You know when you read something that makes you think wow, that's a turn up for the books; someone who you had pegged as an ignorant, intolerant, laggard actually agreeing to look at the opposite site of an argument, accepting that they need to be educated even? then, as you read on your heart sinks as you realise that this is just a publicity stunt and there is absolutely no movement in their position at all, well that just happened to me here.
Leader of my current interfering religious hypocrite top 20, Cardinal Keith O'Brien (head of the Catholic church in Scotland) splashed out today by agreeing to meet with scientists to talk about the embryo bill currently running through parliament which he is on record as calling "monstrous". Could this be correct? is Keith finally admitting that what he said about this bill last week was pure drivel based on scientific ignorance and the intransigent medieval dogma that he was indoctrinated with as a young child? does he really now want to meet the people that actually want to do something (real) about hideous and incurable medical conditions, maybe get himself an education?
well not quite.
Of course, there's a catch, his caveat is revealed later in the article, it reads as follows, "My only condition would be that the scientists were also willing to accept instruction from our Churches and peoples of faith on basic morality, on what human life really is, on the purpose of our life on earth and so on."
Looks like he played his trump card, front and centre he's saying "you have to listen to our religious, sky-fairy, delusional instruction and accept it, because, well, just because", the implication of course is that scientists can't possibly have "morals" without believing the same ridiculous medieval dogma that Keith does; unfortunately Keith can't back this up with anything useful, like evidence, or rational argument of course, he gets his opinions delivered directly into his head from the creator of the universe... uh.. ok.. dude we all get those, they're called dreams.
There are so many reasons why this is utter BS it's like shooting fish in a barrel;
1. Why is the opinion of this bejewelled ignoramus worth a jot, why is our establishment even bothering to listen?
2. Who "elected" this person to represent anyone; even the people he supposedly does represent are a tiny minority in the UK.
3. What is this "morality" that "people of faith" (particularly Catholics) have that the rest of us don't?
4. Why is Catholic dogma about "souls" more important than curing Parkinson's disease?
5. How are "people of faith" going to agree on the big moral questions of our time if they can't even agree about what you can and can't eat and on Fridays..
6. If this bill is passed and the research leads to a cure for heart disease (the biggest killer in Scotland) would the Cardinal recommend his "flock" shun it (for moral reasons?)..
etc.
My opinion is that using ignorance and medieval dogma to prevent biomedical research is, well, a monstrous insult to our basic human rights...
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
What do Archbishops know about Ethics?
I reckon that it would be a pretty safe bet that given any population of religious people and the same (numerically) population of non-religious people there will be roughly equal proportions of liars, cheats, perverts, hypocrites, honourable people, altruistic people, intelligent, stupid etc.
Whilst this is more of an intuitive assertion than a scientific one, any hard evidence I have ever seen about the subject tends to suggest this, in fact most evidence I've seen implies that religious people tend to be less "moral" than their irreligious counterparts (prison populations, teen pregnancies, divorce rates etc.); which is interesting in itself, but not the subject of this post.
My question is, "where does our morality come from"; if my previous assertion is true anyone would have to agree, it may be informed by different religions in different ways, but it's not intrinsically from religion, i.e. the notion that if you don’t have a religion you can’t be "moral" is clearly nonsense. For myself I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question, being a parent, it's perhaps a simplistic view but the answer seems blindingly obvious to me, we get our morals from, our parents and our community of peers, those that we don't get from that source are clearly innate because we observe them in related species, i.e. they are already hard-wired from our evolutionary heritage. I observe this every day in the behaviour of my kids and their friends, i.e. on the whole they tend to be a blend of the attitudes, perspectives and habits of their parents. Interestingly (although, not scientific) I also observe that the kids from religious backgrounds (i.e. the ones that are in the process of being indoctrinated into the religion of their parents) are often the worst behaved. I would offer the theory that this is because they are constantly being told that they are “special” and “righteous” that level of arrogance and solipsism has got to affect growing brains somehow?
Anyway, onto the main thrust of this post, I have been following a story in the mainstream press currently on a bill that the government is trying to get through the house called “The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill” (you can read what people are saying about it here); part of it would allow the creation of part human, part animal embryos for purposes of stem cell production. As you would expect (groan), the usual religious “objectors” are demanding a free vote, religious interests inside and outside the Government are doing their best “indignant” faces, terms such as “monstrous”, “Frankenstein”, “sacred” are being tossed around and the bejewelled, robed and self appointed religious “leaders” are gathering like vultures around a dying wildebeest on the African savannah.
There are so many aspects of these “objections” that are themselves objectionable that it’s actually quite hard for me to know where to start, lets start with the science part,
- Firstly, humans are animals, animal DNA and human DNA are made of the exactly the same stuff, so we’re really just talking about manipulating chemicals that replicate themselves, not people.
- This research focuses on very small groups of cells; roughly the same as the number you destroy with a good scratch or pick of your nose.
- No one is talking about actually creating hybrid organisms, indeed that possibility doesn’t even exist; this argument is about science at the cellular level, not zoology!
- Every human cell has the “potential” to become another human, if it’s ok to experiment with skin cells, heart cells or liver cells (I could say to find treatments for middle-aged, syphilitic, alcoholic clergymen at this point, but that would be a cheap shot) why not embryonic cells?
Taking these points on board it seems to be evident that the Archbishop of St. Andrews, Keith O’Brien [Catholic] just wants to stir up trouble or is just lying for Jesus when he says, "[this legislation is a] monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life", adding that it would allow experiments of "Frankenstein proportion", what utter poppycock, doesn’t this chap actually read this stuff? Even Lord Winston (quite rightly) chipped in criticising this buffoon today (here) and he claims (incomprehensibly to me) to be a man of “faith” as well, albeit not a Catholic.
I don’t understand the Catholic “hang up” with this; it’s the same with abortion, actually I don’t think they understand it either, it seems to be a case of dogma trailing behind reality and some sad old virgins trying to remain relevant, but then I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion. If it is indeed the (true) opinions of these people that this kind of research is immoral then I would like to ask the following questions,
- Is it moral to believe that the needs of a clump of 150 cells trump the needs of a teenage girl with MS or an elderly man with Parkinson’s disease?
- Is it moral to believe that we shouldn’t use our intelligence and reason to alleviate measurable suffering when it is clear that the suffering caused is less or none at all?
- Did the Catholic God create these diseases, these viruses and bacteria? If the answer is yes, then clearly there is some kind of master plan (otherwise why do it?), therefore are the sufferers being punished, and is it immoral to treat any kinds of medical problem?
- Do Catholics have a superior knowledge of ethics and morality than everyone else; if they do how do they know that?
I doubt if these questions will ever be answered for me, but they go to the heart of my objection with these objections, it's not about a point of view and it's not about holding a different opinion, its about some people thinking (i.e. in their own heads) that they know something everyone else doesn't, and also thinking that because of that they have the right or even the calling to impose that view, this authority from revelation (or passed down revelation) is something that I feel doesn't belong in our modern world, in fact I think it is immoral.
In short then, what do Archbishops know about ethics that the rest of us don't?
Whilst this is more of an intuitive assertion than a scientific one, any hard evidence I have ever seen about the subject tends to suggest this, in fact most evidence I've seen implies that religious people tend to be less "moral" than their irreligious counterparts (prison populations, teen pregnancies, divorce rates etc.); which is interesting in itself, but not the subject of this post.
My question is, "where does our morality come from"; if my previous assertion is true anyone would have to agree, it may be informed by different religions in different ways, but it's not intrinsically from religion, i.e. the notion that if you don’t have a religion you can’t be "moral" is clearly nonsense. For myself I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question, being a parent, it's perhaps a simplistic view but the answer seems blindingly obvious to me, we get our morals from, our parents and our community of peers, those that we don't get from that source are clearly innate because we observe them in related species, i.e. they are already hard-wired from our evolutionary heritage. I observe this every day in the behaviour of my kids and their friends, i.e. on the whole they tend to be a blend of the attitudes, perspectives and habits of their parents. Interestingly (although, not scientific) I also observe that the kids from religious backgrounds (i.e. the ones that are in the process of being indoctrinated into the religion of their parents) are often the worst behaved. I would offer the theory that this is because they are constantly being told that they are “special” and “righteous” that level of arrogance and solipsism has got to affect growing brains somehow?
