by the misuse of it by naive socialists and pseudo-intellectuals. In some respects the word has “poisoned” people’s perceptions towards anarchism; which means people will write off anarchy as simply disorder, this is why the writer of this paper is going to expressively explain the word in the full hope that people may be enlightened and get a better understanding of what can be called “Anarchist thought’.
Now it has been said Anarchism is the political philosophy that holds to the contention of the state as being immoral, corrupt and contemptible towards its own people. However let it be explained and expressed it promotes the notion that people are better without state control, and thus are better without rulers. At the heart of its philosophy is anti-statism which means that people are generally better off without state intervention or intervention by the government. The state is the organized entity overarching the people, it is the “shackles” that bind the people from reaching their true potential; Mikhail Bakunin (Russian philosopher and collectivist anarchist during the late 19th century) emphasises this sentiment, remarking in his book “Statism and anarchy”(1872) that “If there is a State, there must be domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable – and this is why we are the enemies of the State.”. This lovely quote can almost sum up the opinion of anarchists (not all) to the government. All this can be described as the base for anarchism, now is time to establish its supports.
A “state of anarchy” (a state that is built on the political philosophy of anarchism) before 19th century had only been in the minds of thinkers in the 15th-19th centuries. The first sign of Communities un-officiated by governments and external forces such as rural communities or better known followings (Christian anarchism emphasises the abolishment of human governments as being iconoclastic in nature, corrupt, instead favouring social gatherings and cooperation for theological reasons) had when the state did interfere and impose power on the subjugated people, the natural response was to revolt in violent disorderly means (this is possibly where anarchy comes from in popular thought) was in the sixth century. However only in France did this system of thought be truly introduced and added philosophical merit in the later 18th century, William Godwin (a thinker and French academic) noticed that the people of France during the French revolution used violent means instead of their own common sense and reason to change the system; he noticed that the system was made up of rules and it was these rules that society was based around. People followed these rules, and when the rules did not fit, they rebelled and made their own rules; thus allowing for this vicious cycle of statism to continue. Instead of violent means and more rules, Godwin proposed the abolition of rules for the interest of reason and common cooperation (hence “without rulers”), instead of using violent methods, the people could instead evolve the state in a peaceful manner. He went on to evolve this thought, and can be credited as one of the first modern anarchist thinkers. Proudon (a contemporary of Godwin) is however responsible for creating an element of anarchism; spontaneous order, the notion that organization can come about without the need of a central power orchestrating it “liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order” (Pierre-Joseph Proudon) the individual has the right to protect his own interests. It is this element that created the steardy support in the theory of anarchism. It is in this theory that there occurred a divide between the extent of the individual’s interests and the extent of his mannerism towards the social order he was in.
In itself anarchism is usually divided into two camps, the first being the individual camp and the second being the social camp. Both camps have one thing in common anti-statism, they both are opposed to the government. Yet where they really differ is in attitudes of the individual to the post-state, this is to say his attitudes after the government has been rid of (which will be later expressed). When the individual is his own autonomous state, then generally anything according to his interests are considered by him to be his. Individual anarchism can vary in attitudes to post-state; some may say that their interests can be achieved through their own means; this can mean seizure of others property, resolving issues by means of violence and so on (illegalism and individual reclamation). Other individuals may take mends of prescribing philosophies that do not necessarily go towards the social order, more then it goes to the interests and values of the individual; such as the free expression of love, property, and a form of sharing willingly, however this differs from ideology to ideology. Individual anarchism attracts largely to intellectuals, as it expresses highly the value of using one’s own cognitive faculties, being able to freely express the liberties of the individual both mentally and physically; and in this respects democracy’s only difference is it has an element of statism, one could dare say it be different otherwise. Social anarchism involves the need for the individual to pertain to the collective state; this means in other words the means of production are controlled mutual common ownership within a community, without the interference of centralised power or state warranty. Many social libertarians may hold to such an ideology and the element of capitalism (the means of production in the hands of private companies) is absent, which many anarchists would argue is a good thing (not anarcho-capitalists, more social anarchists). Marxism in some respects plays along the same line of social anarchism, yet in itself it wishes to create classless societies, which in some respects are the intentions of anarchism.
Yet there is a debate between the two, this can be shown with the debate between marx and Bakunin, between Marxism and anarchism; to cut the long story short, both anarchism and Marxism have both themselves means of wishing to attain the perfect socialist utopia. The methods they use are why there was such a debate between the two men in The First International (a hot spot for intellectual discussion in the early to late 19th century). Bakunin differed with Marx, in that he promoted the idea of “revolutionary socialism” the idea that the means of production and private ownership is abolished and instead collective ownership of the means of production be established. Marx wanted to have a proletariat dictatorship, whereas Bakunin instead advocated collective rule through revolution to establish a socialist utopia. At the end of this dispute Bakunin went his separate ways with Marx; this is why Marxism and anarchism have salient similarities because of their thought processes and the means by which they achieve them is the only thing that really differs. This dispute touches on economics, which can be described as the nails used to strengthen the supports.
Anarchism by itself is not sustainable in the long run, achieving a society without order is simply impossible; this is why a system based on ideology and economy is established to order and structure the system (anarchism + Ideology). Now some may critique that such structured systems of community cooperation inevitably lead to government, in some respects that is understandable, as if we were to look through and scower the pages of history we can see that small tribal communities if left to their basic cooperation and mutual cooperation, inevitably organize themselves, eventually leading to some form of organized government. So in what regards does anarchist economics have to give that is different from other forms of economy? Well there is a number of anarchist economic doctrines such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism. Which come as a result of anarcho syndicalism, each has their own means of pertaining either an alternative form of economics to an existing form, or establishing new existing ones separate of state. So taking a look at each is well worth the interest.
Anarcho syndicalism is the method of achieving an alternative system of economy, which wishes to replace an existing capitalist system of economy through the means of the active revolutionary acts of organized trade unions; when organized unions seize industrial centres they can hold a lot of power, and can use this power to influence the economy towards a socialist syndication and can protect itself from the state. In laments words anarcho syndicalism means “industrial takeover”. A good example of anarcho-syndicalism can be seen in 1936 in the region of Catalonia in northern Spain, the industrial heart of Spain. During this time there was a lot of tension between socialist and trade union groups with the national party (the party who had control of the government) in that area; the C.N.T (national confederation of labour) and the F.A.I (Iberian Federation of anarchists) were the main socialist and trade union groups, along with the POUM (General Workers union) they captured the industrial area of Catalonia in what has been called “Revolutionary Catalonia” and created an anarcho-syndicalist state. This meant they cut themselves off from the rest of the country; as a result it started a civil war lasting three years between militia socialist workers from the C.N.T and F.A.I and the catholic nationalist federation that ruled Spain. However the C.N.T and F.A.I were up against great odds as the Spanish National party requested aid from countries such as Italy Germany and even Russia, which only escalated the country into more tension and conflict; well they fought with the nationalist troops in the hill side they also were fighting other socialist groups primarily the POUM within the anarchist state itself. This double front inevitably led to the downfall of the anarchist state, as it was taken over by nationalist troops (primarily because of the heavy munitions from Italian and German suppliers) who themselves were led by General Francisco Franco in 1939. The system of economy that was syndicated for the Catalonian anarchist state was that of Anarcho which called for the common ownership of the means of production and with the people working people. In fact if one had to push the envelope further on this similarity you could say that to achieve an anarcho communist system, you have to use anarcho syndicalism (revolutionary unionism) to achieve this method. The C.N.T and F.A.I can be seen as both an anarcho syndicalist state as well as an anarcho communist state, with this being said it must be noted that anarcho communism focuses very much on the community factor of anarchism, and wishes to synthesis individual anarchism with that of social anarchism. Karl Marx explains the common idea of a anarcho communist state in his “Critique of Gotha Program” (1875)
“In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”
Even though Marx was writing about Communism, anarcho communist proponents works on the line “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” the economic system is grounded on this idea and it is this principle that they believe allows the individual to thrive. If this can be the one end of the extreme economic systems of anarchism, then anarcho capitalism would be the other extreme.
Anarcho capitalism is very different from other forms of traditional anarchism; traditionally anarchists are against capitalism as system of economy and instead focus more on social economic doctrines; some argue that anarcho capitalism is not anarchism at all but instead a mere right wing libertarian economic system (this is the criticisms of others, not the contention of this writer but it has been brought up). However anarcho capitalism is much different in this regard, if one could say its camp of philosophy it would be very much in the individual anarchism camp, as instead of a system made up of the means of production being commonly owned, it instead focuses on the individual’s sovereignty over his own private property, in an open market. This is to say that state would be absent and when the state is absent people will naturally barter with one another to attain goods and services in a voluntary system. This system can be highlighted in the example of a car crash; individuals would usually have to have one another’s insurance companies argue about costs (the middle man) however in an anarcho capitalist system the middle man is cut out instead resolving issues through direct resolution (pay me, I pay you, don’t pay me I break you). It is the synthesis between liberal economics and individual anarchism.
In conclusion what can be said about anarchism? As a system pertaining to the contention that society is better off without government interference; anarchism seeks to dislodge the system by which a state is a part of. The main thought behind anarchism is distinct between that of the individual and that of the social order, and it is among these differences that anarchism truly is realised as a political philosophy. With the supports of economic doctrines such as anarcho communism through anarcho syndicalism and anarcho capitalism to name a few, anarchism seeks to create a society for the people. Governments to anarchists may seem immoral, but not entirely to some such as me. Sure the government can be corrupt at times, even idiotic but what must be remembered is that the government is made up of the people, and the people are not always free of fault. When we take into account the vast times humanity has sought to gain a system that works, it has always in some way gone to fault, and this is entirely because we are evolved mammals with prefrontal lobes too small and adrenal glands too big. We have developed more cognitively meaning that we find better and more efficient ways of organization and centralization. A society without rulers is simply impossible for this reason, but it must not be blown off what anarchism has the potential power to do. Its notions of individual liberties and the individual’s right to pursue his interests are very modest, and something this writer can agree upon, but the long standing of an anarchist state has yet to be realised, and probably for the better, people still need to instead focus on how to make the state better rather than simply removing it from the picture all together. Liberal Democracy may be a crap shoot, but it’s the best crap shoot we have thus far and it would seem to have lasted quite some time already, capitalism is also the best economic system that we have come up with. It is because of democracy that individuals have the rights they do now, and it is indeed the people’s job to maintain what the government can do, if the government should abuse the people; it is the people’s job to remove the powers that be.
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
-Is religion and science compatible? (Is faith compatible with science?)
The notion that religion and science are compatible is simply incorrect, religion and science are not compatible, they both explore means of understanding the world in different lights, religion in a different light to science; both express notions of what is, and both define the world differently (science in the light of evidence, religion in the light of revelations). This creates tension, as religion does interfere in scientific inquiry and science in religiosity. It is this contention as well the conclusion drawn from this that makes the NOMA model proposed by Stephen Jay Gould, simply impossible. It is the interest of this piece to express why this is and to explain the reasons why it is this way. So let us begin.
interesting it is to explore the pages of history especially that of natural history and the subsequent individuals involved in its making. History whose pages express the vast theories and scientific discoveries of the early Greek scientists, the first of the many natural philosophers to take upon a cosmic perspective of the universe, and investigate the physical dimension of reality, as opposed to the yearnings of illusory Images made from those physical entities trapped within it. The philosophers and researchers who mapped out the stars, discovered the atom, how the planets rotated and so on. Natural history is a very interesting subject to do research into; it was in this research that one (such as myself) found well looking up the origins of life, Palaeontologist Stephen jay Gould’s essay titled “NOMA” written in march 1997. It was at best to the reader (such as me) something of a no-show “Is this a pandering to religion?” having read this in 2013, it still makes good taste for discussion. So what better way to share those thoughts then in a piece on the subject matter? As mentioned before the essay was published by Stephen Jay Gould in March 1997 and can be found in “Leonardo’s mountains and the diet of worms” (1998) book (as well as “rock of ages”). At the time of the release of the essay, there was still dormant much less criticism it would seem of evolution and biology by the religious then there is today. In the essay Gould captures this brilliantly with a discussion that he had in 1984 well speaking with Jesuit priests in the Vatican well attaining a meeting on stellar science. He mentions how the Jesuit priests found it hard to believe that there was something as ridiculous as “creation science” or “Intelligent design”, even remarking to Gould that Evolution did not lay doubt in their faith. The essay expands on this discussion and the subsequent investigation of Pope John Paul the 2nd remarks in favour of evolution (1996). Yet the heart of the essay deals with the question “Is faith compatible with science?” (Though not in those words directly), a very interesting question to ask and an even more interesting way Gould answered it. In this essay Gould expresses the argument that religion and science are both mutually compatible with one another, and even essential to complement one another. He summarized this contention in the view that science and religion operated different realms of teaching authority (or “Magisterium” in Latin, plural “Magisteria”) and thus were both compatible and did not come into conflict with one another. This gave rise to the principle of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) that argues both realms do not overlap with one another. The reason for this conclusion rests at the principle that…
“No such conflict should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domains of teaching authority-and these magesteria do not overlap…The net of science covers the empirical universe; what it is made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisterial do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry…“ (Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould, 1997)
NOMA has since then been used as a Segway by both prominent religion and science individuals to express the given neutrality (or alluded) neutrality between the two teaching authorities. Very much to the contention of many this attempted neutrality was been brisked and promoted (however one suspects for different motives then broadly accustomed to; for instance at the time in the USA the “creationist” movement was starting to lay a significant problem to science education, throughout the essay to the rest of the world evolution was a settled thing. Yet in the united states, protestant fundamentalism was gaining traction, so what would be a way to solve this by promoting the example of NOMA that faith and science were compatible, it could work…right?) Later in that same year astronomer and author Carl Sagan took this essay to the Vatican (even the Catholics had no issue with NOMA, given that not too long ago they were the ones burning those who promoted ‘wack’ theories) as (which one can only say) a sign of good “faith” between the two sides. Yet over fifteen years since the paper’s publication (and subsequent republication in the New York Times in 1998) and almost twelve years since the death of Stephen Jay Gould, this principle still raises much discussion and much criticism (as one can imagine if one is really were to put two forces on equal footing). Theologians, cosmologists, astrophysicists, authors, polemicists, rhetoricians and other academic and amateur individuals have expressed either disdain for NOMA or reverence of its notion. For the interest of this piece, the focus will be put on the principle of NOMA and on the subsequent question “Is religious faith compatible with science?” What will be explored is the epistemological conflict that exists between religious faith and scientific inquiry, the metaphysical naturalism that underpins methodological naturalism and the subsequent contrast to that of the theological underpinnings that reside with religious faith, the political ideology surrounding religion, moral argument, with the final verdict being made that religious faith and science both overlap with one another (P1-P4), and thus both magesteria will and in fact, do come into conflict with one another. This is made known beforehand as to provide a structured approach to the NOMA principle and to the question and baggage that it carries whenever it is discussed by contemporaries of either religion or science.
Now one must express at most that the notion that faith (that which will not submit to reason, change, or evidence and instead trust superciliously to the bitter end) is compatible with science (that which uses reason, logic and evidence to explore the reality of the universe, in the means that it is and revising always closer to a better understanding) is simply misleading. There is very much a conflict, and it is between two different means of acquiring knowledge; science on the one hand uses means of investigation of the natural paradigm of existence in order to come to understanding of the world. Knowledge is acquired through justifying one’s beliefs, and this justification for science and for rational individuals’ comes in the form of evidence that goes beyond PBB (proper basic beliefs, common axioms of philosophy), this evidence comes from the natural paradigm of existence. A deeper understanding allows for a deeper knowledge of the world around you, this is what natural philosophy (methodological & metaphysical naturalism) seeks to do. Faith deals with different means of acquiring knowledge this of course is different for every religion, but the general summation usually goes in the tone that some sort of divine revelation permitted by a deity is the means by which knowledge is acquired. Others mandate faith in a deity (ies) as central to acquiring knowledge of the world, this means in most cases believing the ancient writings of nomadic tribesmen, prophets and speakers for faith. The great monotheisms (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) promote the path to knowledge as one of divine revelation, this being through the written testaments of prophets of classical antiquity who had trust and devotion to God(s), who were revealed to them. When one seeks to come to knowledge of the world through two different means, they will conflict with one another, and religion does that with science. Religion claims all answers, or paths to answers through its doctrinal teachings, science seeks to explore the world by the use of the natural sciences to come to knowledge by the justification of beliefs. If one seeks but to believe the word of the leaders as to attain knowledge that most certainly will come into conflict with the epistemic line that knowledge is acquired through inquiry and investigation as opposed to faith and divine revelation. This is but the first point as to why both science and religion are not compatible, and do overlap with their alleged “separate realms of teaching authority”. Yet there is a further note to be raised here, the epistemological conflict that rests with acquiring knowledge from different means (natural philosophy versus theology) is impossible, there is only one means by which to acquire knowledge and that has to do with justification of beliefs and the means by which we do that is through not just empirical means but rational means that all spring from the physical (natural paradigm of existence) realm of inquiry; through an investigation of what is as opposed to what we wish, knowledge can and most emphatically “is” acquired through the means of investigation; something that faith does not permit, as faith is the belief without proof, any definition is but a corruption of this meaning for all people who now use the word “faith” use it as a means of “undying trust” which again raised even more issues. Some of these issues lay in the stark contrast at how these two different realms approach learning. Religion and the notion it rests on which is “faith in God(s)” (speaking about monotheism strictly here, pantheism, and other forms of henotheism and polytheism diverge on different aspects that one could consider not faith but simple equivocation of trust with faith) has a negative view towards learning, anything that is not in benevolence of the deity is “poisonous” to it and thus should not be even approached. The major issue this stirs is confirmation bias, science holds to the notion of peer review and scrutiny; something that is completely opposite to religion! The approach to learning and knowledge from religion goes in direct conflict with the means by which science approaches learning and knowledge; and thus the magisteria overlap.
