Tradition: Friend or foe of freedom? A public debate.

Thursday 4 July 2013 10:05PM (view full episode)

Is tradition a concept used to defend backward ideas and ancient traditions, or is it a quiet reminder of values we should hold precious? Philosophers Mark Kingwell and John Haldane exchange ideas on the future of tradition in the Western world.

Add comment


Professor Mark Kingwell
Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto.
Professor John Haldane
Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs at St Andrews University, Edinburgh.


Amruta Slee

Comments (11)

Add your comment

  • A Monotheist :

    25 Jun 2013 1:28:18pm

    Hello Everyone

    Tradition, Religion, and Monotheism
    "Does tradition divide us? Is tradition a concept used to defend backward ideas and ancient traditions?"

    Tradition may be understood as transmission of customs, beliefs, institutions, methodologies, etc, from one generation to the next. This implies religious ideas, concepts and institutions in a society constitute a tradition. By the same token, in philosophy, Platonic or Cartesian dualistic approach should be considered as a tradition, just as should be the scientific methodology which is set on a premise that it must not involve any notion of divine agent. Similarly, political concepts, ideas and institutions, which have been bequeathed, constitute tradition.

    The progressive arm of political machine, of course, loves portraying traditions as the cause of social division, just as much as, conservative arm loves portraying it as the glue for social cohesion. However, bundling everything, which has ancient roots together as tradition, is wrong, regardless of whether the string be of a conservative or progressive brand. It is also wrong to assume that tradition is innately divisive; on the contrary, it is modernization which stirs tension by upsetting the established values.

    Does tradition divide us?

    Phillip, God says yes, tradition does divide you. Consider, for examples:

    "The Jews or Christians will never be satisfied with you unless you follow their form of religions", (Quran; 2:120); or: "Those (Muslims) who split up their religion and become (mere) sects -- each party rejoicing in what is with itself", (Q; 30:32). For examples, the Sunnis include Salafis, Wahabis, Shafais, Hanbalis, Malikis; and the Shiis include the Ismailis, the Alovites, the Twelve Imamis, etc; each of which rejoices in its own version of Islam and denounces the rest.

    "They became divided only after knowledge reached them",(Q; 42:14). Namely, when people start treating their religions as mere traditions, handing down from fathers to sons, they become a source of tension and division. For, those who inherit them, instead of 'studying' them in a new light 'as they should be'(Q; 2:121) and 'apply the best'(Q; 39:18) precepts which suit their socio-economic conditions, they resort to a chain of traditions which is irrelevant to their need. It is as if those who inherit them have no cognitive power to study them; or as if those who studied them several centuries earlier did not use their own cognitive power in making sense of them.

    However, it is not just religion which is divisive, politics is too. For an example, Nation-State has been divisive since its inception. The concept and institution of Nation-State was first developed by Egyptians at the start of third millennium BC. Prior to that, there had been City-Stat; and prior to the City-State, human societies consisted of tribal organizations.

      • A Monotheist :

        05 Jul 2013 10:50:05am

        Tradition, Religion, and Monotheism:

        When tribal organizations made human societies, there was no internal tension in the societies. Similarly, during the city-states the tensions and conflicts were mainly external between two rival states over natural resources and political supremacy. That was so despite the fact that the modern pattern of religious behaviour had already started, at least, since 50,000 years earlier. Namely, by the 5th or 4th millennium BC all human societies had their own religious identities. However, since the inception of Nation-States, both internal and external social tensions and conflicts have become a fixture of human societies.

        Today, the nation-state is the main cause of internal and external tensions. Consider, for examples, the Kurds’ issue in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran; or the Israeli Palestinian conflict; or the Bask and New Catalonia in Spain; or the tension between Britain and Scotland; or the tension over some small islands between China, Japan and Taiwan; or between Russia and Japan; or even the tension between Australia and Papua New Guinea.

        Now, what should we do with the source of all those tension? Shall we get rid of tradition? What about the concept and institution of nation-state; shall we get rid of them too?

        But, of course, we know that getting rid of religion is no more viable an option than is getting rid of the state-nation. Perhaps, we should scrape off from our mind the crusts of tradition which have been building up since the Enlightenment and see the world differently. For, even if we could get rid of nation-state, there would have been only one option – and that would have been to reinstall tribal societies to avoid internal tension.
        But as to the next question: Is tradition a concept used to defend backward ideas and ancient traditions?

        Phillip, God again says yes; consider, for example:
        "When it is said to them, 'Come to what God has revealed ...' they say, 'Enough for us are the ways we found our fathers following'; what! Even though your fathers were ignorant and misguided", (Q;5:104).

