Atheists and agnostics

Often, in discussions of atheism on the internet, an issue arises about the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. Sometimes it takes the form of an atheist pressing someone who prefers to call herself "an agnostic" to accept the label of "atheist". Personally, I think that people should label themselves how they wish, or avoid labels if they want (and can). Still, this issue arises very commonly: I won't even start to provide links to prove it; you'll have to take my word for it, if you haven't had the same experience. So, maybe it's worth trying to get the distinction clear.

First, it seems that there is an overlap between atheism and agnosticism. As I understand it, an agnostic is someone who claims to lack knowledge (as to the existence of God - though the expression is sometimes extended by analogy as in "I'm agnostic about whether Obama made a good choice for Secretary of State").

Theists can't also be agnostic, or if I'm wrong and there is some overlap between theism and agnosticism it certainly cannot be typical. Many theists do claim to have knowledge, even if they also claim that knowledge can be based on something like a leap of faith or the hearing of an inner voice, or the possession of a supposedly innate conviction. They may be wrong about all this - I believe that they are - but they do claim to have knowledge of the existence of their god of choice. Putting it another way, they believe that their belief in the existence of this being is appropriately justified.

As for atheists, I work with the concept that an atheist is someone who has no belief that God or gods exist. Such a person may also say that they do not have knowledge that these beings don't exist. They believe there's no justification for a confident claim either way. There's no inconsistency between being an atheist and also being an agnostic in those senses.

Still, some atheists make stronger claims. To do so, it is not necessary to claim anything as strong as certainty. You can have an appropriately justified belief that falls well short of certainty. It seems to me that you can have an appropriately justified belief that at least some gods don't exist, and at the same time you can have the belief that your belief is justified, so you express it with confidence. E.g., I have what I consider an appropriately justified belief that Zeus does not exist - there is plenty of evidence that Zeus is man-made, essentially a fictional character. For example, the existence of this being is not required to explain lightning and rain, no such being has ever been reliably encountered on Mount Olympus or anywhere else, the stories relating to Zeus are implausible beyond their cultural setting (why is the lifestyle of this being such an ancient Greek one?), and so on. Attempts to save the existence of Zeus from such criticisms would appear ad hoc and even desperate, despite the fact that it is logically possible that a being something like this exists somewhere in the Universe.

In short, I confidently deny Zeus's existence. I think I have appropriate justification for denying that any such being exists. The same applies to all the gods of pagan mythology.

I also confidently deny the existence of anything remotely like the God described in the Old Testament, and on pretty similar grounds to my denial of the existence of Zeus (though the grounds won't always be the same - e.g., on some conceptions of the Old Testament God, he is supposed to have caused events that we can confidently say never happened, such as Noah's flood).

Likewise, though for more philosophical reasons, I confidently deny the existence of the God(s) described in various popular accounts of Christianity. I also deny the existence of the more abstract God of the orthodox Abrahamic tradition of philosophical theology, insofar as this being is supposed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and also loving and providential. Here, my justification may not be as strong, but the evidence is so strongly against the existence of this being that confidence of its non-existence strikes me as justified. Attempts to get around problems such as the traditional Problem of Evil, the hiddenness of this god, and so on, strike me as ad hoc and desperate. When I throw up my hands and say Unbelievable!, I think this is a rational response.

I'm less sure what to say about the gods of deism and pantheism. I don't believe they exist, so I am an atheist about them in at least that weak sense. It also strikes me that the grounds for claiming they exist are rather weak, and there's an appearance of wishful thinking, or of heuristic bias in favour of seeking ultimate explanations that are couched in terms of agency. Still, I would feel less confident about denying the existence of such beings. When we reach the far ends of explanation for various phenomena, we may think that positing, say, a deist God is just ad hoc, an unnecessary science stopper. On the other hand, we just don't know enough about the ultimate answers to philosophical questions to rule out the existence of the deist God (or, I suppose, the pantheist one).

On balance, I am actually prepared to deny the existence of the deist and pantheist gods, but with a lower level of confidence because I have a lower level of justification for concluding that these beings don't existence. They probably don't, but I could not put a level of probability on it.

None of this worries me too much, because even if I'm wrong and it turns out that such a being exists it can't make any difference to how I live my life. The deist and pantheist gods do not have opinions about, for example, who I've slept with, whether it was a good idea to eat pork and drink wine, and so on. Nor would their existence affect the merit of any of the work I've done as a writer, a philosopher, and so on. Nor would it restore the authority of any popes or priests, whose authority depends on the truth of the actual religions they profess.

If the deist or pantheist god turns out to exist after all, I can live with it. Insofar as some Christians these days are really just deists or pantheists, I don't see why I should try to "convert" them to my atheist position on the deist and pantheist gods. It doesn't really matter that much.

The gods that matter are the ones that want to interfere in our lives, the ones whose bidding is carried out by all the presbyters and pulpiteers. I'm talking, in particular, about the Old Testament Yahweh or Jehovah, the Trinitarian godhead of orthodox Christianity, the deities of orthodox theologians and popular preachers, and about Allah, as depicted in the Koran. We can confidently deny the existence of all those gods, and the authority of anyone who claims to be expert in what those gods think about what we should do and how we should live.

Whoa, we just had an earthquake!

Literally!

Well ... it was only a little tremor, and I doubt that there was any damage done anywhere, but Melbourne had a small earth tremor about a quarter of an hour ago. It was a bit freaky sitting here watching everything shaking for what was probably only a few seconds but seemed to go on for quite a long time.

No news on the net about it yet, but I gather there was just something on ABC Radio.

Edit: Here's one story, though a bit misleading in its form as I write: we felt the tremor here, as south as you can go in Melbourne - it wasn't just the north and north-east.

Further edit: Here's some better information.

165 and counting

About this time last night I created a Facebook group for Voices of Disbelief. As of a couple of minutes ago, we'd already reached 165 members. Hooray for us. Now let's see how high we can go.

Thanks to Roy N. for the great image. This isn't the cover, which has yet to be designed, but it's excellent for the Facebook group.

Edit: as of 23 March, we are approaching 600 members!

The irrationality of the "true faith-head"

I'll start by explaining how even "true faith-heads" can be sort of rational.

If two people start with totally different fundamental assumptions, one will never convince the other. I mean truly fundamental assumptions, such as assumptions about what even counts as evidence. Because of this, the most extreme religious dogmatist, no matter how stubborn, may not suffer any psychiatric illness or make any egregious error of deductive reasoning.

Note that the situation of such people relative to others is not symmetrical. In our everyday lives, we have standards of evidence that most people - religious or otherwise - accept. E.g. the fact that I can see no hippopotamus in my study when I look around is good evidence that there is no such hippopotamus in my study. If my lovely Significant Other pops in here in a minute, I can ask her if she sees one, but she'll think I've lost my mind (or, more likely, that I'm asking her as part of a philosophical thought experiment). Outside of religion, we have no trouble reaching consensus on most everyday issues because we use common standards of evidence and possess similar powers of observation.

Science typically deals with things that can't be observed directly with our unaugmented senses - often because these things are very small or very far away or no longer in existence. We have traces and indirect clues, but no one has ever observed, say, a brachiosaurus, only certain fossilised bones (and even the interpretation of them as fossilised bones requires a body of theory). But science uses methods that are continuous with our usual methods for inquiring rationally into the world around us. Over the past four hundred years, science has been able to tell us much about the world beyond observation by our unaugmented senses. It delivers reliable knowledge by using such methods as scientific instruments, highly precise modelling, conducting experiments that control for extraneous variables, using convergence of results from many lines of inquiry. Most of these are methods that we use in everyday life, but outside of science we don't always need to be so rigorous because everyday questions can often be resolved just by observing.

Applying ordinary kinds of reasoning from everyday life and from scientific inquiry, we can answer many questions. People who disagree can be brought to change their minds if the evidence is provided to them. Over time, science tends to converge on answers and to develop well-corroborated theoretical knowledge that is unlikely ever to be overturned, such as the knowledge that life on Earth evolved over hundreds of millions of years. That doesn't mean that the scientific image of the world is ever complete; there's always new stuff to find out. Still, there are many things that we can now be confident about - the approximate age of the Earth, the evolutionary explanation for the diversity of life and the apparent purposiveness of adaptations such as the eyes, the descent of Homo sapiens from earlier primates, and so on.

The people who can't be argued out of their position are those who have certain substantive beliefs about the world that go psychologically deeper than their commitment to ordinary standards of evidence. This certainly includes some religious people - the so-called true faith-heads. If someone believes doctrine X in that way, and is then confronted with good evidence (by ordinary standards) for ~X, she has many options including the option of claiming that ordinary standards of evidence are wrong or inapplicable. Someone like that can enjoy a hermetically-sealed worldview. No argument based on evidence can ever penetrate it. 

But notice that this person need never be irrational in the sense of refusing to apply the basic rules of deductive logic, or in the sense of refusing to apply ordinary standards of evidence in her everyday non-religious life. Nor need she be suffering anything like a psychiatric illness. Still, there's a sense in which irrationality is present.

Most atheists are open to evidence that God exists if ordinary evidence is supplied. In fact, there'd probably be no atheists around in Western countries if diluvian geology had turned out to be correct - i.e., if dating methods pointed to an age of the Earth of 6000 years, and if the fossil record and the facts about rock formation turned out to be consistent with a mass extinction in Noah's flood and the formation of the rocks and the fossil record at the time. Even now, there is probably evidence that could (in principle) come in to persuade an atheist to change her mind, though the historical record of the religionists is so dreadful that it will now take something remarkably compelling.

True faith-heads, by contrast, are immune to evidence. Since they are committed to certain substantive theological claims more deeply than they are to ordinary standards of evidence, they will even develop revised evidentiary standards if that is the only way out. In between, they'll clutch at all sorts of propositions that seem unhinged by ordinary standards. E.g., we see YEC Christians committed to a 6000-year-old Earth who will admit that the Earth looks 4 to 5 billion years old (using various dating methods)... but of course, God had His reasons for making it look that way when He created it 6000 years ago. One such person is currently arguing the toss about this over on Richard Dawkins' site. I can't disprove what he is claiming, but when it's viewed from outside it's plainly unacceptable.

There's no arguing with such people. All you can do is point out how they think and why that kind of thinking should not be given any credibility or respect by anyone who isn't already infected with it. You can also point out how arbitrary the deep assumptions that these people make really are and how baroque their worldview eventually becomes when they are pressed. But, in the end, they either see how unsatisfactory the entire picture is or they don't. No single argument can penetrate their sealed-off view of the world.

How many religious folk are true faith-heads in this sense? Well, I suspect it's a kind of sliding scale. It seems to me that it would be very difficult for a sincere and inquiring person to hang on to some religious doctrines unless they go very deep in her set of beliefs. It may take a lot of true faith-headedness to stand up for Young Earth Creationism in the face of all the scientific evidence. But I suspect that a fair amount is required even for belief in a loving and providential (and all-powerful, all-knowing) God. There is always a way out, to seal off such beliefs from ordinary standards of evidence, but if those standards are accepted it is not believable that such a being would have allowed the millions of years (and enormous amounts of misery in the animal world) needed to evolve us, or would have made its own presence in the world so un-apparent, or would have intervened at such a late stage in human history.

Now, one can argue that God must have had a reason for these things. E.g., maybe God is so un-apparent because He values belief in his existence by those who believe despite the lack of evidence. Maybe those who believe in God are just those whom God has spoken to personally. Why not speak personally to everyone then? Well, maybe only some are receptive to the message (and God would know who they are). Why not make everyone receptive to the message, if you happen to be God? Well maybe you have a choice, if you happen to be human, whether or not you're receptive. Why not make all of us so that, given such a choice, we'll want to be receptive? Well, free will doesn't work like that...

By now we're moving toward a baroque and implausible idea of free will, what it means to choose to be receptive to a message from God Himself, and so on, but for the dogmatist, there's always room to move. 

Some people are beyond arguments based on ordinary standards of evidence, and they cannot be reached. The most we can hope is that they will eventually work out that the entire edifice looks wildly implausible from outside, and that that's a good reason to reject it in toto, especially if they realise that the deep assumptions they have been making were shaped by culture and are really rather arbitrary. If they don't ever get to that point - one that involves seeing through the effect of their own socialisation - we can merely point out to others that there's no reason to give any special respect to the beliefs of these people. There's no reason to adopt those beliefs yourself unless you already share the assumptions of the faith-heads. The hermetic sealing keeps ideas in as well as out.

Again, the sort of irrationality involved need not include making a clear mistake of logic or being unable to navigate safely around the world. It needn't include hearing voices or anything of that sort. Nonetheless, it involves distorting your thinking by giving an unjustified place to certain arbitrary assumptions that other people would not (and should not) make on the basis of ordinary standards of evidence. Those assumptions are used as premises, in effect, rather than drawn as conclusions from everyday observation or well-corroborated scientific theory. This is not ordinary irrationality, and yet there's a point in calling it irrational.

Voices of Disbelief page

I've just updated my page for what I should now call 50 Voices of Disbelief. This page is still rather basic, but I'll continue to update it as we go, and perhaps it will ultimately take a more whiz-bang form. At the moment, it just consolidates the basic information about the book, but it was badly in need of updating from the rudimentary form that it took about this time last year.

Great interview with Jenny

Here's a great new interview with Jenny at Specusphere. This also stand as a preview of her book, The Priestess and the Slave, which will be published next month from Hadley Rille.

Copy edits checked for Voices of Disbelief

Udo Schuklenk and I have done our check on the copyediting of Voices of Disbelief. The checked manuscript is now back with the publisher, and hopefully we won't have too many problems between now and the next phase. In about April, we should receive page proofs, at which point it will be a matter of fixing up any typos that have slipped through so far ... plus the task of compiling an index, which will be a non-trivial one with a book like this.

The book is on target to be published in September 2009, with a final title of 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists.

Here's a roll-call of contributors and essays, in the order of appearance in the book:


Introduction: Now More Important than Ever – Voices of Reason — Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk

Unbelievable! — Russell Blackford

My “Bye Bull” Story — Margaret Downey

How benevolent is God? – An argument from suffering to atheism — Nicholas Everitt

A Deal-breaker — Ophelia Benson

Why Am I a Nonbeliever? – I Wonder... — J. L. Schellenberg

Wicked or Dead? Reflections on the moral character and existential status of God — John Harris

Religious Belief and Self-Deception — Adèle Mercier

The Coming of Disbelief — J.J.C. Smart

What I Believe —Graham Oppy

Too Good to Be True, Too Obscure to Explain: The Cognitive Shortcomings of Belief in God — Thomas W. Clark

How to Think About God: Theism, Atheism, and Science — Michael Shermer

A Magician Looks at Religion — James Randi

Confessions of a Kindergarten Leper — Emma Tom

Beyond Disbelief — Philip Kitcher

An ambivalent nonbelief — Taner Edis

Why Not? — Sean M. Carroll

Godless Cosmology — Victor J. Stenger

Unanswered Prayers — Christine Overall

Beyond Faith and Opinion — Damien Broderick

Could it be pretty obvious there’s no God? — Stephen Law

Atheist, obviously — Julian Baggini

Why I am Not a Believer — A.C. Grayling

Evil and Me — Gregory Benford

Who’s Unhappy? — Lori Lipman Brown

Reasons to be Faithless — Sheila A.M. McLean

Three Stages of Disbelief — Julian Savulescu

Born Again, Briefly — Greg Egan

Cold Comfort — Ross Upshur

The Accidental Exorcist — Austin Dacey

Atheist Out of the Foxhole — Joe Haldeman

The Unconditional Love of Reality — Dale McGowan

Antinomies — Jack Dann

Giving up ghosts and gods — Susan Blackmore

Some thoughts on why I am an atheist — Tamas Pataki

No Gods, Please! — Laura Purdy

Welcome Me Back to the World of the Thinking — Kelly O'Connor

Kicking Religion Goodbye … — Peter Adegoke

On credenda — Miguel Kottow

“Not even start to ignore those questions!” A voice of disbelief in a different key — Frieder Otto Wolf

Imagine No Religion — Edgar Dahl

Humanism as Religion: An Indian Alternative — Sumitra Padmanabhan

Why I am NOT a theist — Prabir Ghosh

When the Hezbollah came to my school — Maryam Namazie

Evolutionary Noise, not Signal from Above — Athena Andreadis

Gods Inside — Michael R. Rose and John P. Phelan

Why Morality Doesn’t Need Religion — Peter Singer and Marc Hauser

Doctor Who and the Legacy of Rationalism — Sean Williams

My non-religious life: A journey from superstition to rationalism — Peter Tatchell

Helping People to Think Critically About Their Religious Beliefs — Michael Tooley

Human Self-Determination, Biomedical Progress, and God — Udo Schuklenk

Boycott Kelloggs

See this wonderful open letter to Kelloggs by Joe Rogan. It's funny, but it has a serious point. Boycott Kelloggs for as a long as you can tear yourself away from its addictive products.

The devil is in the detail

In my previous post, I posted the full text of the non-binding resolution on defamation of religion, passed by the UN General Assembly late last year. We need to be able to consult the full text because the devil is in the detail. Much of the discussion on the internet seems to make assumptions about what it might say, rather than what it actually does say. For a more authoritative publication of the text, go here, where you can find it with difficulty.

It should be pointed out that much of the text is innocuous or even commendable. E.g., it deplores literal (physical) violence, or incitement to violence, against people on the ground of religion. There are also commendable statements about the importance of education to both boys and girls, and much other material that is arguably good stuff for the UN to be saying.

But to see how sweeping and potentially draconian it is in restricting free speech, you need to dig into the detail and try to work out what it would mean in practice.

The main purpose seems to be to stop "defamation of religion" which seems to include claims that something in Islam encourages violence and terrorism. So, Fitna would seem to be a classic case of "defamation of religion". But there are other phrases that would seem to require prevention of certain kinds of blasphemy - e.g. the production of images on the internet desecrating religious symbols seems to be condemned by this resolution.

Because it's written in UN-style gobbledegook, it's very difficult to pin down what it would mean in practice, i.e. exactly what laws it would require nations to pass if the same wording actually became a basis for a UN Convention, and if various nations then signed it. That vagueness is itself cause for concern. But the aim does seem to be primarily to stop people saying highly critical things about Islam.

I don't know that anything in such a book as Richard Dawkins The God Delusion would necessarily come under "defamation of religion", although the comparison with other forms of delusion might go close. But anyway, large tracts of Sam Harris's The End of Faith would probably qualify. Likewise the anti-Muslim views of someone like Mark Steyn. It is possible that a great deal of robust criticism or satire of doctrines, religious institutions, holy books, and cultures could end up being prohibited if this resolution were given a higher status than just a non-binding resolution of the Assembly.

I'd be interested in anyone else's interpretations of how it would work if it actually became international law, based on a close reading of the actual text.

Full text of the defamation of religion declaration

79. At the 39th meeting, on 11 November, the representative of Uganda, on behalf
of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Organization
of the Islamic Conference, Belarus and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of),
introduced a draft resolution entitled “Combating defamation of religions”
(A/C.3/63/L.22), which read as follows:
“The General Assembly,
“Reaffirming the pledge made by all States, under the Charter of the
United Nations, to promote and encourage universal respect for and
observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction
as to race, sex, language or religion,
“Recalling the relevant international instruments on the elimination of
discrimination, in particular the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief, the Declaration
on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in
which They Live and the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to
National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities,
“Recalling also the relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human
Rights and the Human Rights Council in this regard,
“Welcoming the resolve expressed in the United Nations Millennium
Declaration adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2000 to take
measures to eliminate the increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many
societies and to promote greater harmony and tolerance in all societies, and
looking forward to its effective implementation at all levels,
“Underlining in this regard the importance of the Durban Declaration and
Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South
Africa, in 2001, welcoming the progress achieved in implementing the
Declaration and Programme of Action, and emphasizing that they constitute a
solid foundation for the elimination of all scourges and manifestations of
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,
“Expressing concern at the increase in racist violence and xenophobic
ideas in many parts of the world, in political circles, in the sphere of public
opinion and in society at large, as a result, inter alia, of the resurgence of
activities of political parties and associations established on the basis of racist
and xenophobic platforms and charters, and the persistent use of those
platforms and charters to promote or incite racist ideologies,
“Deeply alarmed at the rising trends towards discrimination based on
religion or belief, including in some national policies, laws and administrative
measures that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and
beliefs under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration,
thereby legitimizing discrimination against them, and consequently impairing
their enjoyment of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
and impeding their ability to observe, practise and manifest their religion
freely and without fear of coercion, violence or reprisal,
“Noting with deep concern the serious instances of intolerance,
discrimination and acts of violence based on religion or belief, intimidation
and coercion motivated by extremism, religious or otherwise, occurring in
many parts of the world, in addition to the negative projection of Islam in the
media and the introduction and enforcement of laws and administrative
measures that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims, in
particular Muslim minorities following the events of 11 September 2001, and
that threaten to impede their full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
“Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human
dignity leading to the restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents
and incitement to religious hatred and violence,
“Stressing also the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions
and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular,
“Reaffirming that discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief
constitutes a violation of human rights and a disavowal of the principles of the
Charter of the United Nations,
“Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to
religious hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of
human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this
burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents
of certain religions,
“Taking note of the reports of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary
forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,
submitted to the Human Rights Council at its fourth and sixth sessions, which
draw attention to the serious nature of the defamation of all religions, and
reiterating the call of the Special Rapporteur to all States to wage a systematic
campaign against incitement to racial and religious hatred by maintaining a
careful balance between the defence of secularism and respect for freedom of
religion and by acknowledging and respecting the complementarity of all the
freedoms embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights,
“Recalling the proclamation of the Global Agenda for Dialogue among
Civilizations, and inviting States, the organizations and bodies of the United
Nations system, within existing resources, other international and regional
organizations and civil societies to contribute to the implementation of the
Programme of Action contained in the Global Agenda,
“Welcoming the efforts of the Alliance of Civilizations initiative in
promoting mutual respect and understanding among different cultures and
societies, as well as the forthcoming second forum of the Alliance, to be held
in Istanbul, Turkey, on 2 and 3 April 2009,
“Convinced that respect for cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic
diversity, as well as dialogue among and within civilizations, is essential for
peace, understanding and friendship among individuals and people of the
different cultures and nations of the world, while manifestations of cultural
prejudice, intolerance and xenophobia towards people belonging to different
cultures, religions and beliefs generate hatred and violence among peoples and
nations throughout the world,
“Recognizing the valuable contributions of all religions and beliefs to
modern civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can
make to an improved awareness and understanding of common values,
“Underlining the important role of education in the promotion of
tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,
“Reaffirming the need for all States to continue their national and
international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among
civilizations, cultures, religions and beliefs, and emphasizing that States,
regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, religious bodies and
the media have an important role to play in promoting tolerance, respect for
and freedom of religion and belief,
“Welcoming all international and regional initiatives aimed at promoting
cross-cultural and interfaith harmony, including the International Dialogue on
Interfaith Cooperation, held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, on 6 and 7 December
2004, and the World Conference on Dialogue, held in Madrid from
16 to 18 July 2008, and their valuable efforts towards the promotion of a
culture of peace and dialogue at all levels, and taking note with appreciation of
the final declaration adopted at the conference on ‘Common world: progress
through diversity’, held in Astana on 17 October 2008,
“Underlining the importance of increasing contacts at all levels in order
to deepen dialogue and reinforce understanding among different cultures,
religions, beliefs and civilizations, and welcoming in this regard the
Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on
Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned
Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007,
“Recalling its resolution 62/154 of 18 December 2007,
“1. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General and the
conclusions contained therein;
“2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions
and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or
belief still evident in the world;
“3. Strongly deplores all acts of ideological and physical violence and
assaults, and incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion
or belief, and such acts directed against their businesses, properties, cultural
centres and places of worship, as well as targeting of holy sites and religious
symbols of all religions;
“4. Expresses deep concern at the programmes and agendas pursued by
extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, and
incitement to religious hatred in general, in particular when condoned by
Governments;
“5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of
defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,
including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the
aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
“6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism and the
reaction to counter-terrorism measures, defamation of religions, and incitement
to religious hatred in general, become aggravating factors that contribute to the
denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as
well as their economic and social exclusion;
“7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and
wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;
“8. Reiterates the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an
integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy,
which was adopted without a vote by the General Assembly on 8 September
2006, and which clearly affirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should
not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group,
stressing the need to reinforce the international community’s commitment to
promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national
and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs
or cultures and prevent the defamation of religions;
“9. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media,
including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence,
xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion,
including Islam, as well as targeting of religious symbols;
“10. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law,
everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to
freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these rights carries with it
special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations
as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or
reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public
health or morals;
“11. Reaffirms that general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee
stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon
racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and
expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious
hatred;
“12. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion
and expression to continue to carry out their work as mandated by the Human
Rights Council in its resolutions 7/34 and 7/36 of 28 March 2008;
“13. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary
legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States
to take resolute action in this regard;
“14. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and
constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred,
discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of
religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, to take all possible
measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs and the
understanding of their value systems and to complement legal systems with
intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;
“15. Also urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including
members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators,
in the course of their official duties, respect people regardless of their different
religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of
their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or
training is provided;
“16. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and
incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing
actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through
education and awareness-raising;
“17. Urges States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and
in practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both
girls and boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based
on respect for human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of
any kind, and to refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial
segregation in access to schooling;
“18. Calls upon the international community to foster a global dialogue
to promote a culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights
and diversity of religion and belief, and urges States, non-governmental
organizations, religious bodies and the print and electronic media to support
and participate in such a dialogue;
“19. Affirms that the Human Rights Council shall promote universal
respect for all religious and cultural values and address instances of
intolerance, discrimination and incitement of hatred against members of any
community or adherents of any religion, as well as promote ways to
consolidate international efforts in order to combat impunity for such
deplorable acts;
“20. Welcomes the initiative by the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights to hold an expert seminar on freedom of expression and
advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,
hostility and violence, which was held on 2 and 3 October 2008, and requests
the High Commissioner to continue to build on this initiative, with a view to
preventing and eliminating all such forms of incitement and the consequences
of negative stereotyping of religions or beliefs, and their adherents, on the
human rights of those individuals and their communities;
“21. Takes note of the efforts of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights to promote and include human rights aspects in educational
programmes, particularly the World Programme for Human Rights Education
proclaimed by the General Assembly on 10 December 2004, and calls upon the
High Commissioner to continue those efforts, with particular focus on:
“(a) The contributions of cultures, as well as religious and cultural
diversity;
“(b) Collaboration with other relevant bodies of the United Nations
system and regional and international organizations in holding joint
conferences designed to encourage the dialogue among civilizations and
promote understanding of the universality of human rights and their
implementation at various levels, in particular the Office of the United Nations
High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations and the unit within the
Secretariat mandated to interact with various entities within the United Nations
system and coordinate their contribution to the intergovernmental process;
“22. Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the
implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation
between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and
hatred in many parts of the world, to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth
session.”
80. At its 46th meeting, on 24 November, the Committee had before it a revised
text of the draft resolution (A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1), which the representative of
Uganda orally revised by replacing, in the eighth preambular paragraph, the words
“illegal immigration” by the words “irregular immigration”.
81. At the same meeting, statements were made by the representative of Egypt and
the observer for the Holy See (see A/C.3/63/SR.46).
82. Also at its 46th meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution
A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1, as orally revised, by a recorded vote of 85 to 50, with 42 abstentions
(see para. 182, draft resolution IV). The voting was as follows:
In favour:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire,
Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt,
El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras,
Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan,
Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho,
Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria,
Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa,
Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan,
Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab
Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen,
Zimbabwe.
Against:
Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco,
Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal,
Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino,
Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United States of America.
Abstaining:
Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti,
India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Namibia,
Nauru, Nepal, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Timor-
Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu,
Zambia.
83. Before the vote, statements were made by the representatives of India, the
United States and France (on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations
that are members of the European Union and associated States); after the vote,
statements were made by the representatives of Nigeria, Chile, Colombia, Brazil and
Singapore (see A/C.3/63/SR.46).