Science as mentioned already, is natural philosophy, and as so is under the presuppositions of metaphysical naturalism. Now there must be a note here, and that is methodological naturalism uses the means of the natural sciences and the tools of humanity to investigate the natural realm, and in principle is different to metaphysical naturalism which insists that the natural realm is all there is and thus works on specific laws that are unchanged; things such as supernatural entities and the supernatural realm cannot exist, as anything in the natural realm of existence is in reality; as reality is anything that is in existence within the natural. For if the supernatural realm existed with entities capable of amazing feats, then they would have to exist in the realm of nature, and that would then demote them from the status of gods, to normal material entities with abilities explainable to science. For if they existed outside existence, they would not exist at all, so terms such as “non-temporal” are but baseless claims. Methodological naturalism only concerns itself with investigations of the natural realm (that is it). Methodological naturalism however comes from the basis of metaphysical naturalist thought and thus has similar presuppositions 1) The future will be the same as the past 2) the natural laws govern the cosmos and everything within it 3) on the premises of these laws nature can be explored and knowledge of the known universe justified 4) the empirical method is the best means of attaining knowledge of the natural realm (and so on). These presuppositions are both current in methodological and metaphysical naturalism and thus are the basis of science. Religion works differently, it works on theology and the various means by which to secure, protect and validate the faith at the centre of the religion. In monotheism (specifically) Christianity has a religious text, as does Judaism and Islam, all of these texts are professed to be the spoken word of the deity who allegedly created the universe and all within it (through different means and so on). Theology is a means by which the various revelations that the writers of those religious holy text, can be understood in means of allowing a suitable framework for the faiths to have organization leading to active worship and dedication by those faithful. Religion lays origins to the supernatural as opposed to science who lays its origins to the cosmos (the natural), religion wishes to say that the natural arose through means of the supernatural and thus the world can be explained through the supernatural well science wishes to say that life arose from the natural and can be explained through the natural. As one can see both realms are again in conflict. A very good example is expressed in the NOMA document about the discussion that was sparked over the “evolution versus creationism” debate going on in America.
Now the theory of evolution is a well-established scientific process that explains the origin of species and the vast diversity within life, this includes individual organisms, DNA, proteins, molecules and species; a theory stating that organisms (and the all other aforementioned subjects) adapt to environmental pressures thrust upon them by nature actively selecting the best of those organisms to pass adaptation characteristics to other generations over successive generations. Those species thus will have greater chances of reproducing their genes in the gene pool and surviving their environment. Different environments mean different adaptations, and it is these adaptations over time that lead to the vast complexity we have today; random mutation (so far as we know it to be) will occasionally occur with a species giving it certain characteristics that may or not be useful. It is thus all species and all of life holds a common ancestry with one another, a “universal ancestor(s)”. This theory proposed by Alfred Wallace and revolutionized by Charles Darwin is not only factual but has like all good scientific theories the margin of predictability and determination. On the opposite side of the “argument” (not really being a serious danger) is intelligent Design, the simple notion that all of life is too complex and intricate and must therefore have a designer. Both ID and evolution deal with the field that NOMA states science should have dominion over, and it is this point that I raise that religion seeks to impose over science’s ability to accurately explain the natural realm, ID is just another argument thrown out by the religious community to try (and successfully is falling in support) and bring religion into the scientific class room. ID is not science it is pseudo-science, it does not hold to an accurate model of predictability, no explanatory value, no margin for experimentation it is just an assertion based on ignorance, speculation and psychological need and thus is not a valid (in any form) scientific theory.
One more point that needs to be raised is the political ideology that surrounds religion, unlike science which has no dogma (and to all those shouting ‘scientism’, there is simply no such thing, the whole notion of scientism is a philosophical pandering to religious critics who are saw that religion is being denigrated from social sphere of influence and now heading out with astrology, alchemy and all the other means by which our infant species came to first understand the world) as if it did it would not change for anything, unlike religion, science revises itself constantly finding better and more efficient ways of exploring the cosmos. Scientists spend long hours, and constant research that then will be peer reviewed and scrutinized vigorously; to say science is dogmatic is a pandering to religious paranoia. Scientists actively revise their thoughts in light of new evidence, always seeking to follow the evidence where it leads and making sure that what the findings they get are accurate. It is in this light that science (and one will have to repeat for sceptics) holds to no dogma and political ideology. Religion on the other hand holds sternly to the notion of not revising its dogmas, organizing collectively the downward notion that man is the subject to the gods. The purpose of this life (monotheism specifically) is to worship the deity and prepare for the next life, it is thus in this notion that religion holds a very stern (and has held a very stern) notion against progression. It silenced Galileo when he proposes that geocentricism was wrong. It burned those who dare question its dogma, killing individuals who spoke out against the church, imposed itself against the rights of women and the rights against LGBT. It continues to impose itself against the individuals rights, in places such as Iran Homosexuals are hung for committing sodomy, apostates are killed for denouncing Islam, homosexual and lesbian individuals are not allowed their fundamental liberties (in places such as Australia, their still exists excessive bigotry from the liberal government, with their obvious Christian conservatism). Religion holds an active political ideology to instigate control over civil society, and it has shown to do this time and time again. Religion as it stands has no interest in progression, whereas science is interested in progressing knowledge, religion is not, it stands at every single step of the way for scientific inquiry. Its supporters adamantly detest any inquiry as to go against religious dogma and doctrine, always trying to lay claim to scientific revolutions and twisting the light of reality to the illusory images promulgated by religious doctrines.
The final point that will be raised is the issue of NOMA’s principle, Religion is said to have teaching authority over meaning and morality, which Stephen Jay Gould fails to realise that what he instead is instigating is moral philosophy. Science can study human behaviour and morality and meaning have to do with human behaviour so in this aspect science does and can comment on alleged “religious concerns”. Religion is not in complete authority of meaning, science can explain the physical world and what is, but why cannot it comment on the why? Different cultures of religiosity have different meanings; in Buddhism (which is a philosophy and not a religion) reaching a state of Nirvana is considered fulfilment of the individuals’ inner sanctum. In Christianity meaning is found with a faith in God and an active serving of him, this may involve attending church spreading the gospel and preparing for the next life. Religion in these respects is not interested in finding meaning at all! Instead it wants to give you the meaning, science is different. In science the main understanding is to grow a greater understandings of the workings of natural existence, in these respects science wishes to find answers to unanswered questions involving the natural realm. Stephen jay Gould expresses that religion deals with “taking people to heaven” whereas science deals “discovering heaven”. This of course fails to realise that religion in most respects was our first aspect of discovering the world around us, the first ways at which to understand the world. Moral philosophy is different to religion, yes religion will deal in aspects of moral philosophy such as the origins of morality and what is moral. But science can provide means of finding efficient ideas about the true nature of morality, and can document (not yet, still a work in progress) where morality comes from, its use, the ideal system of morality and so on. In this respects Science (science of morality) does come into conflict and does overlap Religions alleged “teaching authority” (magisterium).
