UK conference + travelog

I recently went to Oxford and back to present at a conference, the British Society for the Philosophy of Religion. It was the first conference I ever presented at, and the first conference on this scale that I had ever attended - drawing international participants, and also not just graduate students but a good mix of ph.d. candidates, postdocs, and professors at all levels.

It was a really good experience! For one thing I got to hear the other papers and realize that I can hear someone discuss (for example) various mind/body issues and whether a materialist [= someone who thinks we are our body] can believe in the resurrection, and follow along the various arguments and make a meaningful comment or two afterwards. That is a revelation to me because thisi s the kind of topic I don't feel qualified to research in, because I focus so much on certain historical periods. But I can hold my own in that setting better than I thought I would.

I also got to meet some very nice people from the U.K. and elsewhere and talk about job prospects. There are possibilities I hadn't thought about in the past, like teaching the A-level religious studies course (which apparently includes good portions of ethics, philosophy of religion, critical thinking, etc. - the kind of course I usually teach now to my freshmen). Given that I like working with people who are new to the subject and maybe won't even study it as a major, that actually sounds like a lot of fun. I think I would still much prefer to be a professor (or the British equivalent of the American professor, as I know that's a really rare position in the U.K.!), but especially if I could get on at a good school with students aiming for Oxbridge or similar universities, I think I'd get a lot of satisfaction out of doing A-level teaching.

My talk in particular went very well. ( philosophy-heavy account behind the cut )

That got more deeply philosophical than I meant it to! Sorry. What I was trying to say is a commenter - a really venerable scholar in medieval philosophy, actually - asked me whether these two claims (God is understood by the atheist but God is so great we can't understand him) contradicted each other. And I was able to offer an outline of an answer (b/c the issue is so complicated) that he thought was promising. That made my day. As did all the comments I received afterward, both on the substance and my presentation style. I was definitely sorry about the conference ending and having to come back to New York and get on with the more mundane life of a graduate student. But I'll manage!

**********************************

While traveling I posted to FB regularly, because some people had asked me to so they'd know I was safe. It actually formed a nice little travelog, so I thought I would post it.

12-Sept at 17:31:

@Newark Int'l waiting for my flight, reading the New Republic, and listening to Three Dog Night. There's some virtue in knowing that everything I need to get done for the next few days is either already done or not going to get done. It has a lovely sabbathy feel to it. No wonder my muse always gets chatty at airports - it's one of the few times our minds aren't pulled in a thousand different directions.

12-Sept at 21:15:

I am safely in Toronto. I don't think I've ever filled out a form that was quite as confusing as the customs form - not because it was badly designed but because since I'm leaving the country inside of three hours, every other question seemed to require an exception.

The food court was surprisingly healthy and affordable. And the exchange rate is still kind. The airport is clean and quiet and the people are friendly. Kind of makes me wish I could stay a bit longer!

Next stop, Heathrow!

12-Sept at 22:27:

[While waiting for my plane I read a blog post by some Arabic-looking woman taken off a plane on suspicions of terrorism. It affected me deeply, and I still want to blog about it properly. But this was my first reaction, throwing up a link to it.]

Will post more in depth about this later, when I have the time and the necessary intellectual difference. But I wanted to call people's attention to this personal account of someone who was arrested on (seemingly baseless) suspicions of terrorism. Well worth a read.

http://shebshi.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/some-real-shock-and-awe-racially-profiled-and-cuffed-in-detroit/

13-Sept at 13:41:

Safe in Oxford. I am unfortunately dead-on-my-feet tired, mainly because I couldn't sleep on the plane. I did watch more episodes of "M*A*S*H" and "The Simpsons" than I have in year.

On the ride to where I'm staying I saw the Eagle and the Child, of Inklings fame. Didn't get a picture, unfortunately. I may go sight-seeing tomorrow and find it again. (Conference doesn't start until late afternoon.)