        It seems that, this is not the first time such questions have been raised, certainly not in the modern history; but perhaps, this is the first time in the progressives have raised such questions while been convinced that tradition is going to outlive them.

        Now, whether tradition outlives the progressive or not remains to be seen; but it is a fact that, there is only one constant in the world as a dynamic system -- and that is change and vicissitude:
        "Many were the ways of life (traditions) that have passed away before you; travel through the earth (in space and time) and see what was the end of those who rejected truth", (Q; 3:137); or: "You see the mountains and think them firmly fixed; but they shall pass away as the clouds do",(Q;27:88); or "This (iron) is a mercy

      • Hinton John Lowe :

        07 Jul 2013 8:13:08pm

        This tract by Monotheist puts me in mind of the story about John Maynard Keynes, when commenting on the contribution of a member of the Reconstruction conference after WWII, who had boasted that he was fluent in 8 languages. Keynes'observation afterwards was along the lines, 'And he managed to say nothing in all of them!.' I have been unable to find one reason in your tract, Monotheist, which persuades me of anything: at least of anything you intend to convince me.

  • A Monotheist :

    05 Jul 2013 11:51:23am

    Hello Everyone: (3)

    Tradition, Religion, and Monotheism

    One of the guests said that the idea of One God is illogical and impossible; well, here is the reasons why only Monotheism is logic, not polytheism and atheism.


    "There is no God but God",(The Quran;2:163)

    Monotheism has a broad implication in terms of:
    1-The Unity of God
    2-The origin and progression of the universe
    3-The general tendency in the universe
    4-The general tendency in development of human mind and societies
    5-The conflation of divine revelation and human mind

    The Unity of God

    The centrepiece of monotheism is the unity of God. This unity manifests in the structural, or logic behaviour of the universe as a dynamic system. Namely, it signifies the origin and blueprint of the cosmos:(Q; 21:30)"Don't the disbelievers understand that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation) before We clove them asunder?"

    According to the standard scientific model, an event, corresponding to a sudden release of immense energy or application of force, must have triggered the progression of the universe. This event has been dubbed 'the big bang'. However, the big bang should not be taken literally because the standard model can neither explain the cause of it, nor can account for the period prior to the event, nor for the immediately afterward when the temperature, density and curvature of the universe believed to have been infinite; the period of infinity is dubbed ‘Singularity’.

    So far, it seems that both the Quran and the Science consider the progression of the universe to have started upon an event corresponding to a sudden release of energy, or application of sudden force which the science calls it the big bang and the Quran refers to it as cleaving asunder. From a linguistic perspective, both terminologies denote a sudden release or application of force.

    Is there any conflation of a divine revelation and science?

    The concept of unity also signifies a general tendency, not only in the course of development of human mind and societies, but in the universe: (Q; 22:18), "Don't you realise that to Allah bow down in worship all beings in the heavens and on earth – the sun, the moon, the stars, the hills, the trees, the animals; and a great number among mankind?"

    Obviously, the phrase 'bow down' is used as a metaphor, denoting submission; for, "Allah doesn't disdain' using 'similitude, allegories, parables", etc, (Q; 2:26,171; 3:7) Otherwise, how the hills and the spherical celestial bodies can bow down. Here is another example of such a metaphor: God said to Abraham "Bow"! Abraham responded, "I bow to the Lord and Cherisher of the Universe",(Q; 2:131).

    However, in the case of inanimate objects such as the celestial bodies and living organis

      • A Monothiest :

        05 Jul 2013 12:11:08pm

        Tradition, Religion, and Monotheism

        However, in the case of inanimate objects such as the celestial bodies and living organisms other than human beings, bowing down denotes being subject to the laws of nature. Furthermore, the Quran states, there are natural and social boundaries which no one can violate them :( Q; 55:33)"O you assembly of jinns and men! If it be you who can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, then pass you! Not without authority you shall be able to pass!" Namely, "all creatures in the heavens and on the earth’, even the militant atheists, 'have willingly or unwillingly, bowed to God's will", (Q; 3:83). In other words, they can neither change the laws nor can they alter the course of the history.

        For an example, consider what the militant atheists have done in the last decade; they brought God and religion to the public podium. It would have taken the believers four or five decades to achieve what the atheists have done for them in just a decade.

        Now, if the universe is governed by the laws of nature; and human societies, as the subsystem, by the rules of history, then the universe must have structural or logic behaviour. Namely, there must be a pattern of behaviour discernible by human intellect.

        From a scientific perspective, this logic behaviour must be due to the big bang, or the initial condition which has triggered the progression of the universe, albeit, subject to the laws of physics.