So what can be said so far in conclusion? Is faith compatible with science? Does NOMA work? In short the answer is no. Faith and science do come into conflict at a fundamental level, both deal in ways of attaining knowledge of the world, the one relies on divine revelation and unwavering trust in a deity for knowledge and the other deals with inquiry and revision into the realm of the natural. Faith deals with the belief in the supernatural, and science deals with investigation into the natural, which is all there is. The margin for belief and faith in a deity dwindles as scientific inquiry progresses, resulting in an ever dwindling regression to the point at which the need for faith and the supernatural inevitably become null and void. Faith undermines learning and progression, as religion seeks to avail a constant monopoly over the “Truth”, which is never changing and never growing unless with the deities’ permission (or the dear leaders of the sects’ permission) whereas science is interested in investigation and inquiry into the world always ready to progress and learn more about the cosmos. The underpinning aspects that science holds onto, the metaphysical natural perspective and has inevitably no draw of the supernatural aspect that religion plays to, as to the natural philosopher the supernatural realm just cannot exist as it would underpin science itself. Religion holds to a political ideology that undermines the individual’s right to his body, his voice and to his mind, whereas science holds no such constraints and no such dogma. The final nail in the coffin as to why science and faith do not work as well as the NOMA principle is because science can explain meaning and morality, and religion is not interested in pandering to progression and discovery more interested in the already pre-made product. Non-overlapping magesteria, the principle that religion and science hold to two different realms of teaching authority and thus do not overlap is simply not true and it is because of this fact that the model fails completely; as there is a conflict. The fact of the matter is (in the perspective of this writer) religion needs to die for progression and science to truly take off; across the globe there are quasi-religious states, with religion undermining the rights of the individual and pandering to the illusions of grandeur who seek not peace and not acceptance but seek separation and control. It is this reason as well as all the aforementioned reasons why religion and science can never truly be compatible with one another, and it is this understanding that only one is permissible and for this writer that has to do with the naturalist perspective, as it, is the only perspective truly valid. All others are pandering to the illusory psychological needs of the individuals. It may sound abrupt and it may sound prejudice but it is the truth, an inconvenient truth.
Knowledge is power
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
We all at some point in our life when discussing religion or some aspect of belief, will be asked the trivial yet important question, “Do you believe in a God?”. To some the answer is “yes”, to others the answer is “no” and then there are those (especially igtheists), that question the meaning of the word, “God”, which they argue needs first to be defined before any enlisted answer can be provided. Generally to those who answer this question with a “yes”, they are presumed to have an active belief in that God and they are generally referred to as a “Theist” (an individual who holds a belief in a Deity); to those who answer with “No”, they are generally referred to as “Atheist” (an individual who are without a belief in a Deity or ‘lack a belief’ in one.). These are the only two positions when it comes to belief in a God, you either are actively believing in one (or many) making you a theist (or any branch attached to it) or you do not actively believe in a God, making you an atheist. Simple is it not? Yet some people, even academics, seem to be fine with theism but not atheism…why is that? Let’s find out shall we.
We are all born not believing in any notion particularly associated with a God/Gods; implicit atheism, is what we all are born with. We all are born with an absence of belief in a God/gods, this is the default state of belief for every child born into this world. Generally the notion of a God is introduced via cultural means; either one will learn it from parents, learn it in a religious studies class and so on. No matter where we learn the term it is still introduced from the culture we are born into, if not, another culture, but culture none-the-less. It is only when faced with the notion, that one can either accept it (with good merit and reason; as no one chooses to believe or not believe in anything, they are brought good reason as to either reject or accept the notion, this goes for the god notion as well) or reject it (with good merit or reason etc); however it should be noted that before the introduction of the notion, the default stance is non-belief i.e. atheism. When one rejects the notion of a God, with whatever reason or argument; they are enacting explicit atheism, which is the active rejection of belief in a God/gods (disbelief). Agnosticism (the epistemological position concerned with whether we can know a notion to exist or not) can be associated with atheism; as agnosticism concerns knowledge (a subset of belief) well atheism concerns belief itself. One may ask the question how this is possible, in which the reply can be that atheism rejects the belief in the notion of a God/gods, well agnosticism concerns itself on whether that notion of God/gods can be known at all to exist. Agnostics may wish to distance themselves away from atheists but the fact is this; if one actively believes in a God they are a theist (or any branch of theism) if one does not believe in a God, they are an atheist. There is no middle position when it comes to belief, either belief or non-belief, they cover all positions. Agnosticism is thus not mutually exclusive to atheism, rather it is compatible with atheism; as it concerns (and here it will be repeated) itself with whether we can know a God to exist at all, whereas atheism concerns itself with lack of belief in that notion, not on whether it exists or not.
“This is where the difference between ‘Agnostic’ and ‘Atheist’matters: Theism and Atheism deals with belief. Gnosticism and Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Gnostic think they KNOW the existence/nonexistence of a god, agnostics claim to not know. Theists and Atheists can be on either sides of that, were they believe or not believe in a god while also either claim to know or not know for certain if that belief is true. There are agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists and gnostic theists.”-Fooly’s Mind
Positive atheism is where the problem resides, it is the explicit or strong conviction that a God/gods do not exist. This is what most anti-theists (or those actively who hold a disdain for religious beliefs.) hold when they refer to their atheism. Negative atheism includes all forms of irreligion or non-belief, from the absence of a belief in a God/gods and so on. Both positive and negative atheism are but two side to the same coin, they are both ways of defining non-belief or “atheism” (as already mentioned); they are both varying degrees of the same thing such as the case with hot water and warm water. The problem really resides around those who look from the outside into atheist thought, they may have the tendency to view it as a religion (which, if so makes them under a grievant misapprehension) by the way it may conduct itself in the world; it may be called “dogmatic” or by more ‘sower opponents’ as “dogmatic as religion”. Yet, let one dispense with the critics; to all those who do not believe in a God for whatever reason, you are an atheist. One can take this as a breach of one’s ‘personal beliefs or lack of’ but that is the fact. It is more common to see fellow atheists criticize atheism itself by the way many who hold to the title may act. Yet, many may hold to their non-belief as ‘a means to an end’ or may promote it, however the case it must be noted that atheism should only be considered a block of non-belief. It should not press issues, it should not be given so much attention as it has been given (this goes for theism to); it should not be even mentioned. Now this may seem strange given the previous words and advocation in the last couple sentences of this piece, but let me explain what I mean. Atheism, as already mentioned almost countless of times before, is simply “the lack of belief in a God/gods” that would be the end of it, yet so many individuals have labelled those who do not believe in their god as being ‘atheist’, this is why the word exists at all! And for this reason it is important that those who do hold onto the word must understand why it exists, and what it means now. What atheism means today is the stance against oppression; the stance of those willing to not be contempt in their thinking, it is the stance against those willing to die for their belief; for the word ‘atheist’ may be a ‘means to an end’ for some, to others it is simply another way of promoting defiance when needed and the stance against oppression (this is not an over-exaggeration of the word either, given its history, atheism has been on the receiving end of tremendous intolerance). Yet, It does not affect political beliefs (not by itself), what one does when he gets up in the morning, It is the starting block. Those who live their life as if there is no notion of a God existing are known as practical atheists or apatheists, and one can say that there are a great deal of practical atheists in both the non-religious and religious circles.
Nietzsche gives an important note on belief in God as “not being necessary any longer”; does one see those who believe in a God, when crossing the street, look both ways? Yes. It seems that everyone now in the modern age lives as if there is no God. Believers put on their seat belts, look both ways well crossing the road; they live their lives as if the belief in God is not necessary. Putting the cross on, on Sundays, and flipping it upside down on Mondays. the notion that is often promoted by believers is the façade “You need god to have meaning in your life” but what is the gross double standard they are setting? Atheism, is the underpin of all religions, no one actively believes in a God twenty fours a day, seven days a week, do they? Of course not! If one really had to do a study on the amount of “prefaced believers” in this world one could almost certainly say that the numbers of “real believers” would be “0”; as no one actively can believe in a notion every hour of every day.
New atheism, (a movement started from the post years of 9/11, popularly called a movement by the media) Is a movement set on the notion that; religious belief should be held to the same criticism as any other belief, and it should not be given respect just because of its own sake this means it must be laid to the same standard amount of scrutiny as any other subject. “The End of faith” and “Letters to a Christian nation” (2004) can be credited as the books that started the movement. This breed of atheism is a prolific atheism the kind at which wishes to dispense with religion. Yet, despite such vitriol by the religious to this “new” form of atheism, it must be noted, that if the religious think their views are untouchable and thus cannot be scrutinized; then let it be said that such “privileged delusion” needs to be quelled effective immediately. New atheism does not attack the belief in God per-seas, then it attacks what the belief in God does to individuals; atheists who are a part of this movement do not care what the individual believes in, they care about what the individual does with that belief. This is why the aim in recent times has been for social justice and equality, to replace organized belief that demands it cannot be criticized, with practical humanism. To dispense with the notion, that you need a God to find meaning and happiness, that the universe can only have come from a deity and morality could only be dispensed by a deity; is to dispense with the final hook that holds man in his infancy. The modern atheist movement seeks to show that individuals can indeed be good without God, find meaning in their lives, and gain a greater understanding of the world through enquiry. New atheism brings with it, not just atheism, but secularism, humanism, liberalism, gender equality and the slogan “Good without God”. They argue that “Religion and the belief in the supernatural have crippled society, crippled the need for enquiry and scepticism, resulting in the overall denigration of progress among humanity and thus must be made rid of as soon as necessarily possible.” Religion as it stands has morphed into a form of practical humanism, and any good that the religious hold, is in fact a goodness of humanism and the two are not to be confused with one another. Science and healthy scepticism is overall better than an impermeable faith in a God, this in a sense, can be summed up as the movement’s main aim; which is to push the need for religion out of society.