Anyway, onto the main thrust of this post, I have been following a story in the mainstream press currently on a bill that the government is trying to get through the house called “The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill” (you can read what people are saying about it here); part of it would allow the creation of part human, part animal embryos for purposes of stem cell production. As you would expect (groan), the usual religious “objectors” are demanding a free vote, religious interests inside and outside the Government are doing their best “indignant” faces, terms such as “monstrous”, “Frankenstein”, “sacred” are being tossed around and the bejewelled, robed and self appointed religious “leaders” are gathering like vultures around a dying wildebeest on the African savannah.
There are so many aspects of these “objections” that are themselves objectionable that it’s actually quite hard for me to know where to start, lets start with the science part,
- Firstly, humans are animals, animal DNA and human DNA are made of the exactly the same stuff, so we’re really just talking about manipulating chemicals that replicate themselves, not people.
- This research focuses on very small groups of cells; roughly the same as the number you destroy with a good scratch or pick of your nose.
- No one is talking about actually creating hybrid organisms, indeed that possibility doesn’t even exist; this argument is about science at the cellular level, not zoology!
- Every human cell has the “potential” to become another human, if it’s ok to experiment with skin cells, heart cells or liver cells (I could say to find treatments for middle-aged, syphilitic, alcoholic clergymen at this point, but that would be a cheap shot) why not embryonic cells?
Taking these points on board it seems to be evident that the Archbishop of St. Andrews, Keith O’Brien [Catholic] just wants to stir up trouble or is just lying for Jesus when he says, "[this legislation is a] monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life", adding that it would allow experiments of "Frankenstein proportion", what utter poppycock, doesn’t this chap actually read this stuff? Even Lord Winston (quite rightly) chipped in criticising this buffoon today (here) and he claims (incomprehensibly to me) to be a man of “faith” as well, albeit not a Catholic.
I don’t understand the Catholic “hang up” with this; it’s the same with abortion, actually I don’t think they understand it either, it seems to be a case of dogma trailing behind reality and some sad old virgins trying to remain relevant, but then I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion. If it is indeed the (true) opinions of these people that this kind of research is immoral then I would like to ask the following questions,
- Is it moral to believe that the needs of a clump of 150 cells trump the needs of a teenage girl with MS or an elderly man with Parkinson’s disease?
- Is it moral to believe that we shouldn’t use our intelligence and reason to alleviate measurable suffering when it is clear that the suffering caused is less or none at all?
- Did the Catholic God create these diseases, these viruses and bacteria? If the answer is yes, then clearly there is some kind of master plan (otherwise why do it?), therefore are the sufferers being punished, and is it immoral to treat any kinds of medical problem?
- Do Catholics have a superior knowledge of ethics and morality than everyone else; if they do how do they know that?
I doubt if these questions will ever be answered for me, but they go to the heart of my objection with these objections, it's not about a point of view and it's not about holding a different opinion, its about some people thinking (i.e. in their own heads) that they know something everyone else doesn't, and also thinking that because of that they have the right or even the calling to impose that view, this authority from revelation (or passed down revelation) is something that I feel doesn't belong in our modern world, in fact I think it is immoral.
In short then, what do Archbishops know about ethics that the rest of us don't?
Look at these idiots..
Take a perfectly normal, healthy human child with all its inherent potential for stunning intellectual and physical achievement in the pursuit of bettering themselves and their species, every parent should know what to do right?
Instead of cultivating that positive humanist perspective, opt to subject it at the earliest possible age to utterly pointless, oppressive and bizarre medieval rituals backed up by a stultifying, solopsistic iron age death cult instead. What's that I hear you say?, "they'd never believe it!", well in that case, "convince" the kid, using peer pressure and the threat of cultural exclusion, that unless they believe it, they (and everyone they love) will burn in agony for an eternity, bake at gas mark 5 for a few years and look what you get here...
Surprised?
They must be so proud...
Instead of cultivating that positive humanist perspective, opt to subject it at the earliest possible age to utterly pointless, oppressive and bizarre medieval rituals backed up by a stultifying, solopsistic iron age death cult instead. What's that I hear you say?, "they'd never believe it!", well in that case, "convince" the kid, using peer pressure and the threat of cultural exclusion, that unless they believe it, they (and everyone they love) will burn in agony for an eternity, bake at gas mark 5 for a few years and look what you get here...
Surprised?
They must be so proud...
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Farewell fellow traveller
I just learnt that Arthur C Clarke has died aged 90, author, atheist, scientist, diving enthusiast and all round technology pioneer, the world will certainly be a dumber place tonight without him; what an interesting life, like most of us he had ups and downs, from the little I know about him more ups than downs but unlike most of us he leaves a significant literary and technological legacy and because of that is a great example of what can be achieved organically, i.e. without the need for any supernatural "additives".
The story from the BBC is here
The story from the BBC is here
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Bye Bye Blasphemy
I couldn’t let such a momentous event in secular history pass by without a mention, here in the UK the laws of blasphemy that have been on our statute books centuries have finally this week been repealed (i.e. removed) HURRAH!
In terms of the laws themselves it is unclear what they really meant, I suspect that was kind of the point, the last successful prosecution was in 1922 when some poor chap was sentenced to 9 months of hard labour for comparing Jesus to a circus clown, seems a bit harsh to me, one could almost say un-Christian?
Apparently the laws only applied to the Church of England, and not other Christian denominations or (perish the thought) any other religion (or lack of), so there! Such nepotism and clearly man-made nonsense you couldn’t hope to find in law, but there are still people out there willing to fight for this drivel, for example Baroness O’Cathain who would seemingly rather see a theocracy than a secular democracy in this country, perhaps she would like to use Iran as a role model, no?, of course, that would be stupid, her religion is far superior to their religion, how Christian.
Of course there were also the “Bishops”, smug, privileged, unelected, passing judgement down on the rest of us from that triumvirate haven of tyrants, “tradition”, “authority” and “revelation”, along with many other unelected chinless wonders, fortunately there were enough rational people around to abolish the vile things, welcome to the 19th century Britain, now just disestablishment to go and we might have a peek at the 20th?
So how to summarise this event, there are two views I suppose,
1. We have moved one step closer to utter civil collapse by removing another pillar in our cultural and moral heritage as a nation (along with slavery, witch burning, bear-baiting, child labour, subjugation of Women, homophobia, imperialism and the birch etc.)
2.We have finally removed an inherited, petty, solipsistic but "official" legal privilege of a group of people whose only supposed merit is that they “believe” in a 1st century desert myth about a supernatural being who performs magic tricks and a story of human sacrifice, all without a single shred of evidence.
I know which one I’d go for.
In terms of the laws themselves it is unclear what they really meant, I suspect that was kind of the point, the last successful prosecution was in 1922 when some poor chap was sentenced to 9 months of hard labour for comparing Jesus to a circus clown, seems a bit harsh to me, one could almost say un-Christian?
Apparently the laws only applied to the Church of England, and not other Christian denominations or (perish the thought) any other religion (or lack of), so there! Such nepotism and clearly man-made nonsense you couldn’t hope to find in law, but there are still people out there willing to fight for this drivel, for example Baroness O’Cathain who would seemingly rather see a theocracy than a secular democracy in this country, perhaps she would like to use Iran as a role model, no?, of course, that would be stupid, her religion is far superior to their religion, how Christian.
Of course there were also the “Bishops”, smug, privileged, unelected, passing judgement down on the rest of us from that triumvirate haven of tyrants, “tradition”, “authority” and “revelation”, along with many other unelected chinless wonders, fortunately there were enough rational people around to abolish the vile things, welcome to the 19th century Britain, now just disestablishment to go and we might have a peek at the 20th?
So how to summarise this event, there are two views I suppose,
1. We have moved one step closer to utter civil collapse by removing another pillar in our cultural and moral heritage as a nation (along with slavery, witch burning, bear-baiting, child labour, subjugation of Women, homophobia, imperialism and the birch etc.)
2.We have finally removed an inherited, petty, solipsistic but "official" legal privilege of a group of people whose only supposed merit is that they “believe” in a 1st century desert myth about a supernatural being who performs magic tricks and a story of human sacrifice, all without a single shred of evidence.
I know which one I’d go for.
The 7 deadly sins 2.0
What’s this? could it possibly be the Catholic church engaging in the great “debate”, challenging the rationalist position, providing evidence of the divine, delivering a crushing logic bomb that finally destroys the enlightenment, well not quite. I'm sure the cynical amongst you would say that it’s a just the usual mediaevally inspired attempt at thought control and that here we have a bunch of old virgins clinging onto the vestiges of power by trying to kid everyone that they actually care about humanity. You might even point out the blatant hypocrisy when it is so transparently obvious that its their own petty vested interest being shoved down our throats here and very little else, perhaps you would be right, let's see.
Well folks here we have it, 7 new deadly sins, these little beauties will instantly condemn any transgressor to an eternity of torment in the furnaces of hell, no question, well, ahem, unless they slip the big guy a few quid and he supplies an “indulgence” which lets them off the hook (but that’s a different topic), back to those “mortal sins”, let’s take a closer look..
Environmental Pollution – Yes, this is bad, no doubt about that, but it’s not a black and white issue really is it, who is culpable if an oil tanker is blown onto the rocks, who is going to fry for that? Then there is the issue of where the largest contribution to environmental destruction actually comes from, any guesses?, could it be OVER-POPULATION, what is the most likely religion of those engaged in slashing and burning the rain forest? Does this mean that contraception is now ok, so long as it’s to prevent environmental destruction because of over-population?
Genetic Manipulation – The doctrine isn’t too clear on this one, what kind of manipulation is kosher and what is not, or are they saying any manipulation is off limits. Surely they aren’t talking about the artificial selection process that Norman Borlaug undertook in the 50s that resulted in more hardy, disease resistant varieties of wheat that conservative estimates conclude have directly saved more than 1 BILLION human lives since then, or perhaps the work of the countless scientist using genetic manipulation to produce vaccines for say, smallpox or polio, all but eradicating them, although you have to say that this has been achieved in the teeth of opposition from religions like Catholicism see here
I suspect the thrust of this one is targeted firmly at those engaged in stem cell research, particularly those using embryos as the source of those cells. I smell the vile whiff of DOGMA folks, yes, we’re expected to believe that a Petri dish containing a blastocyst of 150 cells has a, wait for it, A SOUL; yes we’re back into the realm of MAGIC people. How can those nasty scientists destroy clumps of 150 cells, clearly the suffering involved trumps the suffering experienced by an 11 year old school girl with MS. As for where this soul actually is, well, those know-all scientists just can’t be using the right kind of micro-scopes can they, don't they know you need to close your eyes to see them. What these Catholics don’t seem to appreciate is that more cells are actually destroyed when you pick your nose, and yes, all of them have the potential to create human life, one little abbreviation for you, DNA, its truly magical stuff, I recommend reading a few books on it, they might be a revelation!
Accumulating Excessive Wealth – Well, this one is unclear too, perhaps I need an example, oh yes, the Catholic Church, how refreshing, honesty at last.
Inflicting Poverty – I must be stupid or something, I feel I need concrete examples to help me understand the deeper meaning of these sins. In this case perhaps denying the rights of women to control their own fertility thereby keeping them under the yoke of male domination and in the grip of poverty might provide just the ticket? If I’m not mistaken Sister Theresa of Calcutta was the expert in this field, and although she didn’t actually believe any of the nonsense of the Catholic Church, she was very keen on poverty and keeping people in it so that they remained subservient to the Catholic Church, something that is exposed pretty conclusively in Christopher Hitchens book, “The Missionary Position” a good read!
Drug Trafficking & Consumption – Can’t argue with this, although I’m slightly uncomfortable about what the main causes of drug consumption are, feelings of helplessness caused by poverty perhaps caused by over population and poor environments, rebellion against irrational authority, are we really saying that the silly teenager who takes a quick drag on a joint will pay for that with eternal suffering in hell, seems a bit stiff? I can’t help thinking that since humans have been taking drugs of one kind or another since long before the Catholic Church existed and probably will long after it disappears, it would seem like this is more complicated than this black and white statement seems to suggest.
Morally Debatable Experiments – Ah ha! I feel we are well and truly back in the comfort zone with this one; remove ambiguity by introducing the qualifier of “Morality”, no one can argue with that can they. Hold on though, who decides what is moral and what is not, oh yes I remember.
Of course, morality is God given isn’t it, so it’s infallible, much like all the Popes have been, well, err, um, apart from Limbo, Slavery, vaccination, woman’s rights, evolution, abortion, contraception, cosmology etc. etc. I know, perhaps we could say that religion itself is a morally debatable “thought control” experiment now there is a topic worthy of a good argument.
Violation of Fundamental Rights of Human Nature – A couple of questions on this one, (sheesh, what a dummy I am!) since we mentioned cosmology in the previous point, I can’t resist mentioning Galileo, were his rights violated? Do woman have the right to abort an unborn foetus? “Violation” is such a tricky term isn’t it, are children "violated" when they have the penis of a Catholic priest inserted into one of their bodily orifices against their will? is homosexuality part of “human nature”, if it were, would denying it be a violation of rights? questions, questions.
When we finally realise that morality comes from humans and not from magical sky dwelling entities or "special" books, and that what is right and wrong changes and evolves over time as we do, we will have truly figured something out for ourselves as a species.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Ronnie Barker corner..
News just in, the merger of Hinduism and Judaism (Hinjewism) has not worked out as planned, as instead of forming a super-religion to fight off the common Islamic enemy, they have instead created a race of 900 million people who, no matter how many times they are reincarnated, can never please their mothers....
Sod's law, you know it makes sense...
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Joke du jour
I decided that I need more humour, so here is a joke,
Hear the one about the bloke standing in line at a bookshop signing, he got killed in a freak accident when a lump of frozen aircraft waste that came crashing through the roof and hit him on the head; you could say...
The shit really hit the fan...
Hear the one about the bloke standing in line at a bookshop signing, he got killed in a freak accident when a lump of frozen aircraft waste that came crashing through the roof and hit him on the head; you could say...
The shit really hit the fan...
Monday, February 18, 2008
The Harrow
I thought I'd blog about something other than religion for a change; what better than that other grand staple of life, good food!
As a Valentines day treat we thought we'd try the Harrow at Little Bedwyn in Wiltshire (WEB site is here) for dinner, having read rave reviews of the establishment in Decanter magazine and clocking it's newly acquired Michelin star expectations were high. I can say without hesitation that we weren't disappointed.
The setting is slightly odd in that the restaurant is in what looks like an old house set in a row of houses in a country lane, inside, the dividing walls that marked out the original rooms are still in place giving it a "homey" snug feel and dividing everything up into at least 3-4 separate eating compartments. There's a central bar, offering the usual pre-dinner range of drinks and nuts etc. everyone was welcoming and friendly, although this doesn't come across as "formal" compared to other starred establishments.
The place has a slightly "lived in" feel to it; freshly delivered boxes of wine litter the corridors and the halls, in fact wine plays a central role here, the owners are self confessed wine geeks (just my kind of place!) - the list is extensive and reasonably priced, big oz section, fair Bordeaux and Burgundy, good new world nothing too outrageous and some really interesting/unusual wines into the bargain, mark-up reasonably predictable at around 50-100%. I quickly engaged the barman in a "wine" conversation, and selected the slightly off-beat Domaine de Trevallon (1996) to have with our meal, generously he took me on a little tour of his cellar... nice touch I thought.