        In the year 2010, the NASA/WMAP Science Team released a map of the early sky which revealed the structure of the universe in the aftermath of the big bang, about 13.7 billion years ago. The map illustrated the regions in the young universe which had higher concentration of matter. According to the analysis of the map, those regions had been the seeds of galaxies which later on grew large. That’s to say, the progression of the world from formation of galaxies to development of stars, planets, and even living organisms on earth must have had their blueprints in the early universe.

        A similar impression is given by the Quran. Thus, it states, "the sky' with 'all (the celestial bodies) that swim along their orbits', including 'the sun and the moon' and the alternation of 'the Night and the Day' and the formation of 'mountains' and the evolution of 'living organisms in water', etc, have commenced as the aftermath of application of that sudden force or energy:

        "Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation) before We clove them asunder? And We made from water every living being. Will they not then believe? And We set on the earth mountains. And We have made the heavens as a canopy well guarded; yet they turn away from the signs which these things (point to)! It is He who created the Night and the Day and the sun and the moon; and all (the celestial bodies) which sw

  • Soviet :

    05 Jul 2013 5:10:18pm

    Speaking of civility on LNL, I remember like maybe last year, where Phil was interviewing 2 blokes, one from the "left" and one rather nasty one from the "right", essentially the guy from the right got really nasty about the left and he let fly like hitler from the balcony, in the end Phil had to shut down the interview cos it got out of hand with the slanging

    For the life of me I casn't remember who that was and I would LOVE to download the podcast and listen to it again. As I have no clue regarding who those 2 blokes where I can't search the archives.

    Can the LNL team help me out here ? :)

    P.S. that'd be a good one for a re-run to backfill a day when Phil's off

      • Bernie :

        12 Jul 2013 10:15:28am

        From memory I think it was the program on the Elgin Marbles...

  • Favela Dweller :

    06 Jul 2013 1:31:15pm

    Some of the BEST and WORST people I know are members of a religeon.
    Some of the BEST and WORST people I know are ATHIESTS.
    Some of the BEST and WORST people I know declare themselves to be Lefties.
    Some of the BEST and WORST people I know declare themselves to be Conservatives.
    ALL the BEST people I know are FLEXIBLE.
    ALL the WORST people I know are INFLEXIBLE.

      • Favela Dweller :

        06 Jul 2013 4:24:16pm

        Oooooops ! Sorry Phillip, my previous comments were meant as a response to your interview with Hugh Mackay.

        There has been alot of commotion in our favela today and I am having trouble focusing. Sorry about that.

        Love your show Phllip,

        FD, :-)

  • A Monotheist :

    08 Jul 2013 1:23:46pm

    Hello Hinton John Low:

    What is your reading of the following question?


    I think it is a rehtoric one! If you have noticed, i've posted the comment 9-days earlier than the broadcasting; and I had rightly guessed that it was going to be focussed on religion, something that the guessts acknowledged in their conversation.

    So, i was trying to point out that religion can't be dismissed on the ground of being a tradition. Furthermore, religion isn't tradition and I provided some reasons for that; but, Phillip, for some reasons, first, didn't let my second comment being view along the first one so that I have to repost it 10-days later; and when Phillip did allow it to be vissible, he cut of a chunk of it which gives the reason why religion isn't tradition. In addition to that, phillip has disabled the reply button which i could add the missing chunk!

      • John :

        08 Jul 2013 6:28:31pm

        At last, and inevitably, the ancient self-appointed exoteric "religious" rulerships have failed, and "official" exoteric Christian-ISM, along with all the other "great world-religions" of worldly "religion-power, is now reduced to all the impenetrable illusions and decadent exercises that everywhere characterize previously privileged aristocracies in their decline from worldly power.
        Christian-ISM is now a chaos of over 35,000 market share seeking corporate cults and Barnumesque propagandists that rule nothing more than chaotic herds of self deluded cobnsumerist religionists in the market place of whats-in-it-for-me consumerist religion. PT Barnum was of course wrong - there are countless thousands of suckers born every minute.

        Therefore, the myth (lie) of the "cultural superiority" of "official" Christian-ISM has now come full circle. The "religious" myhologies of the "great world-religions" are not only now waging global wars with one anothe with murderously reasonable intentions in the "final" showdown for totalitarian ruler-ship (like so many psychotic inmates of asylums for the mad, each confronting the other with exclusive claims of personal absoluteness), but the public masses of "religion-bound" people - who, all over the world, foe even thousands of years, have been controlled in mind and body by ancient institutions of "religiously" propagandized worldly power - are now in a globalized state of fear-saturated grossly bound "religious" delusion and social psychois.