What is the point of a belief in God, when individuals who preface such a belief as being the “be-all-to-end-all”, are not even acting as if there is a God in their daily life? This incipient need to believe in that which, at the end of the day, does nothing overall to affect one’s character; is useless. If one harbours any form of belief or disbelief for not any good particular reason or any particular justification, it can be said that such individuals have no reason to be who they proclaim they are. Those who wish to keep their belief for the sake of security and moral fulfilment, need to realise that they are holding onto to the notion of a God for the sake of psychological need, and not because of whether it is true or not. Belief in anything is acquired through substantial evidence to prove and good reason to accept that evidence’s notion, non-belief comes as a default from not finding that evidence substantial and zero reason to believe in the notion. This is with all claims, we believe because we have substantial evidence to provide good reason, which is the standard ‘evidence’. Without evidence in the form of justification to believe in any notion that departs from justification, no matter sincere, is done so for stupid reasons. No amount of belief in the prospect of any notion makes that notion so. Every adult and child has to come to this realisation that you only believe in something because of justification and good reason, and you stop believing in something when the notion or belief departs from that. This is why non-belief will always be the default when it comes to notions like God(s), anyone who says otherwise has no idea what he or her are talking about. No one chose to not believe in anything, as they did to believe in something, they were given good reason to believe, and zero reason not to believe, it was not an active “oh I’ll decide not to believe” or ‘I’ll start to believe” are brains do not work like that, and it is naïve to think they do.
Every individual expressing their belief in any form of matter will need to know this when talking to an atheist of any sort unless to foolishly lump an atheist into a camp or an ideology he/she is not a part of. Though criticism (valid ones) have been made by people like Sam Harris, who say non-belief should not be given a label, just like not believing in Zeus should not be given the label “A-zuesist”. Valid criticisms like these do highlight the point that labels do carry baggage, sometimes unwanted baggage. For example, when theists use the argument that atheists are immoral because Stalin was an atheist, and he killed in the name of no God. Though this argument (if it can be called that and not a grievance whine) is not true, Stalin was indeed an atheist, but he had other motivations for doing the things he did that are too multiple to mention here. This goes for both atheist and theist a like who make claims that certain “bad guys” in history killed because of their faith or lack of it, must remember that there are a lot of facts that go into each event and each context, that it has become naïve to try use the Crusades to lump the evils of Christianity, or communism to lump the evils of atheism and so on. Ladies and gentlemen from across the aisle, hear me when I say that the only way we are going to unite, is if we dispense with belief being a dividing block on issues (this may be hypocritical given the amount of things that I write against “organized religion”, but that can be justified as I am against social injustice perpetrated by theocratic fascists) we should try to help one another and care for the merit of arguments alone, and not on whether they are uttered by a believer or a non-believer. We should love all despite what they believe, and only hold them accountable for their actions. This is why one has to say that humanism is the greatest uniter of both non-believer and believer, and that is what we should all aim for, a state by which we can obtain some form of unity based on humanism.
Knowledge is Power
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
When the word “fascist” is uttered in any setting involving more than one conflicting body; it most likely will be used out of its proper discourse, by those who lack an understanding of its definition. The word is tossed around in naive-socialist circles like a hot-potato, almost to the extent at which if a differing of opinion were to be made against the norm, if expressed by an individual, may immediately condemn them to being called it by all those (who by chance) do not like what they have to express. This failure to understand words and their proper usage is to blame for this nativity, so what can be more fitting then explaining the word and the thought that surrounds it?
To start off lets define terms. Fascism is a system of government characterized by dictatorship; the word originates in ancient Rome from the word “fasces” which is a pile of sticks used by legionaries and subsequent soldiers of the Roman Empire during long tracks and marches across Europe and the Mediterranean. It was later to be used as a symbol for the 20th century, used by Benito Mussolini’s fascist party who used the fasces symbol to represent their political ideological movement in Italy during the late 1910’s. Fascism as mentioned already has a major characteristic and that is dictatorship, to understand this term we need to look back to the Ancient Romans who coined the term. During the early parts of the 5th century B.C.E Rome became a republic after having three hundred years of monarchy rule; the Roman kingdom was overthrown and started expanding to the rest of the Italian and Mediterranean peninsulas. The senate on behalf of the people ruled Rome expanding its land grab from the small city states to the large Mediterranean. During the republic’s expanse into the Mediterranean and Europe, governors mostly generals and senate approved leaders, would hold territories on behalf of the senate by which the senate would legislate orders to the governors on how to run the territory and so on. However territories captured by warring nations or barbaric states, would often play victim to unrest and tragedy, this unrest and tragedy would interrupt progression and endanger the republic autonomy; causing great economic and military problems for the republic. The solution to these problems had to do with retaining control of the populace of the territory; the only way this could be done was through authoritarian state rule which was given to by the senate on behalf of the republic temporarily to the most competent leader in the republic, to retain order by any means necessary. The ordinary magistrate of the senate had legal means to and guides to attain the republic’s states, but during the first Punic war in the 3rd century B.C.E, by which saw the establishment of the extraordinary magistrate (officially called “magister populi”-master of the people). The status passed by the senate to the general allowed him to rule by decree or “dictatorate” (shortened later to “dictator”). This leader was assigned a committee who were solely under the generals command (committee of “magister equiem”-master of the horse) this oligarchy helped the dictator retain control of the state after the warring parties had been quelled. This dictatorate lasted for a couple months just until order was restored before it would be relinquished. Gaius Julius Ceaser was the first “Dictator for life” in the 1st century B.C.E after the collapse and scattering of the republic, ceaser retained the status and enhanced it to a year. He used military might to maintain his rule collapsing the republic into an empire, ruled under History’s first totalitarian state. The classical dictatorship came before the neo dictatorship, to differentiate between the two; classical refers to the original purpose of the roman dictatorship which was to retain order on behalf of the general well-being of the state, by which the subsequent rule would be relinquished after a temporary time, the main characteristics of this type of dictatorship is authoritarianism. Neo (new age) dictatorship refers to Ceaser’s model of dictatorship and the subsequent models of dictatorship based on it; by which the purpose is to benefit the dictator’s interests for however long the dictator remains in power, the major characteristics of this type of dictatorship is totalitarianism.
Authoritarianism is in essence dictatorship with a leash; the power is limited in their actions to totally control the state and the people within the state, thus limiting them to the marginalisation of power. Totalitarianism is different as it is dictatorship of the leash, total tyrannical rule can be applied by the state power on the people of the state, the methods are endless and they last as long as the power lasts. A huge understanding in the evolution of neo dictatorship is the change in how these states who vestige a totalitarian state, control their populations. Let us take one case as an example of totalitarianism, say Nazi Germany. National Socialism is the combination of German patriotism and fascist leadership, an ideology created by Adolf Hitler that saw the blend in ideology and government being first truly utilised. To understand this dynamic evolution of neo-dictatorship from the solely relying on militarism and imperialism, to neo-dictatorship running on tyranny and ideology; it must be highlighted the important differences of neo-dictatorship of Cesar’s day and Neo-dictatorship of Hitler’s day. Ceser’s day militarism was the major security of power for rule, Cesars vast armies kept him secure (external protection) from his neighbours however this did not prevent internal conspiracies being expressed against him, this particularly is major flaw as with a totalitarian state to truly maintain total control it must maintain it both internally and externally. Hitler’s Germany was internally secured via two aspects, Ideology and intimidation; by keeping the blast of propaganda and ideological fear, Hitler’s Germany could be maintained internally. When ideology is injected into neo-dictatorships, that is, when they take a new form, instead of becoming entirely hollow states, they start acquiring life. It truly is a bone tingling sensation to witness the birth of life in these states, as their tyrants increase in power frenzy can be seen growing amongst the maintenance of the state, when the form of rule starts becoming more and more an entity of it rather than the robotic systematic government it had been to start off with. In 1944 upon the inevitable defeat of National Socialism, Joseph Goebbels the propaganda minister for the Reich made one of the most chilling speeches ever produced. Called “Total War”, the power of twenty years of propaganda administered by the state was put into overdrive in a speech that expressed the ultimate need for the civilian to serve his country in order to feel that he has contributed to the state. This frenzy created solely from ideological indoctrination, fear and intimidation, all of which would become cultivated in creating an internal state by which the neo-dic tatorship could survive, was the nature of National socialist dictatorships. The very essence of Nazism cries out totalitarianism as it combines total power and tyranny to maintain the selected interest of the dictator or ruler of the state for any given amount of time, whereas in authoritarian states the powers that be are prohibited in their liberty to dispense with law and order the way they want, keeping vestige interests in not only their own needs but in the power’s means as well.
