All hail Peter Singer?

Each year at this time, Australians are bestowed with 'Queen's Birthday awards', leading to a morning of public broadcaster radio coverage of interviews with understandably humbled recipients.

To get a news story out of such an event, focus tends to be on a famous scientist or doctor, whose work has led to discovering a technique in treating some form of terrible suffering. This year that person is medical researcher Ian Frazer. 

A second angle for a story is to pick up on a controversial (if only slightly) recipient.  This year, that person seems to be Peter Singer.

You may have heard of Peter Singer. He's famous for animal liberation and (but only secondly) encouraging the killing of humans in circumstances currently just beyond the norm - like killing intellectually or physically disabled children at any time in the first few years after birth (in particular circumstances).  (If you are interested in a punchy critique of Singer's views in this respect, try and find a copy of James Franklin's book on the history of philosophy in Australia - Corrupting the Youth, which is well worth a read anyway).

Mr Singer's views have always tended to secure an disproportional amount of media coverage by the Australian and British public broadcasters.  This is not, as the uneducated may imagine, in order to critique his position, but to effectively sing his praises, albeit with a bit of weak counterposed opposition lacking his formidable rigour. (This last observation links back to a previous post concerning the potential harm that can flow from having opposition on these issues pushed through a purely Christian point of view, and not spiced with significant rigour .)

In any event, in today's interviews with Mr Singer, talk quickly progressed to his views of God. Singer is also wheeled out as a 'new aethist', commonly at those other events so lovingly covered by public broadcasters - conferences of atheists with their Parthenon of stars - Dawkins et al.  The interviewer asked Singer a question along the lines of 'we know you have strong views of rationalism over belief in God, so you must be very disappointed to learn that the amount of followers of religion is continuing to grow.'  'Yes', said Singer (and I'm paraphrasing), 'I can only try an promote the place of rational thought' - and so it went on.

I have three comments about this. First, it seems to be assumed, in the question asked and answer given, that if you are religious, you are not rational.  This is a great convenience for an interviewer, since (amongst other things) it prevents any potential embarrassment between interviewer and intervieweee.

Second, it is sad that the subject matter of  the question (that religion is growing) is treated as little more than a position to hold in a debate, or as being akin to a political view that can change between elections. The tone has no room to consider that a religious position reflects a way of life for a person.  Marriage is now treated the same way - as though it is something to be supported or not, rather than as a way of being.

Thirdly, and this brings me to Burwood library. No doubt you have never heard of Burwood library - a suburban local public library in Sydney, but you may be able to identify with the following, drawn to my attention by my wife (and for a more substantial future post).  If you went and had a look at the books in the religious section (say, out of a sociological interest), you would discover that there are very few - I'd say less than 5% - which would give you any insight as to how to live as a Catholic (my creed). There are plenty that tell you how to live as an atheist, and why that is a superior state of being.  There are many others about lapsed believers who take a swing at their former profession, there are may 'comparative religion' books and finally, there are plenty of Kumbaya books (see up and to the right for a definition). In short, unlike the art, cooking, history and chemistry sections, there are not many books about how to be a Catholic in a religion section.

I suppose the point can be viewed as to how has religion's role in large parts of the 'public square' has been reduced to cannon fodder for attackers (a la Singer and his mates), or something of a sociological phenomenon (al la Burwood library), rather than something that most of us humans do?  All for another day.