EUA: fundamentalismo evangelico condena universidades ao atraso cientifico

 Não é exclusivo dos EUA, embora seja muito disseminado no país. Mas no Brasil também alguns idiotas defendem a mesma agenda obscurantista, inclusive uma pré-candidata a vice-presidente que se apresenta como a beata da floresta.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Christian College Faces Uproar After Bolstering Its View on Evolution

By ALAN BLINDER

The New York Times, May 20, 2014

DAYTON, Tenn. — William Jennings Bryan earned a permanent place in American history nearly nine decades ago in the Scopes trial, when he stood in a courtroom here and successfully prosecuted a case under a state law that banned the teaching of evolution in public schools.

While not quite “the fantastic cross between a circus and a holy war,” as Time magazine put it, that captivated the nation in 1925, a similar debate is again playing out in Dayton, this time at an evangelical Christian college named for Bryan, which is being sued as part of a controversy over its own stance on the origin of humans.

The continuing debate at Bryan College and beyond is a reminder how divisive the issues of the Scopes trial still are, even splitting an institution whose motto is “Christ Above All.” Playing out at a time when the teaching of evolution remains a cultural hot spot to a degree that might have stunned its proponents in Bryan’s era, the debate also reflects the problems many Christian colleges face as they try to balance religious beliefs with secular education.

Since its founding in 1930, Bryan College’s statement of belief, which professors have to sign as part of their employment contracts, included a 41-word section summing up the institution’s conservative views on creation and evolution, including the statement: “The origin of man was by fiat of God.” But in February, college officials decided that professors had to agree to an additional clarification declaring that Adam and Eve “are historical persons created by God in a special formative act, and not from previously existing life-forms.”

For administrators and many members of the governing board at Bryan, the new language is a buffer against what they see as a marked erosion of Christian values and beliefs across the country. But for critics, the clarification amounts to an assault on personal religious views, as well as on the college’s history and sense of community.

“It makes Bryan a different place,” said Allison Baker, who graduated this month and was the vice president of the student government, which raised questions about the swift enactment of the clarification. “I would argue it makes it a more narrow place.”

The consequences so far have been stark at a college where about one-quarter of incoming students were home-schooled and whose alumni routinely earn spots in graduate programs at secular institutions. Two longtime faculty members this month sued the college, arguing that the Board of Trustees was powerless under the college’s charter to change the statement of belief.Brian Eisenback, a biology professor and a Bryan graduate whose parents met on campus, decided to move to another Christian college.

Faculty members, spurred in part by the clarification, said they had no confidence in Bryan’s president, Stephen D. Livesay. And before the academic year ended this month, hundreds of students, on a campus with an enrollment of more than 700, petitioned trustees in opposition to the plan.

Dr. Livesay said the clarification was intended to reaffirm, not alter, the institution’s traditional position. He said concerns had been building for years that some employees had perhaps moved “away from the historical and current position of the college.”

“We want to remain faithful to the historical charter of the school and what we have always practiced through the years,” Dr. Livesay said. “There has never been a need, up until today, to truly clarify and make explicit what has been part of the school for 84 years.”

He added, “We want to make certain that we view culture through the eyes of faith, that we don’t view our faith through the eyes of culture.”

Many Christian institutions of higher education require employees to sign doctrinal statements as administrators seek to blend religious traditions with academic standards.

“The struggle for Christian colleges is to try to define how a Christian college is different from a Christian church,” said William C. Ringenberg, the author of a book on the history of Protestant colleges in the United States. “Is one different from the other?”

For Dr. Eisenback, whose contract expired last week and who is writing a book with support from an organization that has called the college’s clarified stance “scientifically untenable,” teaching an array of perspectives was an act of faith in itself.

“Because of the culture war that is raging with Scripture and age of the Earth and so on, I think it’s important for me to teach my students the same material they would hear at any state university,” said Dr. Eisenback, who accepted a job at Milligan College, also in Tennessee, amid the discord here. “But then also, as a Christian who is teaching at a Christian liberal arts college, I think it’s important that they be educated on the different ways that people read relevant Scripture passages.” Others at Bryan insist that the college’s doctrinal stances should take precedence.

“Academic freedom is not sacrosanct,”Kevin L. Clauson, a professor of politics and justice, wrote in a letter to the editor of The Bryan Triangle, a campus publication. “It too must submit to God in a Christian college.”

Some question whether the new statement is consistent with school policies outlined in a 2010 internal document for board members, which said that because Bryan is a college, not a church, it does not set itself up as a judge on ecclesiastical matters and does not attempt to prescribe what other Christians do.

“The trustees do not legislate ‘stands’ for faculty or students,” said the document, which was included in a court filing.

Bryan is not the first Christian college in recent years to deal with internal strife.Shorter University, a Southern Baptist institution in Georgia, was criticized in 2011 after it said employees would have to “reject as acceptable all sexual activity not in agreement with the Bible,” including premarital sex and homosexuality. AndCedarville University in Ohio, whose administration was censured in 2009 by the American Association of University Professors, has endured years of debate and litigation about academic freedom and doctrinal standards.

Such debates often take place, Dr. Ringenberg said, as the colleges try to fine-tune the balance of faith and education.

“Soon enough, the two of them will clash if you’re serious about academics and serious about having a biblical view of Christianity,” he said.

Dr. Livesay said that Bryan’s leaders were determined to proceed with the clarification.

“I don’t think you have to believe the Bryan way in order to be a strong evangelical,” he said. “But this is Bryan College, and this is something that’s important to us. It’s in our DNA. It’s who we are.” 

Boko-Haram: um grupo terrorista islamico - Ayaan Hirsi Ali (WSJ)

The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2014

Boko Haram and the Kidnapped Schoolgirls

The Nigerian terror group reflects the general Islamist hatred of women's rights. When will the West wake up?

Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, in a video released in 2012. Photo: Associated Press

By 
• AYAAN HIRSI ALI

Since the kidnapping of 276 schoolgirls in Nigeria last month, the meaning of Boko Haram—the name used by the terrorist group that seized the girls—has become more widely known. The translation from the Hausa language is usually given in English-language media as "Western Education Is Forbidden," though "Non-Muslim Teaching Is Forbidden" might be more accurate.

But little attention has been paid to the group's formal Arabic name: Jam'at Ahl as-Sunnah lid-da'wa wal-Jihad. That roughly translates as "The Fellowship of the People of the Tradition for Preaching and Holy War." That's a lot less catchy than Boko Haram but significantly more revealing about the group and its mission. Far from being an aberration among Islamist terror groups, as some observers suggest, Boko Haram in its goals and methods is in fact all too representative.

Since the kidnapping of 276 schoolgirls in Nigeria last month, the meaning of Boko Haram—the name used by the terrorist group that seized the girls—has become more widely known. The translation from the Hausa language is usually given in English-language media as "Western Education Is Forbidden," though "Non-Muslim Teaching Is Forbidden" might be more accurate.

But little attention has been paid to the group's formal Arabic name: Jam'at Ahl as-Sunnah lid-da'wa wal-Jihad. That roughly translates as "The Fellowship of the People of the Tradition for Preaching and Holy War." That's a lot less catchy than Boko Haram but significantly more revealing about the group and its mission. Far from being an aberration among Islamist terror groups, as some observers suggest, Boko Haram in its goals and methods is in fact all too representative.

The kidnapping of the schoolgirls throws into bold relief a central part of what the jihadists are about: the oppression of women. Boko Haram sincerely believes that girls are better off enslaved than educated. The terrorists' mission is no different from that of the Taliban assassin who shot and nearly killed 15-year-old Pakistani Malala Yousafzai—as she rode a school bus home in 2012—because she advocated girls' education. As I know from experience, nothing is more anathema to the jihadists than equal and educated women.

How to explain this phenomenon to baffled Westerners, who these days seem more eager to smear the critics of jihadism as "Islamophobes" than to stand up for women's most basic rights? Where are the Muslim college-student organizations denouncing Boko Haram? Where is the outrage during Friday prayers? These girls' lives deserve more than a Twitterhashtag protest.

Organizations like Boko Haram do not arise in isolation. The men who establish Islamist groups, whether in Africa (Nigeria, Somalia, Mali), Southwest Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan), or even Europe (U.K., Spain and the Netherlands), are members of long-established Muslim communities, most of whose members are happy to lead peaceful lives. To understand why the jihadists are flourishing, you need to understand the dynamics within those communities.

So, imagine an angry young man in any Muslim community anywhere in the world. Imagine him trying to establish an association of men dedicated to the practice of the Sunnah (the tradition of guidance from the Prophet Muhammad). Much of the young man's preaching will address the place of women. He will recommend that girls and women be kept indoors and covered from head to toe if they are to venture outside. He will also condemn the permissiveness of Western society.

What kind of response will he meet? In the U.S. and in Europe, some moderate Muslims might quietly draw him to the attention of authorities. Women might voice concerns about the attacks on their freedoms. But in other parts of the world, where law and order are lacking, such young men and their extremist messages thrive.

Where governments are weak, corrupt or nonexistent, the message of Boko Haram and its counterparts is especially compelling. Not implausibly, they can blame poverty on official corruption and offer as an antidote the pure principles of the Prophet. And in these countries, women are more vulnerable and their options are fewer.

But why does our imaginary young zealot turn to violence? At first, he can count on some admiration for his fundamentalist message within the community where he starts out. He might encounter opposition from established Muslim leaders who feel threatened by him. But he perseveres because perseverance in the Sunnah is one of the most important keys to heaven. As he plods on from door to door, he gradually acquires a following. There comes a point when his following is as large as that of the Muslim community's established leaders. That's when the showdown happens—and the argument for "holy war" suddenly makes sense to him.

The history of Boko Haram has followed precisely this script. The group was founded in 2002 by a young Islamist calledMohammed Yusuf, who started out preaching in a Muslim community in the Borno state of northern Nigeria. He set up an educational complex, including a mosque and an Islamic school. For seven years, mostly poor families flocked to hear his message. But in 2009, the Nigerian government investigated Boko Haram and ultimately arrested several members, including Yusuf himself. The crackdown sparked violence that left about 700 dead. Yusuf soon died in prison—the government said he was killed while trying to escape—but the seeds had been planted. Under one of Yusuf's lieutenants,Abubakar Shekau, Boko Haram turned to jihad.

In 2011, Boko Haram launched its first terror attack in Borno. Four people were killed, and from then on violence became an integral part, if not the central part, of its mission. The recent kidnappings—11 more girls were abducted by Boko Haram on Sunday—join a litany of outrages, including multiple car bombings and the murder of 59 schoolboys in February. On Monday, as if to demonstrate its growing power, Boko Haram launched a 12-hour attack in the city of Gamboru Ngala, firing into market crowds, setting houses aflame and shooting down residents who ran from the burning buildings. Hundreds were killed.

I am often told that the average Muslim wholeheartedly rejects the use of violence and terror, does not share the radicals' belief that a degenerate and corrupt Western culture needs to be replaced with an Islamic one, and abhors the denigration of women's most basic rights. Well, it is time for those peace-loving Muslims to do more, much more, to resist those in their midst who engage in this type of proselytizing before they proceed to the phase of holy war.

It is also time for Western liberals to wake up. If they choose to regard Boko Haram as an aberration, they do so at their peril. The kidnapping of these schoolgirls is not an isolated tragedy; their fate reflects a new wave of jihadism that extends far beyond Nigeria and poses a mortal threat to the rights of women and girls. If my pointing this out offends some people more than the odious acts of Boko Haram, then so be it.

Ms. Ali is a fellow of the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. She is the founder of the AHA Foundation.

Teismo e ateismo: o equivoco logico fundamental de um filosofo - NYT

Este filósofo comete um erro fundamental, mas muito comum nesse tipo de debate.

O teismo é tão amplamente disseminado na humanidade, que este filósofo crente (pois ele é um crente, antes de ser teísta) coloca todos os não crentes num mesmo saco indistinto e os chama de ateístas, ou seja pretende defini-los de forma apriorística e arbitrária, aliás totalmente indevida para um filósofo, sob uma noção que subsume a condição normalmente aceita dos crentes em um deus qualquer, e aqueles só podem ser referenciados por essa negação, como se alguém devesse necessariamente se posicionar positivamente sobre o que é uma crença, não um argumento racional (como deveria ser a posição e a postura fundamental de um filósofo).

Por essa e outras razões, eu não me defino como ateu, pois seria uma contradição nos termos, e sim como um não crente, ou um irreligioso.

Não me cabe "provar" uma coisa absurda, que é a não existência de deus, e sim cabe aos crentes racionais provar os fundamentos empíricos de sua fé.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

THE STONE FEBRUARY 9, 2014

Is Atheism Irrational?

By GARY GUTTING

This is the first in a series of interviews about religion that I will conduct for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Alvin Plantinga, an emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, a former president of both the Society of Christian Philosophers and the American Philosophical Association, and the author, most recently, of “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism.”

Gary Gutting: A recent survey by PhilPapers, the online philosophy index, says that 62 percent of philosophers are atheists (with another 11 percent “inclined” to the view). Do you think the philosophical literature provides critiques of theism strong enough to warrant their views? Or do you think philosophers’ atheism is due to factors other than rational analysis?

Alvin Plantinga: If 62 percent of philosophers are atheists, then the proportion of atheists among philosophers is much greater than (indeed, is nearly twice as great as) the proportion of atheists among academics generally. (I take atheism to be the belief that there is no such person as the God of the theistic religions.) Do philosophers know something here that these other academics don’t know? What could it be? Philosophers, as opposed to other academics, are often professionally concerned with the theistic arguments — arguments for the existence of God. My guess is that a considerable majority of philosophers, both believers and unbelievers, reject these arguments as unsound.

Still, that’s not nearly sufficient for atheism. In the British newspaper The Independent, the scientist Richard Dawkins was recently asked the following question: “If you died and arrived at the gates of heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?” His response: “I’d quote Bertrand Russell: ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’” But lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.

In the same way, the failure of the theistic arguments, if indeed they do fail, might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism. Atheism, like even-star-ism, would presumably be the sort of belief you can hold rationally only if you have strong arguments or evidence.

The failure of arguments for God would be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism.

G.G.: You say atheism requires evidence to support it. Many atheists deny this, saying that all they need to do is point out the lack of any good evidence for theism. You compare atheism to the denial that there are an even number of stars, which obviously would need evidence. But atheists say (using an example from Bertrand Russell) that you should rather compare atheism to the denial that there’s a teapot in orbit around the sun. Why prefer your comparison to Russell’s?

A.P.: Russell’s idea, I take it, is we don’t really have any evidence against teapotism, but we don’t need any; the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and is enough to support a-teapotism. We don’t need any positive evidence against it to be justified in a-teapotism; and perhaps the same is true of theism.

I disagree: Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven’t. And so on. There is plenty of evidence against teapotism. So if, à la Russell, theism is like teapotism, the atheist, to be justified, would (like the a-teapotist) have to have powerful evidence against theism.

G.G.: But isn’t there also plenty of evidence against theism — above all, the amount of evil in a world allegedly made by an all-good, all-powerful God?

A.P.: The so-called “problem of evil” would presumably be the strongest (and maybe the only) evidence against theism. It does indeed have some strength; it makes sense to think that the probability of theism, given the existence of all the suffering and evil our world contains, is fairly low. But of course there are also arguments for theism. Indeed, there are at least a couple of dozen good theistic arguments. So the atheist would have to try to synthesize and balance the probabilities. This isn’t at all easy to do, but it’s pretty obvious that the result wouldn’t anywhere nearly support straight-out atheism as opposed to agnosticism.

G.G.: But when you say “good theistic arguments,” you don’t mean arguments that are decisive — for example, good enough to convince any rational person who understands them.

A.P.: I should make clear first that I don’t think arguments are needed for rational belief in God. In this regard belief in God is like belief in other minds, or belief in the past. Belief in God is grounded in experience, or in the sensus divinitatis, John Calvin’s term for an inborn inclination to form beliefs about God in a wide variety of circumstances.

Nevertheless, I think there are a large number — maybe a couple of dozen — of pretty good theistic arguments. None is conclusive, but each, or at any rate the whole bunch taken together, is about as strong as philosophical arguments ordinarily get.

G.G.: Could you give an example of such an argument?

AP: One presently rather popular argument: fine-tuning. Scientists tell us that there are many properties our universe displays such that if they were even slightly different from what they are in fact, life, or at least our kind of life, would not be possible. The universe seems to be fine-tuned for life. For example, if the force of the Big Bang had been different by one part in 10 to the 60th, life of our sort would not have been possible. The same goes for the ratio of the gravitational force to the force driving the expansion of the universe: If it had been even slightly different, our kind of life would not have been possible. In fact the universe seems to be fine-tuned, not just for life, but for intelligent life. This fine-tuning is vastly more likely given theism than given atheism.

G.G.: But even if this fine-tuning argument (or some similar argument) convinces someone that God exists, doesn’t it fall far short of what at least Christian theism asserts, namely the existence of an all-perfect God? Since the world isn’t perfect, why would we need a perfect being to explain the world or any feature of it?

A.P.: I suppose your thinking is that it is suffering and sin that make this world less than perfect. But then your question makes sense only if the best possible worlds contain no sin or suffering. And is that true? Maybe the best worlds contain free creatures some of whom sometimes do what is wrong. Indeed, maybe the best worlds contain a scenario very like the Christian story.

Think about it: The first being of the universe, perfect in goodness, power and knowledge, creates free creatures. These free creatures turn their backs on him, rebel against him and get involved in sin and evil. Rather than treat them as some ancient potentate might — e.g., having them boiled in oil — God responds by sending his son into the world to suffer and die so that human beings might once more be in a right relationship to God. God himself undergoes the enormous suffering involved in seeing his son mocked, ridiculed, beaten and crucified. And all this for the sake of these sinful creatures.

I’d say a world in which this story is true would be a truly magnificent possible world. It would be so good that no world could be appreciably better. But then the best worlds contain sin and suffering.

G.G.: O.K., but in any case, isn’t the theist on thin ice in suggesting the need for God as an explanation of the universe? There’s always the possibility that we’ll find a scientific account that explains what we claimed only God could explain. After all, that’s what happened when Darwin developed his theory of evolution. In fact, isn’t a major support for atheism the very fact that we no longer need God to explain the world?

A.P.: Some atheists seem to think that a sufficient reason for atheism is the fact (as they say) that we no longer need God to explain natural phenomena — lightning and thunder for example. We now have science.

As a justification of atheism, this is pretty lame. We no longer need the moon to explain or account for lunacy; it hardly follows that belief in the nonexistence of the moon (a-moonism?) is justified. A-moonism on this ground would be sensible only if the sole ground for belief in the existence of the moon was its explanatory power with respect to lunacy. (And even so, the justified attitude would be agnosticism with respect to the moon, not a-moonism.) The same thing goes with belief in God: Atheism on this sort of basis would be justified only if the explanatory power of theism were the only reason for belief in God. And even then, agnosticism would be the justified attitude, not atheism.

G.G.: So, what are the further grounds for believing in God, the reasons that make atheism unjustified?

A.P.: The most important ground of belief is probably not philosophical argument but religious experience. Many people of very many different cultures have thought themselves in experiential touch with a being worthy of worship. They believe that there is such a person, but not because of the explanatory prowess of such belief. Or maybe there is something like Calvin’ssensus divinitatis. Indeed, if theism is true, then very likely there is something like the sensus divinitatis. So claiming that the only sensible ground for belief in God is the explanatory quality of such belief is substantially equivalent to assuming atheism.

G.G.: If, then, there isn’t evidence to support atheism, why do you think so many philosophers — presumably highly rational people — are atheists?

Some people simply don’t want there to be a God. It would pose a serious limitation for human autonomy.

AP: I’m not a psychologist, so I don’t have any special knowledge here. Still, there are some possible explanations. Thomas Nagel, a terrific philosopher and an unusually perceptive atheist, says he simply doesn’t want there to be any such person as God. And it isn’t hard to see why. For one thing, there would be what some would think was an intolerable invasion of privacy: God would know my every thought long before I thought it. For another, my actions and even my thoughts would be a constant subject of judgment and evaluation.

Basically, these come down to the serious limitation of human autonomy posed by theism. This desire for autonomy can reach very substantial proportions, as with the German philosopher Heidegger, who, according to Richard Rorty, felt guilty for living in a universe he had not himself created. Now there’s a tender conscience! But even a less monumental desire for autonomy can perhaps also motivate atheism.

GG: Especially among today’s atheists, materialism seems to be a primary motive. They think there’s nothing beyond the material entities open to scientific inquiry, so there there’s no place for immaterial beings such as God.

AP: Well, if there are only material entities, then atheism certainly follows. But there is a really serious problem for materialism: It can’t be sensibly believed, at least if, like most materialists, you also believe that humans are the product of evolution.

GG: Why is that?

 AP: I can’t give a complete statement of the argument here — for that see Chapter 10 of “Where the Conflict Really Lies.” But, roughly, here’s why. First, if materialism is true, human beings, naturally enough, are material objects. Now what, from this point of view, would a belief be? My belief that Marcel Proust is more subtle that Louis L’Amour, for example? Presumably this belief would have to be a material structure in my brain, say a collection of neurons that sends electrical impulses to other such structures as well as to nerves and muscles, and receives electrical impulses from other structures.

But in addition to such neurophysiological properties, this structure, if it is a belief, would also have to have a content: It would have, say, to be the belief thatProust is more subtle than L’Amour.

RELATED

More From The Stone

Read previous contributions to this series.

GG: So is your suggestion that a neurophysiological structure can’t be a belief? That a belief has to be somehow immaterial?

AP: That may be, but it’s not my point here. I’m interested in the fact that beliefs cause (or at least partly cause) actions. For example, my belief that there is a beer in the fridge (together with my desire to have a beer) can cause me to heave myself out of my comfortable armchair and lumber over to the fridge.

But here’s the important point: It’s by virtue of its material, neurophysiological properties that a belief causes the action. It’s in virtue of those electrical signals sent via efferent nerves to the relevant muscles, that the belief about the beer in the fridge causes me to go to the fridge. It is not by virtue of the content (there is a beer in the fridge) the belief has.

GG: Why do you say that?

AP: Because if this belief — this structure — had a totally different content (even, say, if it was a belief that there is no beer in the fridge) but had the same neurophysiological properties, it would still have caused that same action of going to the fridge. This means that the content of the belief isn’t a cause of the behavior. As far as causing the behavior goes, the content of the belief doesn’t matter.

GG: That does seem to be a hard conclusion to accept. But won’t evolution get the materialist out of this difficulty? For our species to have survived, presumably many, if not most, of our beliefs must be true — otherwise, we wouldn’t be functional in a dangerous world.

Materialism can’t be sensibly believed, at least if, like most materialists, you also believe in evolution.

AP: Evolution will have resulted in our having beliefs that are adaptive; that is, beliefs that cause adaptive actions. But as we’ve seen, if materialism is true, the belief does not cause the adaptive action by way of its content: It causes that action by way of its neurophysiological properties. Hence it doesn’t matter what the content of the belief is, and it doesn’t matter whether that content is true or false. All that’s required is that the belief have the right neurophysiological properties. If it’s also true, that’s fine; but if false, that’s equally fine.

Evolution will select for belief-producing processes that produce beliefs with adaptive neurophysiological properties, but not for belief-producing processes that produce true beliefs. Given materialism and evolution, any particular belief is as likely to be false as true.

GG: So your claim is that if materialism is true, evolution doesn’t lead to most of our beliefs being true.

AP: Right. In fact, given materialism and evolution, it follows that our belief-producing faculties are not reliable.

Here’s why. If a belief is as likely to be false as to be true, we’d have to say the probability that any particular belief is true is about 50 percent. Now suppose we had a total of 100 independent beliefs (of course, we have many more). Remember that the probability that all of a group of beliefs are true is the multiplication of all their individual probabilities. Even if we set a fairly low bar for reliability — say, that at least two-thirds (67 percent) of our beliefs are true — our overall reliability, given materialism and evolution, is exceedingly low: something like .0004. So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable.

But to believe that is to fall into a total skepticism, which leaves you with no reason to accept any of your beliefs (including your beliefs in materialism and evolution!). The only sensible course is to give up the claim leading to this conclusion: that both materialism and evolution are true. Maybe you can hold one or the other, but not both.

So if you’re an atheist simply because you accept materialism, maintaining your atheism means you have to give up your belief that evolution is true. Another way to put it: The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting. It shoots itself in the foot. Therefore it can’t rationally be held.

This interview was conducted by email and edited.

---

Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. He is the author of, most recently, “Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy Since 1960″ and writes regularly for The Stone.

Incendiarios de bibliotecas, assassinos da cultura, inimigos da humanidade, tristeza infinita...

Primeiro li, estupefato, uma notinha muito sucinta, numa página de pequenos registro do exemplar corrente (11-17 Janeiro) da Economist, que assino e recebo todo sábado:

The acrid smell of burning books
A library belonging to an Orthodox Christian priest in Lebanon, containing over 80,000 books and manuscripts, was set ablaze after it was claimed it contained a pamphlet that was insulting to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.

Fui buscar ávido pela notícia completa no site da revista, e fiquei ainda mais estarrecido. Comparto com todos vocês o meu horror absoluto por esses atos inomináveis, muito ligados, infelizmente, a correntes fundamentalistas de uma religião muito primitiva:

Erasmus

Religion and public policy

• Previous
• Next
• Latest Erasmus
• Latest from all our blogs

Religion, libraries and war

The acrid smell of burning books

Jan 6th 2014, 17:09 by B.C.

LAST month, when a moderate Sunni Muslim figure, ex-minister Mohamed Chateh, was assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut, some Middle East-watchers detected a "Sarajevo moment" for Lebanon. In other words, a single violent event that could be a step on the road to a broader conflict across the region, or even beyond it—just as the assassination of Austria's Archduke Ferdinand in the Bosnian capital, a century ago, started a chain reaction that led to the first world war. An exaggerated comparison? It did at least seem true that the killing of Chateh—a critic of the Syrian regime and its Lebanese allies, the Shia fighters of Hezbollah—on December 27th marked a new twist in the contest between Sunnis, Shias and their respective allies and sponsors, even though Syria and Hezbollah denied responsibility.

Anyway, in a rather different and more literal sense, you might say Lebanon had a Sarajevo moment last Friday night. In the north Lebanese city of Tripoli, a library belonging to an Orthodox Christian priest, containing over 80,000 books and manuscripts, was set ablaze and two-thirds of the contents were destroyed. What triggered the act of arson was the alleged "discovery...of a pamphlet inside one of the books at the library that was insulting to Islam and the prophet Muhammed," according to an AFP report. The library's steward, Father Ibrahim Sarrrouj, is a locally respected figure who enjoys good relations with the town's Muslim leaders. He had convinced them that he was nothing to do with the pamphlet, and had managed to negotiate the cancellation of a proposed demonstration against the library, which includes Islamic texts. But at least one fanatic with a match proved impossible to stop. Tension in Tripoli has been running high because the port is a stronghold of Sunni Islam with a minority of Alawites, practising the same faith as Syria's ruling elite. But Father Ibrahim has been one of the city's peacemakers and he has continued calling for restraint even after losing his treasures.

For people who care about ancient book collections that tell a rich cultural story, the act of arson immediately recalled an even greater assault on the written heritage of a cosmopolitan city: the destruction of the Sarajevo library in August 1992. The Moorish-revival structure, built in the 1890s, had housed more than 1.5m volumes, including at least 155,000 rare books and manuscripts. They were an important legacy of the region's Christian, Muslim and Jewish heritage. The great majority of the contents was destroyed when the building was pounded with incendiary grenades, but librarians and ordinary citizens braved sniper fire to form a human chain to pass books out of the smouldering building. One librarian was killed. Aleksandar Hemon, a Bosnian-born writer who now lives in America, believes the shelling of the library was ordered by his old literature professor, Nikola Koljevic, a Shakespeare scholar who horrified his students by joining the leadership of the hard-line Bosnian Serbs who were besieging the city. A troubled and conflicted figure, Koljevic committed suicide in 1997.

In all these ghastly situations, there are inspiring moments as well as horrifying ones. In Sarajevo, members of the library staff—Serbs and Croats as well as Muslims—worked on through the siege to catalogue the material they had salvaged. A new Sarajevo library is supposed to open this year, although some of its employees have had to work without pay recently because inter-ethnic squabbles have left them without a budget.

In the Lebanese port, one mildly encouraging thing is that on Saturday, hundreds of local Muslims staged a demonstration against the act of arson committed the previous night, with banners like "Tripoli, peaceful town" and "This is contrary to the values of the prophet Muhammed". The enemies of co-existence (whether their target is present-day symbiosis or the evidence of it in centuries past) never have things entirely to themselves.

Siria: entre o sofrimento, o cinismo e mais sofrimento - Reinaldo Azevedo

Creio que, excluindo Rússia e China, que pretendem preservar o status quo na Síria (ou seja, a preservação do regime atual), nenhuma das outras grandes potências, inclusive os EUA, sabem bem o que fazer dessa batata quente. Provavelmente a opinião pública as impede de declarar publicamente, e cinicamente, que a única solução viável, no momento, é a preservação do atual status quo, ou melhor, impasse total. Nem o ditador pode prevalecer, ou seja vencer a oposição, nem esta pode ganhar, pois não se trata da "boa" oposição, mas de fundamentalistas fanáticos.
Assim, a solução por enquanto é ter as duas frentes alimentadas respectivamente pelos dois blocos de grandes potências, se matando reciprocamente, até alguém desistir, e não creio que vai ser o ditador.
Não existe muitos outros caminhos. O ditador vai pagar um preço, mas este seria muito maior se os jihadistas tomassem o poder em seu lugar.
Triste Síria, está se acabando. Não creio que volte a ser como antes... infelizmente (o que não quer dizer que fosse uma maravilha, ao contrário: era uma ditadura ordinária, mas não havia muçulmanos massacrando cristãos...).
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Entre dois males e sem um terceiro caminho, a única escolha ética e moral é o mal menor

Reinaldo Azevedo, 29/08/2013

No post anterior, informa-se que o Parlamento britânico, prudentemente, negou-se a dar uma autorização ao governo para participar de um ataque miliar à Síria. A rigor, David Cameron poderia mandar as forças britânicas numa espécie de expedição punitiva, mas preferiu ter a chancela do Parlamento — e não foi bem-sucedido. Como se vê, a questão é bem menos simples do que faz crer certa imprensa. E, desde o primeiro dia, tenho chamado a atenção de vocês para essa complexidade. Raramente fui tão criticado por aquilo que não escrevi — e eu jamais sugeri (afirmar então…) que Bashar Al Assad é alguém em que se deva confiar. Não! É um carniceiro. Ocorre que, entre dois males, quando inexiste uma terceira opção, a única escolha ética e moralmente aceitável é o mal menor. Escolha, note-se bem, não para um engajamento na causa desse mal menor. Isso nunca!

Também o Parlamento britânico tem fundadas dúvidas se foram mesmo as forças de Assad que determinaram o ataque químico. A ONU ainda não tem as provas — os EUA dizem que já fizeram a sua própria investigação e concluíram que sim. Já vi “provas irrefutáveis” sendo desmoralizadas depois. Como esquecer o caso de Richad Goldstone (leia aqui ), que fez um relatório condenado Israel no caso da incursão em Gaza, admitindo, mais tarde, o erro?

Assad é carniceiro, mas não é burro. Pode até ser que gente da sua laia tenha feito o ataque, mas duvido que seja uma tática de guerra — ele sabia que esse era o limite que poderia efetivamente derrubá-lo.

O tirano, infelizmente para os sírios e para o Oriente Médio, ainda é o mal menor no país. Seus adversários armados — e que não vão entregar as armas se ele cair — são os terroristas da Al Qaeda, são os jihadistas. Se Assad for deposto, as forças militares regulares vão se decompor. Os alauítas, que estão no comando, vão dar o fora — ou correm o risco de morrer. Um arsenal químico — que, então, os EUA e a Europa admitem existir — estará ao alcance dos terroristas.

O país tem 90% de muçulmanos e 10% de cristãos — quase 2 milhões de pessoas. Mais de 70% do total são sunitas. Os alauítas, que governam o país (minoria muçulmana à qual pertence Assad), ficam em torno de 10% também. Os principais grupos terroristas que atuam hoje no país são sunitas e incitam o ódio contra as duas outras comunidades. Os cristãos, particularmente, já enfrentam um clima de terror.

Assim, a queda de Assad não traz consigo apenas o risco de o país ficar à mercê dos terroristas — a menos que Obama esteja disposto a ter o seu próprio Iraque; há também o perigo de uma guerra religiosa. Os cristãos ficarão entre a fuga em massa e a perseguição implacável dentro do país. Aqui e ali são censurados porque dariam apoio ao ditador. Não é bem assim: estão entre Assad, que sempre lhes garantiu a necessária segurança, e o jihadismo, que os quer mortos ou fora da Síria. Qual seria a sua escolha, leitor?

Isso, obviamente, não implica que Assad possa sair por usando armas químicas e matando quem lhe der na telha porque, afinal, o terror seria muito pior. Se usou ou autorizou as tais armas, alguma sanção há de haver. Derrubá-lo, no entanto, para garantir que seus atuais adversários cheguem ao poder seria uma prova de estupidez.

Autorização da ONU para atacar, enquanto China e Rússia não mudarem de ideia, os EUA não terão. A Grã-Bretanha, por enquanto, ficará fora de uma possível intervenção. Isso é muito menos do que foi concedido à Otan no ataque à Líbia.

Obama, nesse caso, junta imprudência e hesitação. Por imprudente, seu governo anuncia ter as provas; hesitante, não quer atacar sozinho — ou fora de um arco mais amplo. A ação, dizem os EUA, não é para derrubar Assad. Mas, se não é, então serve a que propósito que não seja a ainda mais sofrimento? A confusão encontraria uma solução natural se, do outro lado, houvesse ao menos forças aptar a participar do concerto internacional. Ocorre que estamos falando de terroristas.

Creio que a maioria do Parlamento britânico andou operando com os mesmos critérios que me pautaram até aqui.

Fundamentalismo religioso: uma doenca mental? - Kathleen Taylor

Graças a meu amigo de bons combates e colega de blog de resistência, Orlando Tambosi, tomei conhecimento desse trabalho: também acho que certas crenças fundamentalistas religiosas podem ser assemelhadas a doenças mentais. Quem acha, por exemplo, que se explodir com uma bomba no meio de um mercado, no atrio de uma igreja, no pátio de uma escola representa uma forma qualquer de luta política, e que isso lhe garante de imediato um lugar no paraíso (eventualmente cercado de sete virgens), só pode ser um grande idiota, um débil mental, enfim, um doente profundo, necessitando tratamento imediato.
Os que os instruiram nessa conduta devem partilhar a mesma condição, mas são covardes demais, ou desonestos bastante, para não se explodirem eles mesmos.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Fundamentalismo religioso poderá ser tratado como doença mental

Orlando Tambosi

É o que sugere uma neurocientista inglesa. Bene, que certas crenças levem à loucura, não parece haver dúvida - a história é farta em exemplos de crimes praticados por fanáticos.

Kathleen Taylor, neurocientista e pesquisadora da Universidade de Oxford, afirma que o fundamentalismo religioso poderá, futuramente, ser tratado como doença mental curável. A declaração foi feita durante uma apresentação sobre a pesquisa do cérebro no Festival literário do País de Gales, na última semana.

Em resposta a uma pergunta sobre o futuro da neurociência, a cientista disse que “uma das surpresas pode ser a de que pessoas com certas crenças podem ser tratadas“. Assim, alguém que se tornou radical em função de alguma ideologia religiosa poderá ser visto como portador de algum distúrbio mental, ao invés de ser encarado como uma pessoa que chegou a isto puramente por livre-arbítrio. 

Ela se refere não só ao islamismo radical, mas àqueles que, por exemplo, acreditam ser aceitável espancar crianças. (Na íntegra, em inglês - danke, Cristiano).

Paquistao, Bangladesh: dois paises em estado pre-falimentar...

Quando 200 mil pessoas saem as ruas para demandar que os ateus sejam enforcados, existe algo de errado nesse país.
Quando a intolerância atinge tais níveis de expressão, justamente contra a liberdade de expressão (como já havíamos visto no Paquistão, no Irã, na própria Grã-Bretanha, desde o episódio dos Versos Satânicos de Salman Rushdie, novamente no caso das caricaturas dinamarquesas e incontáveis outros exemplos desse mesmo tipo), então o país inteiro está contaminado pelo ódio religioso, pela mais baixa manifestação dos espíritos totalitários, estamos a caminho de um Estado falimentar.
Isso explica, aliás, as madrassas de lavagem cerebral nas crianças, e o estoque infindável de homens bomba...
Afeganistão, Paquistão, Bangladesh, o que será desses países?
No Irã, a teocracia vai um dia deixar de existir, e a população educada vai novamente tomar conta dos destinos do país. Mas em países onde a própria elite foge de suas responsabilidades, o futuro se apresenta negro, se me permitem (ainda) tal expressão (eu não disse preto...). Isso inclui, perto de nós, o Haiti, também um Estado pré-falimentar, mantido pela assistência pública internacional, e que assim continuará pelos próximos anos (ou décadas).
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

‘Atheists must be hanged’: Raw video from Islamist street clashes in Bangladesh

Posted by Max Fisher on May 6, 2013 at 11:20 am

What began as an Islamist protest in the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka, calling for tougher anti-blasphemy laws, ended in street fighting that police say killed 15 people.

The protesters were so numerous that they blocked entire freeways, according to an AFP report, which says they chanted, “One point, One demand: Atheists must be hanged.”

A video, above, shows raw footage from the fighting. Some of the protesters have apparently set car tires on fire. At one point, riot police can be seen firing into the crowds, presumably with rubber bullets. Another shot shows an entire street in flames.

Police gave varying figures for the size of the demonstration, though some estimated as many as 100,000 or even 200,000. Even if that’s inflated, it’s still a sign of the apparent force behind this movement. A number of the protesters reportedly came from outside the capital for the demonstration, part of a rising movement demanding harsher punishment for “insults” to Islam.

“This government does not have faith in Allah,” one protester told the AFP, referencing Bangladesh’s officially secular constitution, adopted in 1972. “This is an atheist government, we will not allow them to live in Bangladesh. Muslims are brothers, we must protect Islam.”

The violence seems to have begun when police approached some stick-wielding protesters; it’s not clear who began the fighting, but it escalated dramatically.

Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has resisted demands for tougher anti-blasphemy legislation, both because of the government’s secular constitution and because, as she points out, the country already has such laws. She pointed out, as a way of calming the dissent, that the government has already arrested four bloggers for “derogatory comments” about Islam. That probably has not done much to calm Bangladesh’s Hindu minority or other non-Muslims in the country.

"Liberdade" religiosa no Egito: familia condenada por se converter aocristianismo

Egyptian court sentences Christian family to 15 years for converting from Islam
By Benjamin Weinthal
FoxNews.com, January 16, 2013

Critics fear Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's regime is taking the nation further toward Islamic extremism. 
Egypt is home to an estimated seven million Christians. (Reuters)

The 15-year prison sentence given to a woman and her seven children by an Egyptian court for converting to Christianity is a sign of things to come, according to alarmed human rights advocates who say the nation's Islamist government is bad news for Christians in the North African country.
A criminal court in the central Egyptian city of Beni Suef meted out the shocking sentence last week, according to the Arabic-language Egyptian paper Al-Masry Al-Youm. Nadia Mohamed Ali, who was raised a Christian, converted to Islam when she married Mohamed Abdel-Wahhab Mustafa, a Muslim, 23 years ago. He later died, and his widow planned to convert her family back to Christianity in order to obtain an inheritance from her family. She sought the help of others in the registration office to process new identity cards between 2004 and 2006. When the conversion came to light under the new regime, Nadia, her children and even the clerks who processed the identity cards were all sentenced to prison.
Samuel Tadros, a research fellow at Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, said conversions like Nadia's have been common in the past, but said Egypt's new Sharia-based constitution "is a real disaster in terms of religion freedom.”
"Now that Sharia law has become an integral part of Egypt's new constitution, Christians in that country are at greater risk than ever."
- Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice
"The cases will increase in the future," Tadros said. "It will be much harder for people to return to Christianity."
President Mohamed Morsi, who was elected last June and succeeded the secular reign of Hosni Mubarak, who is now in prison, pushed the new constitution through last year.
Tadros said the constitution limits the practice of Christianity because “religious freedom has to be understood within the boundaries of Sharia.” He added that the constitution prescribes that the highest Sunni authority should be referred to as an interpreter of the religion clause contained in the constitution.
Opponents of the constitution, including Coptic Christians and secular and liberal groups, protested at the time against passage of the document because of the mix of Islamic-based Sharia law and politics. Roughly 10 percent of Egyptians are Coptic Christians.
A government spokeswoman told FoxNews.com she would determine “who is responsible for this and covers this issue in Beni Suef,“ a city of 200,000 located about 75 miles south of Cairo. She did not offer further comment.
The case is the latest example of the increasingly dire plight of the nation's roughly 7 million Christians, say human rights advocates.
"Now that Sharia law has become an integral part of Egypt's new constitution, Christians in that country are at greater risk than ever," said Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice. "This is another tragic case that underscores the growing problem of religious intolerance in the Muslim world. To impose a prison sentence for a family because of their Christian faith sadly reveals the true agenda of this new government: Egypt has no respect for international law or religious liberty.”
Morsi has been under fire for failing to take action against rising violence inflicted on Egypt’s Christians. In August, the roughly 100-family Christian community in Dahshour was forced to flee after Muslim neighbors launched attacks against the Christians’ homes and property. Morsi said the expulsion and violence was “ blown out of proportion.” Radical Salafi preachers -- who have formed alliances with Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood -- called for Muslims to shun Christians during Christmas.
Sekulow urged U.S. diplomatic intervention in Egypt to promote religious freedom. Morsi is scheduled to meet with President Obama, possibly in March.
”The U.S. State Department must play more of a role in discouraging this kind of persecution," Sekulow said. "The U.S. should not be an idle bystander. The U.S. provides more than $1 billion to Egypt each year. The State Department should speak out forcefully against this kind of religious persecution in Egypt.”

Benjamin Weinthal is a journalist who reports on Christians in the Middle East and is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Follow Benjamin on Twitter: @BenWeinthal.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/16/egyptian-court-sentences-entire-family-to-15-years-for-converting-to/#ixzz2IQqQ9kZ6

Fim do secularismo no Egito? Inicio da ditadura islamica? - Der Spiegel

Nervous on the NileMinorities Fear End of Secularism in Egypt

By Daniel Steinvorth and Volkhard Windfuhr

REUTERS

When he took office as Egypt's new president in June, Mohammed Morsi pledged to follow a pluralist policy that respected the rights of women and non-Muslim minorities. But everything he has done since then indicates that he intends to replace the secularist dictatorship of his predecessor with an Islamist one.

Egypt's president sat cross-legged on a green rug with his eyes closed and hands raised in prayer. His lips moved as Futouh Abd al-Nabi Mansour, an influential Egyptian cleric, intoned: "Oh Allah, absolve us of our sins, strengthen us and grant us victory over the infidels. Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, disperse them, rend them asunder."
This was a Friday prayer service held in the western Egyptian port city of Marsa Matrouh on October 19. The words of this closing prayer, taken from a collection of sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, seemed quite familiar to Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's new president. A video clip obtained by the US-based Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) shows Morsi murmuring the word "amen" as this pious request for the dispersal of the Jews is uttered.
The Muslim Brotherhood, which backs Morsi, has since removed a note concerning the president's visit to Marsa Matrouh from its website, and the daily newspaper al-Ahram has reported that the president must have been "very embarrassed" over the matter. Are such statements enough to dispel the incident?
Fighting to Keep Church and State Apart
Morsi has been in power for four months. In June, with the backing of the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi won a narrow victory over a representative of the country's former regime. Many voters supported Morsi only out of fear of a return to the days of dictatorship. But the new president has remained an enigma to his people. Who is this man with an American Ph.D. in engineering, who sometimes presents himself as a democrat and a peacemaker and sometimes as a hard-line Islamist?
The tasks facing Egypt's first freely elected president remain unresolved. Indeed, these are immense economic and social problems that can't simply be waved away. At the same time, precisely the thing that secularists, leftists and Christians have long feared is coming true: Egypt is growing ever more religious.
For the last three weeks, the activists who previously protested against the country's military council and the old regime of Hosni Mubarak have once again been gathering regularly on Cairo's Tahrir Square. Their new opponent is the Muslim Brotherhood, which the demonstrators believe is in the process of establishing a new dictatorship -- but an Islamist one.
The protests are primarily directed against the Islamists' attempts to push a religious constitution on the country. A constitutional council convened by Egypt's parliament has suggested redefining the roles of church and state, with the "rules of Sharia" becoming the basis for the country's laws. This would also entail re-examining and renegotiating the issue of equality between men and women.
The committee is dominated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood and by Salafists; the secularists and Christians who once sat on it abandoned it in protest. "Laws like these will land us in the Middle Ages," says Ahmed al-Buraï, a lawyer who stepped down from the committee. "This would be the end of our 200-year-old civil state."
Broken Promises
On October 12, when Morsi's detractors took to Tahrir Square for the first time, buses of Muslim Brotherhood supporters arrived, as well. These bearded men set one of the secularists' platforms on fire, threw stones at their opponents and shouted: "We love you, oh Morsi." More than 150 people were injured.
One Muslim Brotherhood spokesman later claimed that those who committed the violence were not organization members. Instead, he said they were so-called baltagiya, or groups of thugs hired by "dark forces" trying once again to drag the Brotherhood's name through the mud. Yet bloggers have proved that the Islamists had long-established plans to sabotage the event.
Images of protests against the president don't look very good on television, especially not when they are held on the very square that has become the global symbol of the Arab Spring. But although the atmosphere in Egypt is tense, Morsi is doing little to connect with his critics. After his electoral victory, he promised to be the president of "all Egyptians." He even announced his intention to leave the Muslim Brotherhood so as to be able to perform his role neutrally as well as his plan to install women and representatives of the country's Coptic Christian minority in high government positions. So far, nothing has come of those promises.
"He has yet to internalize the idea that the existence of an opposition is an important instrument of democracy," says Amr Hamzawy, a Cairo-based political scientist. "He's well on his way to creating a single-party system, just as it was under Mubarak."
The 'Ikhwanization' of Egypt
Egypt's critical newspapers call this trend "ikhwanization," with "ikhwan" meaning "brothers." The process has seen the president and the Muslim Brotherhood bringing all state-run institutions under their control within a short period of time. This includes state-owned media, where critical editors-in-chief have been replaced with Morsi supporters.
The "Holy Koran," a state-run radio service that has traditionally been moderate in terms of religion, has also become "ikhwanized." It has declared that so-called liberals are nothing more than immoral heretics who have "fallen" from Islam and are bent on the single goal of destroying society, and it has asserted that only the president can lead the country to "true Islam."
In some parts of the country, Egyptians seem to be trying to outdo one another in their displays of piety. A teacher in the Luxor governorate, in southern Egypt, recently cut off the hair of two 12-year-old students after the girls refused to wear headscarves. The incidents sparked protests, and the teacher was transferred to another school.
When a Coptic Christian tried to order a beer in a suburb of Cairo last week, the waiter reacted violently. The government plans to massively restrict the consumption of alcohol, a move whose effects will also be felt by members of the country's Christian minority. Especially in Upper Egypt and in Alexandria, where religious tensions already existed under Hosni Mubarak, thousands of Christians are believed to have applied for visas for the United States and European countries.
The Men Behind the President
What has become of Morsi's promise to be an impartial president? "The boundaries between the office of the president and the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood aren't defined," says Hamzawy, the political scientist, in an understated way.
Many Egyptians believe Morsi is still taking his cues from two men in particular. One is Mohammed Badie, a 69-year-old professor of veterinary science and the man to whom all members of the movement swear lifelong loyalty as the Brotherhood's "supreme guide."
The other, Khairat el-Shater, was initially the Muslim Brotherhood's presidential candidate, but he was disqualified before the election on account of having once been imprisoned for money-laundering -- although this was admittedly under Mubarak, who used his justice system to sideline political opponents. Shater, a millionaire with good connections to the Gulf states, is considered an important financial backer of the Muslim Brotherhood and is believed to have been Morsi's direct superior within the organization.

Shater has considerably expanded his empire of supermarket chains and textile and furnishings shops in the new Egypt. Likewise, he's viewed as a model businessman among the Muslim Brotherhood, which has so far continued Mubarak's neoliberal economic policies. It's an approach meant to win the trust of the foreign investors that Egypt so desperately needs.
Mubarak left his successor a country deeply in debt, where millions of people are unemployed and a quarter of the population lives below the poverty line. For years, salaries were constantly kept low and unions were suppressed.
Keeping Egypt from national bankruptcy will eventually require unpopular decisions, such as cuts to gas and bread subsidies. But, so far, Morsi has decided to wait it out. The only area where he has been active is a different one entirely: In a television address last week, Morsi announced a new religious campaign that will see an army of preachers fan out through the country "spreading the true word among the people." It's a re-education measure that may yet help to dislodge Western ideas from people's heads -- such as the absurd belief that religion is a private matter.

Translated from the German by Ella Ornstein