So far Oxford the town strikes me as a mix of Anderson, SC and Blowing Rock, NC. (Two towns from my childhood.) No offense intended, but given where I live now that's a rather odd vibe. But I think that is just not being settled, and hopefully when things kick off tomorrow things will feel more "normal" to me.

But I do have the internet set up and I have a bed where I can sleep and a suitcase unpacked. These are not small things!

[at this point times switch to British time, I think]

13-Sept at 07:13

Recent conversations got me thinking. The Taoist concept of wu wei (acting naturally/don't get in the way of nature) seems quite compatible with Aristotle's idea that virtue is a character capacity, i.e. flows from who we are. But then when I think about it, the comparison isn't so strong b/c Aristotle says character education + change is possible whereas wu wei seems to say no. Any philosophy-friends know of anyone who looked at this issue? (Or Taoism meets Aristotle, more generally?)

13-Sept at 09:00

There are few things in this world quite as nice as British pub chips, done right. I don't know if it's that I haven't had American French fries in ages, or if they really are this good. American fries is the nearest equivalent, but they're really not quite the same - these are bigger, less seasoned, probably more fatty, and so hot they will burn your mouth if you aren't careful.

It's *al*most enough to make up for the lack of Pepsi products. :-)

14-Sept at 18:15

I presented my paper this afternoon. It was well-received, both by other students about on my level educationally (doctoral students + postdocs etc.) but also by some more established philosophers like Drs. Anthony Kenny and Ian Logan. Got some criticism privately, mainly to do with minor points that didn't quite make it clearly into the condensed paper/presentation. Afterwards had a nice dinner with Dr. Logan and other Oxford profs. It's been a good experience, all round.

[and back to US East Coast time]

16-Sept at 19:14

I am back on the right continent. In North America, I mean - after a week in Oxford I think the Bronx, and even Manhattan, will be a letdown. I'm queuing for security (already went through customs) for my connecting flight out of Toronto. It was actually a near thing as I slept through my alarm this morning and so was two hours late getting out of Oxford. But I still made it to Heathrow. *crosses fingers for no more complications.*

16-Sept at 19:33

Reason #237 why Toronto's Pearson Int'l rocks: bendy straws in the food court. It is ridiculous how happy this simple thing makes me. I love bendy straws, but nowhere I ever shop at New York seems to have them.

17-Sept at 01:59

I did want to let everyone know I made it back to the Bronx safely. Would that I could say the trip was uneventful! Between a flight being rescheduled and then taxiing on the runway for about an hour at Newark, it was about 11:30 pm before I finally got my bags. At that hour I actually trusted the trains more than I did a cab (b/c with trains there are crowds and places to run, whereas with a cab I would have to get into a car alone with some stranger) and so I took first the NJ Transit train and then the NY subways back to the Bronx, and called a cab co. I know once I got here. It actually felt very safe (for those concerned about me living in the big scary city) but DRAINING after a transatlantic flight. Anyway, I am back in my apartment and so can crash.

Unfortunately there are no pictures. I discovered when I was over in England that my new cell phone did not have a SIM card so I couldn't store pictures. I did buy a disposable camera but can't find it in my bag. The people at the college where I was staying promised to mail it to me if it turned up, so maybe I will have some eventually. But really, I didn't take many anyway because I like experiencing what I'm seeing, and not through a camera lens. I feel bad for you guys that I can't share them, but I was not taking them for myself in any case. So I mainly took them to show other people. I'll post them if/when I get them. In the meantime, I at least have the memories.

One thing I didn't mention was some sight-seeing I did on Wednesday morning before the conference started. I went into Oxford proper and did some window-shopping on Oxford High Street, including the map/print shop Sanders of Oxford. What a treat! I also went into the Bodleian library and Christ Church. Aside from being a lot of fun generally, I thought that parts of Christ Church seemed way too familiar, and afterwards I figured out why. Seems parts of Hogwarts scenes in the Harry Potter movies were were filmed at Christ Church. A rather cool, fannish connection.

I ran out of time, though, before I could actually make it into the Eagle and the Child, the Inklings pub. Guess I'll just have to go back! Which I fully intend to - the library has some of the best medieval manuscripts in the world, so I doubt I'll be a stranger...

the Religious Conservative's False Choice

Over at his blog, my friend Dan recently reposted a blog article from back in February, looking at whether we should avoid challenging religion for practical reasons. This was my first time reading the post, and I found myself quite agreeing with Dan at several points. But I also found myself wondering how common this argument was? Or more precisely whether we should take the argument he's criticizing as representative or even compatible with the religious traditions conservatives are usually inspired by.

Let's start with the argument Dan is reacting against. He takes it from an email from someone named Caroline:

It would also be nice if people would carry out actions in good conscience of just being decent human beings rather than in fear of reprisal in the afterlife, but as there are “decent and undecent men in every crowd” (Frankl), it is not likely that humanity and some sort of functional moralistic system would hold up under strained conditions. And even under a fairly prosperous society such as ours, how much can the law really control without a Big Brother system? It is imaginable that these spiritual notions that keep people hopeful and happy about their lives also serve to maintain functional morality at least. Isn’t it possibly that being quick to remove religions altogether could be a cure worse than the illness?

As I understand it, the argument goes something like this:

1. Society is full of people without a conscience, who can't be trusted to behave morally without some sort of coercion.


2. We can either coerce people through the church or through the government.


3. For the government to effectively coerce people into acting morally when they wouldn't otherwise do so, there will be lots of bad consequences (need for intrusive surveillance, complete taking away of freedom, possibility of unjust incarceration, etc.)


4. So we shouldn't get in the way of the church's ability to coerce the faithful.

Now, I reject this argument for several reasons. So does Dan, and I think our reasons are mostly - though perhaps not totally - the same. Here's what I would say:

1. Conservatives are just too damned pessimistic about human nature. They don't trust people to be truly free, and they think someone needs to control people to keep them from hurting themselves and others. Ergo the need for coercion. And I simply don't buy that.



2. If a religious institution can manipulate someone in the right way, they can manipulate them in the wrong way just as easily - because clergy aren't angels. Arguably, in many ways they are worse than their conservative counterparts. I've seen comments from pastors and imams and rabbis and every other stripe of "holy" man that I don't think anyone in modern society would dare to say, if it wasn't in the name of some holy book or other.



3. It is always worse to imprison the mind than to imprison the body. If someone is genuinely unable to develop a conscience, then it is better to lock them in prison than to try to scare them out of even wanting to act immorally. Genuine character development is impossible. In that case, you'd be keeping them from even having the desires that come naturally to them, rather than just keeping them from acting on said desires. If religion's purpose is to scare people straight, that's even more restrictive an incarceration than jail would be.
   
   (It should be said: if jail's purpose is truly to prevent further harm rather than punish, they'd be a lot more humane than they are today. And punishment shouldn't enter into the picture. If a person is really incapable of growing a conscience, they're not responsible for what they do - they are in a certain sense inhuman. Which is tragic and pitiable, but if they're really beyond help to realize they're acting wrongly, I'd say they don't deserve blame.)

So, as far as all that goes, I agree with Dan. But I also think this is a pretty bad reason for thinking we should keep religion around - because it's a pretty bad description of what religion should be doing. The purpose of religion isn't repulsive but attractive. It should provide a standard to aim for and a metaphor that helps them think about how to get there. A narrative, a language that helps guide their thought, but that the faithful are ultimately in charge of interacting with. Not a coercive tool, and certainly not something imposed on the masses by the PTB.

Now, as a description of how religious people actually think, this idea of religion as carrot-or-stick might be pretty fair. I personally think it's a bastardization of religion (in the original etymology of twice-binding, in this case man to God), and I actually have a hard time understanding why it's so prevalent in people who call themselves Christians. Theologically, it shouldn't matter how ethical your actions are. You've already screwed up so bad - or more precisely, Adam and Eve already screwed up so badly on your behalf - that there's nothing you could ever do to make it any better or worse. Hell isn't for bad action but for refusing to accept something offered. So if people think we shouldn't murder or lie or steal because we might get sent down below, I'd say they're not really real Christians.

When I type that, I keep hearing the voices of the conservative pundits who said Anders Breivig wasn't a real Christian because real Christians couldn't possibly be so evil. But that's not what I mean. I mean this view, held by a lot of so-called Christians stands in direct contradiction to Christianity's core theology. Can't speak for Judaism, Islam, or the rest, of course. But even in the Bible you see an awareness that this could be a real problem. Remember, Paul asks, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" (Rom 6:1). If anything, Christianity should make people less moral rather than more - unless there's a real character change.

And for that, coercion just won't work - certainly not on those people who aren't capable of growing a conscience. Actually, authoritarian religion won't work, either. If the point of religion is to have you believe a check-list of propositions about the nature of God, morality, metaphysics, an afterlife, etc., well, those are still just propositions. And on this point at least I'm pretty strongly Aristotelian: the way you develop a capacity and an inclination to act a certain way isn't by passively having facts transmitted into you, but by having a set of experiences. Just like you can't develop strong biceps by injecting muscle mass directly into your forearm; you need the raw material, yes, but you need to lift a few barbells as well.

Over in his bio at Camels with Hammers, Dan says that he was a "devout Evangelical Christian" until his final semester of undergrad, and even attended one of the more conservatively religious schools in the country. I grew up Methodist with a strong dose of Catholicism, and so I think the associations I have with religion may be different than Dan's. Yes, the place we lived when I was figuring out my religious identity (high school + undergrad years) was a small Appalachian town where all churches seemed to have a more fundamentalist bent, and I had a hard time with that. So I get a lot of how Dan sees Christianity and religion generally (or at least how I think he sees it; it's always possible I am making assumptions).

Still, growing up we were not fundamentalists who believed there were certain bullet-points everyone had to believe in. Nor were we evangelicals who thought that breadth of outreach should trump depth of theology. We were Methodists, and that meant accepting that reason was involved in how we interpreted Scripture and viewed religion. If I am taught that two passages mean things that seem to contradict each other, then there's a challenge, a place to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). These are the phainomena Aristotle said drove us to examine things more deeply and work out just how things really work. My understanding of what my religion teaches is never completely finished, and neither is any other humans. If someone seems to have an authoritarian understanding of the right and the good, I'd say they're fooling themselves.

I'd also point out that in many traditions, theology itself is dynamic. A good example is the Jewish rabbinic Pardes model, where Scripture has several parallel truths, and the fact that one is true does not mean the other is true. Revelation is supposed to work forever, and not be a one-time gift that we understand and then move on from. So when the Israelites were told not to kill, or only to take fair compensation for an injury suffered (eye for eye, etc.) that may have been a radical enough teaching for the time. Once they'd absorbed it, though, the teaching could instruct them still to go further down the same path, if they treated it like a continuous teaching rather than a one-time deal. Dynamic, not fixed and authoritarian.

So I'd agree with Dan and others who have made similar arguments, that if an institution just tries to make people stand in line and accept the completely-worked-out truth, that needs to be fought against. It's lazy and works against autonomy, as Dan observed quite well. I'll gladly join him in that fight (and try to, though I work more from the inside). But where I get hung up is this idea that that's what religion is really all about. Religion in my experience is all about humility and realizing what you don't know. It's also all about realizing there's no one who can explain the truth to you.

I can't help thinking, that if people really believed that we'd be less prone to authoritarianism rather than more. And I know for myself, I started figuring out that my pastor (or my favorite author, or my teacher, or my duly elected official) didn't know everything when I started reading things for myself rather than trusting what others had to say. My gut instinct is that religion, like most institutions, can be useful in beating down authoritarianism as well as in building up. It comes down to how you use it.

(Btw, this post title shamelessly stolen from Dan's original post. There's no connection or endorsement; I just was too lazy to think up my own.)