Religion can't have it both ways

I came across a remarkable news story this week.

As Malaysia plans to put its first astronaut into space, care of a perk that came bundled with a pricey military contract with Russia, the issue of Islam in space has been seriously broached for the first time.

The issue is how can an astronaut hope to conform with the guidelines for prayer as dictated by one of the five pillars of Islam.

First off, the devout need to wash themselves before prayer, but this could prove a difficult, messy and expensive exercise in zero-G. Water is a precious commodity in space, and hygiene is not such a problem in such a sterile environment.

Secondly, the individual needs to face Mecca. However, Mecca could be speeding past below their feet (or knees, as the case may be), making it a hard target to pin down.

Thirdly, kneeling is not such an easy exercise in zero-G.

Finally, prayer times are associated with sunrise and sunset – which are very different concepts when you’re in space. Furthermore, sunrise and sunset might be more frequent in Earth orbit, but consider a trip to Mars, or even through interstellar space. The sun might not set for months or years in those conditions.

Of course, the more pragmatic thinkers – of which Islam has its fair share – consider these conditions to be flexible in cases where they’re simply impossible to maintain. The prayer itself is far more important than the minutiae of the process, especially in such extraordinary circumstances.

I’m sure traditionalists are somewhat less forgiving though.

For me this raises a fascinating question of the application of religion in modern times and the extent to which the word of the Qur’an, Bible, Torah etc should be taken literally.

We all know there’s no small number of individuals who place tremendous faith in the literal word of their holy texts.

These individuals need to consider the example of the Muslim in space.

If concessions are made to allow prayer without going through all the rituals under a strict interpretation, then does this mean different conditions allow for different interpretations of the holy texts?

If so, then this raises the further issue of other instances where the texts might be reinterpreted, or even discarded, because of differing circumstances.

Take the consumption of pork, for example. Pigs were once fairly unhygienic creatures, and it’s understandable that some cultures would have discouraged their consumption for health reasons. Sensible advice in some environments and some ages. However, these days, with modern farming practices, there’s no health risk to eating pork.

Many Muslims and Jews still stick to the abolition of pork even though they know there’s no health risk. They base their decision on tradition, faith or culture. I’m sure a Jewish or Muslim reader would have a lot more to say about this, and I’d love to hear from you if you do.

Yet you can’t sidestep some issues. Like prayer in space. Or like coveting thy neighbours ass. How many other issues could be revised in light of modern day conditions and the development of our culture. Think if the Internet existed in the time of Jesus or Mohammed that they might have a thing or two to say about it?

The principle of taking a holy text as a literal guide to life is as ludicrous as taking a single drawn circle as a representative of all perfect circles. There’s far too much contingency in any scripture – and even the universal truths that may be buried within them could be marred by being tied to an inappropriate context.

You can’t have it both ways. If some elements of the scriptures or their interpretations can be revised, then they all can.

Good eggs and bad eggs

Last night I was privileged enough to attend a lecture at the University of Sydney by academic Frank Furedi, sociologist and author of a range of fascinating books, including Politics of Fear and Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone.

He didn't speak about his core argument of recent times - that as a society we're overly focused on fear and mitigating risk - instead he spoke about the broader question of how humanity views itself.

This is a fascinating topic, and one that I think is going to get some more attention in coming years.

Furedi's message was that we're descending into a widely pessimistic view of our fellow humans, and that is compromising many of our liberal values. When we think everyone around us is a fool or morally corrupt, then concepts like free speech lose much of their vigour.

I think this has special applicability to the way politics are evolving in the Western world at the moment.

With the fall of socialism, communitarianism has lost much of its appeal, especially to the Left. This means the Left needs to find new ways to define what it is in the 21st Century in a way that captures the sprit of the Left but also explains the appeal of communitarianism.

I think that is in our inherent views of human nature.

Instead of viewing the Left and Right as being at the far ends of an axis representing communitarianism at one end and individualism at the other, I think it's useful to look at the ends as being optimism or pessimism about human nature in general.

This in some ways entirely changes the definition of Left and Right, but most of the salient features of each ideology still remain.

Concepts like rehabilitation, free speech, freedom of the press, harm minimisation and welfare all have varying degrees of optimism about humanity.

Zero tolerance, censorship, 'tough on drugs' and the move to reduce welfare seem to have at their root a more pessimistic view.

For example, a zero tolerance approach to crime seems to imply that if an individual commits one criminal act, they're a bad egg.

Rehabilitation, on the other hand, seems to express the opposite view. It seems to hold an implicit belief in the possibility of redemption.

Welfare is another example. A pessimistic (and arguably strongly individualistic) view would look upon a long term unemployed individual with scepticism. If they were committed enough and not lazy, they'd have a job. At a certain point the pessimist simply deems them unworthy of further coddling and calls for the welfare payments to be taken away.

On the other end of the spectrum, the optimist (and arguably the communitarian) suggests there might be other mitigating factors in the individual's long term unemployment, and seeks to support them in the hope they will get a job, and in the process shrug off any possible latent laziness they might have as a result of their time on welfare.

These are obviously broad and sweeping examples with many unexplored nuances, but I think the general principle is clear.

It should also be obvious that I see a link between optimism and communitarianism, and pessimism with individualism - but this link is not 1:1. It's more like a two axis plane where the axes are not perpendicular, but are rather at a 45 degree angle, if that makes sense.

Further to this theory, it might be worth exploring whether the Left might benefit from a redefinition in terms of optimism about human nature. With the next step being a nice solid empirical analysis of whether that optimism is justified.

I'm sure the optimism is. Much of it is also a matter of perspective. While there are some strong cases for pessimism, such as repeat offenders returning to jail or long term unemployed explicitly basing their lifestyles around welfare, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic too.

As Furedi stated in his lecture, the 20th Century will be remembered as the century of the Holocaust, massive world wars, genocide, nuclear weapons etc, it should equally be remembered for its triumphs for humanism, the United Nations, reductions in racism, the increased spread of democracy and equal rights for women etc.

"If all that's what a bad century can achieve, imagine what a good century could do," he said.

If this theory has some merit, it could also go some way to explaining why the Right is so powerful in politics today. When fear is spread amongst a population, our optimism towards our fellow humans is eroded. This can lead to a more cynical approach to the world, with more mistrust and suspicion. And this serves the Right handily.

This means if this theory holds some truth, then it's just as important to reinforce the positive aspects of human nature as is it to actually do good.

After all, optimism is a perception, and perceptions can be influenced - for good or for ill.

I'm sure Professor Furedi would heartily agree.