This is why fascism in the sense of Benito Mussolini’s Italian fascist party was authoritarian in nature, that is to say an oligarchy gave Mussolini limited power, that during the Second World War when breached meant his immediate removal by the oligarchy at which he had been maintained by. Quasi dictatorships who look back to the classical dictatorships, this being of course the running of the old roman empire by senate elected dictators, will be states such as aforementioned already Italy during fascist rule, and Spain during the rule of Francisco Franco that can be seen to have incorporated elements of authoritarianism and totalitarianism to the extent at which both parties could have domain and power but they were always limited by either internal conflicting bodies or external ones that would prohibit the expansion and consolidation of power that would prohibit neo-dictatorships well at the same time allowing time to freely be maintained (neo dictatorship and classical dictatorship); the synthesis of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Another example of totalitarian neo dictatorship is the communist regime, like the Nazi regime the communist regime ran on a system of systematic maintenance pushed by fear and ideology. Through indoctrination of the populace to be more subservient and willing to die for the state, communism under Stalin could be utilised to have had total control as the dictator maintained power to the extent that the power itself could not be removed easily, and the willingness of the people to love what they fear (sadomasochism) became more apparent. It is the nature of totalitarian states such as Nazism, communism and to a lesser extent orwellianism (George Orwell’s ,1984; big brother state, by which the full utilisation of propaganda, fear and intimidation sought in advancing the nature of a neo-dictatorship to the extent by which it becomes nature to be under a totalitarian power) that there forms see vestige interest in utilising power for as long as possible, and when so ever should the power be removed its ultimate goal is to kill the state itself well undergoing its own annihilation.
Victims, who live under states like these, can be subjected to years of propaganda, skewing their view of the world. If you ever wish to see the power of indoctrination just look at the surviving Hitler Youth today, most of them went through an undoctrination after they were captured by western forces. However they still hold great sympathy for the years of service under the regime of Nazism, this is the power of totalitarianism with ideology; it can make its population entirely subservient and entirely willing to die for the regime!
As the decades went on and the ever increasing destruction of totalitarian states increased, fascism especially the blurring of totalitarianism in pop culture and culture in general became more apparent. Dystopian classics such as George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “a brave new world”, captured society’s imagination and paranoia by showing the possible potential of totalitarianism if left unchecked. In most of these types of novels the importance of liberty and freedom of the individual was always highlighted as a means to inject strength into the paranoid individuals. The only means by which such power and total control is stopped, is by the constant awareness of the people of the state about the nature of their government. If the people do not regulate the duties of their government the process of neo-dictatorship become ever more apparent. When authoritarianism is allowed to take hold, if left by the people for far too long it will grow in totalitarianism, this is why the duty of the people is always to be aware of the growing concern its government wishes to have in the individual’s life and the limiting of liberties of that individual to a fake sense of security. That is the only way totalitarianism can be avoided by the people, is the unanimous will to step in the line of fire and protect the fundamental liberties of the state’s populace. The seeds of totalitarianism are found in places at which hierarchy and a top to bottom system is utilised, this is why religions are innately totalitarian as they vestige interest in the God’s needs and the representative of the Gods to maintain a false sense of security. Theocracies are dictatorships run by religions (if one were to play the technical semantic game the correct term to use for a group of religious bodies controlling a government is a “ecclesiocracy” but for all intended uses “theocracy” is made also mentioned), showing the true nature of such groups to maintain totalitarian elements of control. When theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are mentioned, one cannot help but think of the public hanging and execution of all those willing to disobey the regime’s holy text (the hanging of homosexuals is a grizzly example). It is because of this that states have a duty to limit all religions from gaining any mention in government, because the very nature of all religions especially mono-theistic, are totalitarian by nature.
Fascism has been morphed however by socialist groups over the years to the status of an insult, this blending and redefining of terms is a potential danger, as in order to attain what the word means. It must be utilised as such to the extent it accurately represents what it is needed to represent, this is why insults with the word “fascist” always seek (in the eyes of those enlightened) to add disappointment. Remembering what has been discussed always seek to hold a better understanding of words as to not lose the intention of those words.
Knowledge is power
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
Most likely you are reading this sentence in the 21st century with some form of technological device, be it a mobile phone, computer, mac, tablet etc. The device you use has been acquired through the years, through means of trial and error, as well as innovation on the part of the designated inventor; coming up through experimentation, new technology and new ways of using that technology. It can be said with no shadow of a doubt that the person who has been responsible for the invention of the gadget you use, had to have been progressive in thought. Now what does one mean when he says “progressive in thought”? What is meant by that is, for anything new or innovating to come about you need to have an open mind and a will to be able to change and adapt your ideas into new ones. That is how progress works; Individuals pursuing their separate interests and changing their ideas when they find new ways of adapting them. Every single inventor does this; he takes concepts of the old and adapts it to the new. What would happen if inventors and innovators didn’t adapt to the change and progression of time? Then what? Well, dear reader, let us just say you wouldn’t be reading this now…would you?
It is imperative for change to take place; it just needs to happen in order for us to reach new and better ways at accomplishing things. Fundamentalism, the immovable notion that you are to remain true and undying to original ideas and not be susceptible to change or adaptation is a genuine threat to humanity. The threat of fundamentalist minds ever opposed to change, taking away the means for others to progress in view of retelling old ideas without sway to new ones. It’s insane! Fundamental ideas are retold to newer generations; no progression, no interest in adaptation to the world around. Such ideas become delusions to outsiders but perfectly normal to insiders. The notion that the earth is the center of the universe, and all those who believe in that notion, are deluding themselves by denying the reality of what modern science has shown to be accurate. Those who still hold onto notions that somehow their existence is the “be all to end all”; are deluding themselves in a false ideology that has serious implications on their livelihood and on the possible future of the children they will teach this idea to. Fundamentalist theology is the biggest proponent for ignorance in the modern world, a naive view of the world that puts the subject viewing it as the centre of all things. Whether it be Christian, Islamic, Judea or any form of rigid orthodoxy that is opposed to scientific advances, and thus opposed to change; we can call such opposition fundamentalist in nature, and it is a direct threat to humanity’s progression in the modern era. Fundamentalism in religious sense holds to orthodoxy, it is very opposed to change or revision, or any other sort of notion on those lines; as a result most fundamentalist religious individuals will oppose scientific findings, refuse to teach their children these findings, and will hide behind the clause of “freedom of religion”. Now what does one mean when he says “Fundamentalist ideas”, what that means, is all ideas opposed to reality (notions, of creationism, virgin births, etc.) all notions that seek to enlist views that are outside that which can be justified rationally. One may say, “Is that not a “fundamentalist idea in itself?” The retort would be, “Science is ever changing and revising itself to reach objective standards that are in accordance to what reality shows to be so, and for this notion to be considered fundamentalist it would not be susceptible to change, which it is; and thus it is not fundamentalist in nature”
However there is an even greater danger in our modern day society, with the death of religious traditionalism and the rise of secularism, there is but one thing left for fundamentalists to do. Become fanatical. When fundamentalists become fanatical, this is where the real danger starts to happen. The Islamic terrorists who flew Boing 747’s into the twin towers on September 11th 2001, were fanatics hell bent on starting war on the “Infidels”, by following the Quran; their leader Osama Bin Laden, sought to establish an Islamic empire and defeat the “Judea and Samaritan Zionists”, this ideology we call today is known as “Bin ladenism”. And it is fundamental fanaticism like this that leads to devastating consequences. In Islamic nations under sharia law, women are denied the right to learn and be educated, property of their husbands; this kind of religious zealously and fanaticism is but on example of the dangerous of religious fundamentalism and fanaticism. Yet, this is not the fundamentalism I’m sure most of you reading this may be exposed to in your daily life, how about that of Christian fundamentalism.
Creationism VS Evolution, pseudo-science vs science; since the time of Darwin most of Europe and most of literate scientific nations have taken on board the scientific theory of natural selection. Yet in the USA, (the largest economic nation besides china) a campaign pronged by the far fundamentalist Christian right has been opposing evolution, in favour of creationism. Answers in Genesis, and other such pseudo-science websites and advocacy groups have (since 2001) running campaigns to get evolution out of the science classroom in favour of religious ideology. This has sparked prominent figures such as Richard Dawkins and the rest of the scientific community have leaded a counter-attack against this wave of fundamentalism. Yet it does not end there, in most western nations and in most secular nations across the globe religious fundamentalism is protected by the constitution with the “Freedom of religious worship and practise” and such acts being embedded in the fabric of secular constitutions. Now this is no problem at all, however most religious fundamentalists will teach their children their fanatical ideas; and that is the real problem. The scientific departments across the globe have to deal with these fundamentalists in later years, who will repeat the ideological furrier. Now it would be fine if these individuals weren’t the ones effecting public policy; for instance human rights such as abortion and homosexual relations, are opposed to by mostly if not entirely right wing and religious bodies. Christian fundamentalists will sight their bible when it comes to such issues of human rights. Calling it “unnatural, wrong”, such hateful (and I do stress hateful) language that does effect the youth and those struggling with love.
Let it be said and repeated, that those who so chose to love their partner (whether it be of the same sex or a different sex), are entitled to the liberty to love and marry freely; entitled to express their love openly without the vitriol of religious zealots or the bigotry of right wing fundamentalists. This liberty is not exclusive to those in homosexual relations, but to all relations; let it be protested that he who should ever make their decree on the basis of a religious text, on the basis of a bigoted text. Should be scoffed, mocked and protested against, if not for the liberty of love but for the future of the next generation and the future of humanity. Let it be said that those who are religious and progressive, this charge is not directed at you, but to those along the same cloth who fundamentally willingly opposed to human rights, education and the future of humanity; this charge is lead against you, on behalf of progressive humanity. Fundamentalism and fanaticism are the poisons that corrupt progressive societies, and if should one protest to say that “this here sentiment is fundamentalist in nature”, let it be said yet again that “this sentiment is lead in progressive manner and is forever changing; adapting and evolving to the benefit of humanity and its understandings of the cosmos.” Terrorists, who seek to establish their fanatical doctrines on free people of the world, should remember that where there is just one ounce of human spirit, there will always be those willing to stand up and fight against such wickedness and indecency; not just for themselves but for their fellow man. Those who beat and those who shout others down on the basis of what their ideology or their text dictate to them, are the real danger to humanity; the real threat to humanity is not weapons of mass destruction but those willing to use them, the fundamentalists and fanatics willing to do anything to see their ideology the only one and all others destroyed are the real danger. Parents willing to deny their children liberty, will see themselves the contributors of the destruction of free-society, those who deny others liberty will see themselves criminals to free-society. Let it be said one last time, that for change to occur there must be freedom of thought, freedom of expression, the right to education, the right to free worship (lest of course it does not impact the moderation of others or their liberties), the right to love…these are to be protected, promoted, with the ever progressiveness of society for the better.
Knowledge is Power
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
To understand socialism you must grasp two concepts, organization and community. Socialism relies on the principles that society runs on the basis of corporation amongst individuals for their beneficial survival and flourishing. Societies that are successful rely on the principles of organization and community, to the extent that benefits the collective of society. It is thus in this light that we can define socialism as a universal set of ideas that focuses on societal structuring and how humans work together to maintain order amongst themselves; from liberal democracies to totalitarian states. Socialism or the “social ideals” they run upon such as community and organization; are either used fully (liberal democracies, with emphasis on socialist liberties eg Scandinavian countries emphasise universal education and healthcare), or marginally (totalitarian societies run on the principles of the oligarchy running the collective, but when we take the principles mentioned such as organization and community, we can see these societies that dictators are a part of. Utilise organization, and reduce community sharing to a select few i.e. the dictators or oligarchy. Who use means by which to benefit themselves but not the rest of the community). None the less, any societal philosophy or political philosophy that utilises principles of organization and community, are utilising socialist ideals.
Marxism is a form of economic and political philosophy, that utilises socialist ideals of organization and community with economic principles of the control means of production and wealth. Marxism is a theory first proposed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848 with the book “Communist manifesto”, both these German philosophers wrote this book in response to the industrial revolution that was sweeping across Europe in the early 19th century; the theory goes on the lines as follows…
“Throughout history the state has been the device for deception and manipulation among the masses from a dominant class; class struggle has been the central agent for change in history. The capitalist system has planted the first seeds of its own decay, as the bourgeoisie (middle class capitalists) struggle for dominance over the proletariats (working class); that will inevitably end with the proletariat’s dominance of the state, until it will be superseded by a socialist order and classless society i.e. a socialist utopia or a ‘communist state’”
This theory takes a ‘socialist commentary’ of the then current industrial revolution of the 19th century with the rise of capitalist free economy and the means of production being shifted from the worker (proletariat) to the industrial entrepreneur (bourgeoisie). Marx and Engels predicted that if this change went on that the current industrial state would go through a revolution by which the workers would get to the stage of utter anger and take back control of the means of production and wealth and give it to the hands of the people. In theory it would then follow that class would then dissolve leaving a free and more equal society, as socialist theorists viewed society in terms of being a machine that could be tuned in a certain way to produce a certain outcome. Marx had intentionally planned for this change to be undergone in industrial countries such as Germany, France and so on. Another more popular view of Marxist theory is its view on history; Marx describes the progression of change as follows…
“Hunter gatherers-Feudalism-Capitalism- Imperialism- Socialism-Communism”.
The use of the term socialism in this case refers to the economic ideal of socialism where the collective have the power of the means of production and wealth that are then shared equally.
Leninism is a theory that puts Marxism in practise in an agricultural environment. Vladimir Lenin utilised Marxist theory and applied it to a Russian setting, which setting was very different from industrialised capitalist Europe as Russia was still a feudalist society that was run by an absolute monarchy. The tsarian Government had an inclusive economic policy that was very paranoid of western development and change thus the government as a result, never had modern equipment for agricultural farming and still relied on serfdom for economic sustainability; the proletariats (workers and lower classes) made up the majority of Russian society and provided most of the wealth and production to the aristocracy who made up 3% of the country. This feudalistic society was not fit for the kind of Marxism Marx had intended, he and Engels wished to see Marxism put into practise in western nations like Germany, England and so on. Vladimir Lenin upon the start of the 20th century formed after being imprisoned due to social activism, the Social democrats who had a policy that sought to apply Marxism to Russia.
Leninism focuses on changing the setting of natural revolution in industrial capitalist societies, to a form of organised educated revolution that was managed and forced by a party that utilised the proletariats for the means of establishing a dictatorship for them. Lenin called this vanguard party the “communist party” and he sought to utilise the working class, through education and political consciousness to create revolution. How this came into practise was with the overthrow of the tsarian government by the army and the proletariat who in April of 1917 over through the government after protests over the war and food shortages which forced the Tsar Nicholas 2nd and his family into exile and established a provisional government which would be run by the people through democratic means. In April of that year, Lenin produced his April thesis which sought to capture the “April revolution” and use it as a means to rid the capitalist era of Russia and create a communist state by which the means of production and distribution would be in charge by the state. In October of that year the Bolsheviks through the help of the established red army led by “Leon Trotsky”, took advantage of the provisional government’s debacle with the army and took over the government. Leninism is Marxism put in practise.
Out of Leninism we have two lines of thought, they both come from the arms race between Trotsky and Stalin, they are Trotskyism and Stalinism, two different approaches to Leninism. Trotskyism can be defined as “permanent revolution”, where by which aims to use the proletariat classes in capitalist countries to have socialist revolutions that continuously spread in the hopes of proletariat internationalism which means “Global worker revolution”, it seeks to have a global world that is run by the socialists. The second is Stalinism; its aims were to create controlled revolution with aggressive industrialization, censorship of the mass opposing views, one man government dictatorship and aggressive international policy that focused on spreading communism under the control of the individual. Modern day communism is associated with Stalinism, for its aggressive tact on censorship, dictatorship and industrialization. Stalin sought to make a more ideological view of Leninism which would evolve Marxism to its pinnacle; however instead of socialist utopia he established totalitarianism.
Other nations such as china utilised collectivization, which is a form of communism to utilise the workers belonging to the state. Stalinism is the modern day usage in reference to communism as it is the most popular concept when people think about communism or socialism. There are still Marxist thinkers, except they do not associate themselves with communism or the communist movement. These are but the general understandings of communism, stalinism, leninism, trotskyism, marxism and socialism; what has been explained is brief summations in the hope of giving individuals a broad understanding and ability to differentiate between them in case of wider discussion.
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
Society that devotes itself to the benefit of itself without the benefit to superficial sources, such as man made Gods and other such delusions of grandeur. Are generally considered to be secular. as secularism deplores religiosity and instigates, that one should hold indifference towards religion, and not promote any mandate of theocracy and religiosity on the people within society. Secularism is the separation of religious organizations from state or governmental institutions, it is the principal by which no government should run on the basis of religious dogmas or texts, and instead should run on an indifferent scale towards religion; not dealing with the sole bias of a single religion. Secularism works on the basis of ideas such as socialism, libertarianism and egalitarianism. Secular societies generally run on constitutions that have democratic leanings; such leanings give the individual the right of choice, and the liberty of ideals. such ideals include; freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of choice, freedom of press etc. These ideals are called “liberties” as they are rights the people are privileged to have that do their best to work among society.
Humanism is closely related to secular thinking, as it denotes the value and emphasis of human interactions within the natural world. The idea of humanism ethically goes that reason and scientific inquiry within the natural plain of existence are more prevalent and more important then a belief of God or superficial sources. Purpose or value comes from the interaction between our species and the consideration of the world around us. Humanistic thinking takes the position that theology and anything to do with God or any form of grandeur is not necessary. To put into perspective here are a couple words on humanism that have been prepared.
“Every single interaction you have, say its with your mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, granddad, grandma, son, daughter etc. Whether it be a shake of the hand, a kiss of the cheek, a conversation with loved ones, a last goodbye to an old friend. Those are the interactions that matter. Humans are a social species, that may appear at times to promote devastation and hatred towards one another; who hurt and may kill one another. who may lie, cheat, steal, ridicule or despise one another. These interactions regardless of whether they are good or bad, are actions we commit, and that we are responsible. We are responsible for the hate we show to one another, but we are also responsible for the love that we show to one another. Humanity, our species and the world we inhabit. This is us, and we are here, and whatever meaning we derive comes from this world we inhabit.
There is no one to shift the blame to, no one to point the finger for destruction and chaos; if it starts with us, it can end with us. we are responsible for everything we do! So many wish to throw burdens of guilt and responsibility to superficial sources in the hopes to forget their guilt, but realize this we are all responsible for things we do. We are responsible for the lives we lead, the smiles we make, the tears we cry. It is us…it is we, who make the discoveries known, it is us who end wars, it is us who cure diseases of our own making. We are the ones who build bridges of determination and ample them with the supports of visions and good wishes, it is us who clime the mountains. we are the ones who make meaning in our own lives, we are the ones who express love and hatred, laughter and tears. It is all us!
Altruism and doing good for goodness sake coupled with empathy are the means by which we show feeling towards one another, the emotions we emulate are understandings between ourselves and each other. Reason, which implore intuition and deduction allow us to reason the world we see and distinguish from what we see as a “good” act to what we deem a “bad” one. Just few of the principals by which we live. The call to a superficial God, is a call to childishness, a call to insecurity. We created the Gods in our image, and we painted them to resemble us and our selfish virtues. As people living in the now, with the world of billions, we have to start acting sensible towards one another for this is the life we lead. Scientific inquiry and seeking answers to questions about this world, implore us to go up and beyond our ability. To awe at the majesty of the universe we inhabit and evermore move forward over the cosmic event horizon and step into the unknown. For the sheer fact we can.
we are just one in millions of species on this planet, and though we should take priority to ourselves, we should also care about the world around us and the creatures that inhabit it. To be a humanist is to take on responsibility for your own mistakes, to be a humanist means to be a helper of your fellow man, as well as fellow beast; if they require help. These things are things of beauty that we can lay claim to, we don’t need a superficial delusion to create meaning in the life we bring meaning to. ”
Secular-humanism, puts society and the planet into perspective. To be a secular humanist, you just got to realize your potential and the potential around you. Not seeking the above magistrate that we at times wish to throw the blame and devote the love to. what you got to realize is the people around you need help, and that help comes from what you do, what you say. There’s a lot of people out there who don’t feel nice or fine, who have it tough and are wasting their lives on cons. As a Secular humanist, a naturalist, an individual living now, the greatest value I get is from interaction with people and the things I do. Taking full responsibility for my wrongs, and taking full ownership of my rights, for living life depends on what you do in the now. this life, this existence is the only thing we have, this is the point all secular humanists stress. You have one life, live it right, don’t live it ignorant of others, live it acknowledging your responsibility and your triumphs.
Seize the day
Not just for yourself, but those around you.
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
It should not be any surprise that people can inspire people, in the pursuit of a better understanding of the world. That is why everyone should be able to teach the person next to him or her, something that they do not know. For ideas are meant to be spread, such as a wild fire, across the forest of potential. This the reason that one should devote themselves to that process, devote themselves to the spread of enlightenment, and to give people the realization that you are never to young or old to dream big. You are never to young or old, to give something to the world.
As people, we should all be teachers and educators, not in profession, but in society. Teaching those around us about ideas, concepts, philosophies, they yet have to realize. To combat ignorance, and grow knowledge. It is the desires of the Greeks before us, and should be our desire not just to grow in brain power, but in human interaction. And better ourselves to a more “progressive reality”; never being apathetic to poor living standards, and never witnesses to injustice and intolerance.
Knowledge thus in that sense, is truly powerful.
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
Generally what we deem “natural” is what we have understood in the world around us; from laws, to objects, organisms etc. Anything we find out to be a product of this world, whether it be by human hands, or by nature; is deemed in the “natural plain” (or realm) of existence. Hence Naturalism is the idea that this plain of existence has rules and laws by which it run, and that there is nothing outside this plain of existence by the sheer fact that if something does exist outside of our understanding of this realm, and we find out what it is, it becomes something “natural” as we have observed it in nature. Thus Naturalism, is an ever growing understanding of the world around us, and how it works.
Naturalism encompasses two aspects, Natural philosophy (science) and methodological naturalism (scientific method). These terms are not mutually exclusive as one operates with the other. Generally Science is man’s way of understanding the world around him; by positing ideas and forming hypothesis based on those ideas, then following out that hypothesis with experimentation. Allowing for evidence to be analysed and falsified before finally being concluded upon, based on where the evidence leads and what simple conclusions can be met (Occam’s Razor) from the experimentations. The element of demonstration and discussion is also a key part of the scientific method, for if it is a theory that weighs in the natural plain of existence it must be established in a way that can be related to that plain it is discussing (i.e give proof for your knowledge base idea).This method is also self-correcting, hence the falsification bit that was mentioned. Claims that aren’t falsifiable are not good explanations.
Now there has been much discussion on what then is to be deemed “Un-natural” or “super-natural”. Now there are a couple of problems firstly with these terms. What we consider to be natural is within our understanding of the plain of existence we in-habit. If we find laws by which we have not yet come across, we shall establish those laws as laws, and thus (as you can see) those”un-natural” laws, become “Natural” laws. Anything outside our understanding is often coined as being “un-natural” or in some aspects “super-natural”, however one has to point out that these terms are flawed by means that, if we find out about something; most likely we will establish it as being in the realm of existence i.e the “natural realm”.
The multi-verse and other such theories, posit multiple universes, that may operate on different physical and epistemic rules and laws. One could ask “Wouldn’t any universe, who’s laws are different to our own; be considered ‘not-natural’?” well you see the dilemma in that question. Here is an analogy that explains this sort of thinking. You have a Jewellery box, in it you have various sized boxes; each with its own content. The various smaller boxes represent different universes, with different laws. They all exist in the Larger Jewelry box, and that is what we consider to be natural. You see that discussion happens about what is deemed “un-natural” and “natural”, yet one must realize that what we don’t know is not “un-natural” for when we discover it, it is added in the list of what is natural or what can come about by means of natural laws.
This is why meta-physical claims, such as God and fairies, that posit super-natural explanations can not be falsified and thus are wrong. As they posit different realms that, if existed, would be encompassed in a larger realm that we would call natural. As anything we don’t know, that we find out, we add as something nature posits and creates; if intelligent beings existed outside the realm of space and time, they don’t exist to us. You see, meta-physical claims are flawed by the outset, and are un-scientific, and rely on a premise that is un-falsifiable.
This is why when one calls himself a “naturalist” at times they do not even realize what nature, or what the definition of a “naturalist” is. If you believe this realm of existence is the only existence, and you keep in mind what we discover will increase that plain of existence, then you are a naturalist. One would go a step further and state that all people are naturalists, by the sheer fact that if they believe in the “super-natural” they must realize that the term they are using is in sight of a lack of understanding of a possible realm within our existence, that if discovered, would become something “natural”, even though it was already natural to begin with. By this logic, it can be safely said, that the only realm of existence is the “natural realm”, and anything we do not understand is still “natural” as it occurs within our plain of existence; and when we find out about that thing which we do not understand, it becomes Natural.
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson