Skip to main content

Using Faith for Good - The Fatwa Against Wildlife Trade

I have been battling with a dilemma. The concept of god is artificial. I am not going to argue the case for atheism here. It's overwhelmingly argued in thousands of books and blogs, and if you were still in any doubt, just listen to a few creationists or watch any religious service for acres of mumbo-jumbo helping to make the case for a 'wake-up' call. My dilemma is about the idea of perpetuating the brainwashing of populations who haven't woken up, or been allowed to, in order to encourage changes of behaviour to improve the world. In other words, if populations are already led by balmy divine instructions, why not harness its control of their minds to do good (whilst also trying to reach the same muddled brains to encourage a rational view of how the world really works).

At their hearts, religions are sets of rules which:

  1. Justify, protect and propagate their own sources of power (eg 'There is only one god', 'You will not worship any other' etc).
  2. Encourage practices which, at the time they were written, were designed to protect some aspects of their societies (no adultery, no murder (unless it's people who threaten rule set 1), no stealing, no eating stuff that might make you ill, etc).

The cunning of dividing these sets into two distinct parts (even the 10 commandments split into 5 about god and 5 about society), is that if you don't abide by the rules for your society, you've got the wrath of your society's god to deal with. So the 'god rules' enforce the 'society rules'. Some have argued that there's a 'god-gene' which has evolved to ensure successful societies pass on this benefit from generation to generation. Makes sense for it to exist, although Darwin might have found the argument that there is a rational reason for irrational behaviour a little hard to accept. So when man-made powers of control fail, resort to threatening powers that you can't prove don't exist, but which are vastly greater than anything you could imagine or deploy on Earth. And which everyone you know (parents, teachers, tribal leaders, states) demands you believe and obey from birth.

So accepting that this process is effective, whilst continuing to argue that it relies on brainwashing children, I was greatly encouraged to learn that muslim leaders in Indonesia, the world's largest Islamic nation (230m), have this week issued a fatwa banning the killing and trade in endangered species. Time will tell whether it has an effect, but the early signs are apparently promising. What muslim would offend Allah? Unfortunately it seems that an Indonesian fatwa doesn't hold sway in other muslim countries where their own councils of 'wise men' pronounce on what their deity had in mind. But hopefully it sets a precedent that others will follow.

National Geographic published a piece about it here including the fatwa translated. There's a bit more about the implications in the The Guardian.

If this works, where rationality can't or won't, then why not use religions to enforce behaviours that mankind is failing to do on its own?



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat