Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 December 25

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 25

Count Ciano

In my country (Serbia) there is a saying "like Count Ciano" when you are describing someone whos living a very rich and extravagant lifestyle. Its a very old saying, used mostly by older people and I tried to find its roots but I couldnt, because count Ciano seemed to have led a normal life. I've find out on the internet that he visited Serbia (then Kingdom of Yugoslavia) many times before the war, so I understand why this saying stuck, but I dont understand why was he considered special so that people used him as an example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.16.208 (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My impression, seconded by our article, is that Galeazzo Ciani led a "high-profile glamorous life" until his dramatic fall from grace and execution. I'd never describe his as a "normal" life! - Nunh-huh 04:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against 'religion provides support' or 'religion provides a sense of community'

I am interested as to whether anyone can direct me to (or provide me with) counterarguments to the above oft-stated dictums along the lines of 'religion is a force for good because it helps support people through difficult times' or 'religion is a force for good because it provides a beneficial community in which to live, help one another, etc'. Personally I am extremely strongly on the side of Hitchens, Dawkins, Grayling etc., but satisfactory counterarguments for these two suggestions (or perhaps one suggestion, if you see them as the same thing) have so far eluded me, and I am reluctant to maintain an extremely strong opinion that the world would be better off without religion when I can not refute these arguments. Could anyone provide me with or direct me to some thoughts to this end? I am aware that perhaps there simply is no good counterargument, but I would certainly like to see the best efforts generally heard in these debates.

If possible, I am more interested in seeing arguments posited which are not of the form "Well that's true, but still - look at all the bad things that religion does" (i.e. counterarguments against religion as a whole, which have no specific reference to the above alleged benefits of religion): I suspect I have seen them all and they do not counter the specific points which still cause me concern, merely religion as a whole. However, I accept that there may not be many such arguments. Either way, many thanks for your help! Mathmos6 (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You could argue against the conditional: if something helps support people through difficult times, then it is a force for good. Or against the conditional: if something provides a beneficial community in which to live, then it is a force for good. To do so would probably mean taking up a relativist position regarding morality.

You could also argue that religion in fact doesn't support people through difficult times, or doesn't provide a beneficial community in which to live.

You could also accept that perhaps these arguments are valid: that religion does have aspects that are "good". I assume your arguments against a belief in religion don't hinge on it being completely and 100% bad. Sancho 05:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that, while religion fosters a sense of community for those within the religion, that it alienates those outside the religion. This is similar to how it tends to reduce violence between individuals of that religion (or sect), while increasing violence between members of that religion (or sect) and others. Which could lead to the conclusion that the best way to reduce violence everywhere is to kill off everyone of any religion other than your own. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathmos: you're in a very hard place, because your argument runs across divergent cognitive styles. I'm not particularly religious myself, but I do recognize the power of religion for a certain style of thinking. Religion (on a lower level) adds a significant measure of stability and comfort to the lives of people who would otherwise be plagued by ideation that they are not able to understand and not prepared to accept. On a higher level, it gives people a kind of peace and appreciation for life that's difficult to find in the secular world. Yes, Marx was right when he said that religion is the opiate of the masses; Marx simply didn't appreciate the value of opiates.

To get to your specific point, though, the counter-argument to the 'Religion is a force for good…' arguments is to point out that religion is not unambiguously good. Religion is a 'comfort zone', and as with any comfort zone people who are pushed to the edge of it can act out in terribly unpleasant ways. I don't think I need to point out what these unpleasant ways are (everyone can think of examples, and pointing it out is overkill). However, that argument only goes so far: if you run across someone who understands the limits of that comfort zone and keeps him/herself centered in it, they will merely acknowledge that you are right and smile in (what you will interpret as) an infuriatingly indulgent way. Someone once quipped that religion appeals to the ignorant and to the wise, but those of us who are merely intelligent can't tell which is which. Dunno if that's true, but… --Ludwigs2 06:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"Marx simply didn't appreciate the value of opiates." He surely did. Look at the fuller quotation in our Opium of the people say.John Z (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that it's best to concede that religion does provide benefits (sense of community, etc) but argue that religion as such isn't necessary to get those benefits. For example, even an atheist could find value in a non-religious community group (like the Kiwanis or something similar). So argue that religion does provide certain benefits, but that you can get thoe benefits without adopting supernatural beliefs. Meelar (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If my memory serves me correctly, Dawkins covers this problem in The God Delusion. (See The God Delusion#Religion and morality.) Have you read that book? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My standard answer is that if it's just a social good you're looking for, you can get that with a bowling club or a community service group. You don't need all the negative stuff or the nonsense for just that. And you can't just look at the positive social aspect without paying attention to whatever negatives might come from it. The mafia ran soup kitchens too. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that for a long time, religion was "all we had". There are so many options today that religion has lost its once-pervading importance. Just today, this USAToday article[1] points out that a large percentage of folks are apathetic to both conventional religion and to atheism (which, in itself, resembles a religion). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It only resembles a religion in the sense that it's a belief about God. Atheists don't have a common church, set of beliefs, priests, prophet, or holy book. You don't see atheists congregating every weekend to hear propaganda that reinforces their beliefs, or denouncing gays in the name of atheism, or attempting genocide in the name of atheism. --19:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Genocide in the name of atheism: The Cultural Revolution. Religion isn't the cause of genocide and genocide is not a strong argument against religion. Gx872op (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That was in the name of socialism, not atheism... --Tango (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Atheists don't need a "church, set of beliefs, priests, prophet, or holy book" because they have the already-existing "church, set of beliefs, priests, prophet, or holy book" to rail against. Railing against religion provides atheists with a sense of commonality, camaraderie, community. Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Most atheists don't rail against religion. We just get on with our lives and say "oh, god, not him again" whenever Dawkins comes on the telly (irony intended!). A religion is a group with a common set of beliefs. Atheists don't have beliefs about god, we have rationally derived conclusions (my definition of "belief" involves a reference to "faith", which means not based on logic or evidence). (I make an exception for the ref desk, but in the rest of my life I just let religious people get on with it as long as they don't try and interfere with my life. I even went to church with some family on Christmas morning last year - if you ignore the preachy stuff, it was everyone in the village getting together to sing some songs, which was quite nice. Of course, we could have got together and sung songs without any religious stuff, so that's not an argument in favour of religion.) --Tango (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is very ironic that a television would be referred to as a "telly". Bus stop (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a standard abbreviation here in the UK (and, according to wikt:telly, in Australia). I used it to emphasise the casual attitude most atheists have to their atheism. --Tango (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

[2]. I think it was named after a well-known television actor of an earlier generation.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Most atheists don't share a sense of commonality, camaraderie, or community with other atheists either. How many atheists do you know who are part of some atheist organization, read atheist books, or attend atheist meetings? I know none, and I'm an atheist with many atheist friends. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

People who argue that religion provides a source of support/community are arguing from a modern, liberal, Western, post-Enlightenment perspective. Even in this modern world, religion is more often a source of division than support. If you're gay and every Sunday, you hear a sermon denouncing gays and claiming that every new gay rights law is a work of Satan, would you feel supported? If you're Muslim and hear Islamophobic comments by the religious right, does that strengthen your sense of community with Christian Americans? If you're a Maronite Christian being massacred by Muslims during Lebanon's civil war, or a Muslim being massacred by Christians during that same war, how much community support do you really feel?

You might say that religion offers support, as long as you believe in the right religion, the right politics (no supporting abortion/gay rights/euthanasia, for example), the right morality (no free sex, no watching porn), and never question the validity of any of this. First of all, I'm not sure it's feasible to change your political, moral, or religious beliefs just to fit in to a religious group. Second, if support is what you're seeking, I'd suggest relatives, friends, classmates, co-workers, and colleagues. Alternatively, join a fraternity or a club that aligns with your real beliefs. Even my religious friends don't depend entirely on people they met in church for support; in fact, the people they most often turn to are relatives and classmates that they met outside of church. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is handled nicely by Dawkins, who essentially says that it does not matter if religion has positive effects - that does not make it more likely to be true. Hitchens is all about the evils of religion. Dawkins certainly does not ignore that aspect, but at the core he is more concerned with epistemological truth, and less with moral aspects. That makes him a much more substantial opponent to religion than Hitchens (who was a great debater, but not really an intellectual heavyweight). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Veering OT here — epistemological truth is kind of self-contradictory. Epistemology is about knowledge, not truth. Truth is ontological. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Democratic roosters

Is anyone aware of images (either here or at Commons) featuring roosters as the emblem of the Democratic Party? I'm looking for something in which the rooster is the center of attention; something like File:Cleveland-Thurman.jpg, in which the roosters are hiding near the top, is far from what I need. I'd also be interested if someone could find a PD-old or at least PD-US image online that could be uploaded; I looked but didn't find any. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

When was the regency?

The articles of Matilda of Flanders, Matilda of Scotland and Philippa of Hainault states that they were regents during the absence of their respective husbands on several occasions. But the articles does not say when exactly they were regents. When was this? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawaiian Islands

Does there exist any map of the islands of Hawaii (other than Maui Nui) during their volcanic peaks when they were active volcanoes for the other islands west of Maui and into the Hawaiian seamounts?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Last British royal to die abroad before Diana

Who was the last senior British royal to die while outside the United Kingdom before Princess Diana? I'm thinking of reigning monarchs or the first few people in the line of succession or their spouses/consorts rather than people like the Duke of Windsor although they might be interesting too. Thryduulf 22:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Diana was not in the line of succession, and I think that by the time of her fatal accident, she was no longer considered a royal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

While technically she may not have been royal, her death would have been treated only superficially differently had she still been the spouse of the air to the throne, e.g. the ceremony when her coffin was loaded onto the aeroplane that brought it back to England was one drawn up for the occasion of a member of the royal family dying while abroad. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

How far down the line of success do you want to go? I expect that well down the line, a lot of them would have died somewhere besides the UK. And the Duke of Windsor is the first one to come to mind that fits your broad description, although his situation is obvious. It's more a question of how far you want to take it - like the descendants of King George VI's younger siblings, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I should remind readers that those British royals are also Canadian royals, and Australian royals, and... (for 14 more countries, I think). Dying in Australia would not be dying in a foreign land in the way it would if the same person died in, say, France. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think a sensible restriction would be (1) the current monarch, (2) descendants of the current monarch, or (3) the (former) spouse of the current monarch or one of their descendants. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding being Australian etc royals, that's why I phrased the question as "outside the United Kingdom", as they're primarily resident in the UK, it's the UK where they will presumably be buried and the funeral held. Although having written that I realise that I don't actually know that to be the case. If, say, Prince William were to die in Tuvalu or Prince Charles in Australia while touring for the Jubilee celebrations, would they be buried there or their bodies flown back to Britain? Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Flown back, certainly, to lie with their relatives. I think HiLo's point is a little artificial. If the Queen of Australia were to die while on a tour of Australia, we Aussies would still regard her as having died away from her home country, as would the rest of the world. When she does come here, she comes to visit, essentially as our guest - not to come "home". Indeed, the whole point of the 1999 Republic debate was about whether or not we wanted a "resident for President" or someone who is not an Australian citizen and comes here only once in a blue moon (however much she holds us in her hearts, and however much we may respect and admire her personally). PS. Was there something Freudian about your reference to Charles as the "air to the throne"?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in truth I agree with Jack. In a way I was highlighting the fact that our Queen is still really someone else's queen. As for visiting us "once in a blue moon", coverage during her most recent visit strongly suggested we weren't expecting any more blue moons during her reign.. So back to Brit for dead royals. (Don't they have spaces reserved at Westminster Abbey or something anyway?) HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent monarchs tend to be buried in the environs of Windsor Castle, not Westminster Abbey. (see: St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, Royal Burial Ground, Frogmore and links therefrom. - Nunh-huh 09:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• George V of Hanover? He would've been considered a British prince as a grandson of George III. And unlike the Duke of Windsor would've been in the line of succession on his death. Hot Stop ^UTC 03:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  Victoria, Princess Royal died in Germany in 1901, some 23 years after George V, herself a daughter of Queen Victoria and the consort of the German Emperor. The Queen's son Alfred also died in Germany, about a year before the younger Victoria. I can't find any later deaths outside of the UK of children of British Monarchs or their spouses. The best shot may have been Maud of Wales, who was by marriage Queen of Norway, but she actually died in London. --Jayron32 04:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edward VIII, who actually reigned as king before he abdicated, died in Paris in 1972. Looie496 (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