We selected the full menu gourmand, about 8 courses which came in at £60 per head, you could have a selection of (icon) wines with it for £120 a head which looked interesting, but I was driving so couldn't indulge myself. The food came quickly and looked good, first off we had a little cup of artichoke soup followed by tuna wrapped in that Japanese seaweed/paper like stuff with ginger and wasabi (interesting, but a red wine no-go zone); next up was black pudding, scallops and foie gras (yum, delightful combination), following this was turbot with mushrooms (ok) then the main course which was Venison on a bed of bashed neeps which was simple and delicious. Cheese followed the main, I was glad to see some English cheeses getting air time along with the more usual French varieties, then the mini-bread and butter puddings which were to die for.
After that little lot we were feeling very full; we skipped coffee etc. to make a quick get away since we had a 45 minute drive home, note to diary, definitely need to re-visit this with some wine geek friends and make sure suitable B&B accommodation is on hand!
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Mr Brown.. he say.. NO!
Ever received an email from "10 Downing St."?
I had that dubious pleasure today and I must admit it did cause me to double take my inbox and sent a mild panic wave through me (did I remember to post that tax return...?). The email in question was actually a response to an e-petition I signed ages ago about faith schools, the details of the petition were as follows,
"Faith schools remove the rights of children to choose their own religious, philosophical and ethical beliefs. They also sanction ethnic segregation and create tension and divisiveness within society. Schools should be places where children are given a free education, not centres for indoctrination. Creationism and other religious myths should not be taught as fact regardless of the funding status of a school. Abolishing faith schools will provide children with more freedom of choice and help to promote a fully multi-cultural, peaceful society."
The idea clearly was to remove the "indoctrination" element from the education system for reasons of social cohesion and anti-segregation, notice this doesn't mean that children can't be indoctrinated at home if their parents or guardians so wish.
The response from the Government was as follows:
"The Government remains committed to a diverse range of schools for parents to choose from, including schools with a religious character or "faith schools" as they are commonly known.
Religious Education (RE) in all schools, including faith schools, is aimed at developing pupils' knowledge, understanding and awareness of the major religions represented in the country. It encourages respect for those holding different beliefs and helps promote pupils' moral, cultural and mental development. In partnership with national faith and belief organisations we have introduced a national framework for RE.
In February 2006, the faith communities affirmed their support for the framework in a joint statement making it clear that all children should be given the opportunity to receive inclusive religious education, and that they are committed to making sure the framework is used in the development of religious education in all their schools and colleges.
The Churches have a long history of providing education in this country and have confirmed their commitment to community cohesion. Faith schools have an excellent record in providing high-quality education and serving disadvantaged communities and are some of the most ethnically and socially diverse in the country. Many parents who are not members of a particular faith value the structured environment provided by schools with a religious character."
IMO This response simply skirts around the entire central point of the petition not touching any aspect of it, what can you expect from politicians I suppose, but as a response it is somewhat disappointing.
In essence what HM Gov. is saying is that faith schools must teach some "comparative" religion as part of their curriculum (although it is not clear if this is mandatory), however each particular faith school can still legally qualify any statement about any religion with "this is what they believe but of course they are still wrong and we are right", it seems to be all about the parents and facilitating the tacit support within our education system of the passing on of their personal mythologies, no one seems to be asking the obvious question, what do the kids actually need.
Plus ca change ..
I had that dubious pleasure today and I must admit it did cause me to double take my inbox and sent a mild panic wave through me (did I remember to post that tax return...?). The email in question was actually a response to an e-petition I signed ages ago about faith schools, the details of the petition were as follows,
"Faith schools remove the rights of children to choose their own religious, philosophical and ethical beliefs. They also sanction ethnic segregation and create tension and divisiveness within society. Schools should be places where children are given a free education, not centres for indoctrination. Creationism and other religious myths should not be taught as fact regardless of the funding status of a school. Abolishing faith schools will provide children with more freedom of choice and help to promote a fully multi-cultural, peaceful society."