He's covered in the question: "I'm thinking of reigning monarchs or the first few people in the line of succession or their spouses/consorts rather than people like the Duke of Windsor ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Elizabethan fiction and the Reformation

This came up in conversation, and we were all strangely dumbfounded: is there much discussion of the Reformation in Elizabethan literature? I can't find much, even though religious tensions were simmering at the time, and the break with Rome was not exactly ancient history. I've checked articles/google on Elizabethan theatre as much as I can, and the only thing I can find is that scholars have managed to find allegorical references in the works of Shakespeare, for example [3], which discusses the Merchant of Venice. Still, people have read all sorts of things into Shakespeare, and that link contains the following rather extreme comment: "The theme of The Merchant of Venice, which is suggested in its folk-tales sources, is based on the proposition, expressed by Calvin and echoed by Luther and Zwingli, that the covenant of Abraham had passed from the nation of Israel to the body of Christ and, by extension, from the Catholic to the Protestant part of that body." This view looks like the opinion of one author, but maybe I don't know my Shakespeare very well. Beyond that, I can find very little mention of the Reformation in the fictional/dramatic literature of the time. Even Shakespeare's Henry VIII (play), where we might expect to find the English Reformation being debated, culminates in the birth of Elizabeth, a moment rather irrelevant to the theological dispute. Is there something I'm missing, and is it at odds with Continental Europe? That is, (1) is there any literature (drama or other, but not things like pamphlets) from the Elizabethan era that focuses much on Reformation politics, (2) what was it like on the Continent, and (3) if indeed the Reformation is not much represented in the literature of the time, why not? IBE (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It was very dangerous to talk about religion in those days, and drama was widely considered morally dubious in the first place, so a religious drama that did not toe the line of the Church of England's officially accepted doctrine would have stood a good chance of being suppressed. There was a substantial amount of poetry devoted to religious themes, though. During Elizabeth's reign Foxe's Book of Martyrs was the most popular of all books, and almost everybody who could read would have been familiar with it. Looie496 (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - I was worried I had asked too long a long question, and scared everyone off. I was aware of the Book of Martyrs, but that is prose non-fiction, and in fact it is one of the reasons I'm so surprised at either the lack of fiction on the Reformation, or (if not) then at my own difficulty in finding any. I understand the need to toe the line, but that shouldn't be hard. I was wondering if part of it was the need to retain popular appeal at the same time, such as by not offending those with Catholic sympathies. Can you direct me to some of the relevant poetry? Any starting point would be helpful. IBE (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

From the Catholic side, check out Come Rack! Come Rope!. --Trovatore (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

... though I guess that is quite a while past "Elizabethan". --Trovatore (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

But that is in fact quite helpful - it means someone has clearly thought about it and tried to answer it, and there perhaps hasn't been a lot to discover. Perhaps I was right up to a point, for there seems to be less drama/other literature focusing on Reformation politics than one might have expected, presumably for a variety of reasons. IBE (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)