The idea clearly was to remove the "indoctrination" element from the education system for reasons of social cohesion and anti-segregation, notice this doesn't mean that children can't be indoctrinated at home if their parents or guardians so wish.
The response from the Government was as follows:
"The Government remains committed to a diverse range of schools for parents to choose from, including schools with a religious character or "faith schools" as they are commonly known.
Religious Education (RE) in all schools, including faith schools, is aimed at developing pupils' knowledge, understanding and awareness of the major religions represented in the country. It encourages respect for those holding different beliefs and helps promote pupils' moral, cultural and mental development. In partnership with national faith and belief organisations we have introduced a national framework for RE.
In February 2006, the faith communities affirmed their support for the framework in a joint statement making it clear that all children should be given the opportunity to receive inclusive religious education, and that they are committed to making sure the framework is used in the development of religious education in all their schools and colleges.
The Churches have a long history of providing education in this country and have confirmed their commitment to community cohesion. Faith schools have an excellent record in providing high-quality education and serving disadvantaged communities and are some of the most ethnically and socially diverse in the country. Many parents who are not members of a particular faith value the structured environment provided by schools with a religious character."
IMO This response simply skirts around the entire central point of the petition not touching any aspect of it, what can you expect from politicians I suppose, but as a response it is somewhat disappointing.
In essence what HM Gov. is saying is that faith schools must teach some "comparative" religion as part of their curriculum (although it is not clear if this is mandatory), however each particular faith school can still legally qualify any statement about any religion with "this is what they believe but of course they are still wrong and we are right", it seems to be all about the parents and facilitating the tacit support within our education system of the passing on of their personal mythologies, no one seems to be asking the obvious question, what do the kids actually need.
Plus ca change ..
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Next time someone says...
"Yeh but there are millions of (insert religion of your choice) believers so there must be something in it"
Remind them how many "dead gods" there are, you know, gods that throughout our collective history people (often millions of them) have revered, worshipped, feared, slaughtered for and even sacrificed to, but are now dead. Here is a quick list to get you started it covers at least 500 of the better known ones, but the total estimate is around 20,000 - food for thought.
RIP
Aa, Aah, Abil Addu, Addu, Adeona, Adjassou-Linguetor, Adjinakou, Adya Houn'tò, Agassou, Agé, Agwé, Ahijah, Ahti, Aizen Myō-ō, Ajisukitakahikone, Ak Ana, Aken , Aker , Äkräs, Aku, Allatu, Altjira, Amano-Iwato, Ame-no-Koyane, Am-heh, Amihan, Amon-Re, Amun, Amurru, Anapel, Anath, Andjety, Anhur, Anit, Anu, Anubis, Apsu, Arianrod, Ash , Ashtoreth, Assur, Astarte, Aten, Atum, Ayida-Weddo, Ayizan, Azaka Medeh, Azaka-Tonnerre, Azumi-no-isora, Baal, Bacalou, Badessy, Bagadjimbiri, Bahloo, Baiame, Bakunawa, Bamapana, Banaitja, Ba-Pef, Baron Cimetière, Baron La Croix, Baron Samedi, Barraiya, Bata , Bathala, Bau, Beltis, Beltu, Belus, Bernardo Carpio, Bes, Biamie, Bilé, Binbeal, Boli Shah, Bossou Ashadeh, Budai, Budai, Bugady Musun, Bugid Y Aiba, Bunjil, Cai Shen, Ceros, Chenti-cheti, Chi You, Chimata-No-Kami, Chun Kwan, Cihang Zhenren, City god, Clermeil, Congo (loa), Consus, Cronos, Cunina, Dagan, Dagda, Dagon, Daikokuten, Damballa, Dan Petro, Dan Wédo, Dauke, Dea Dia, Dhakhan, Diable Tonnere, Diana of Ephesus, Diejuste, Dimmer, Dinclinsin, Dragon King, Dragon King of the East Sea, Duamutef, Dumu-zi-abzu, Ea, Ebisu, Edulia, El, Elali, Elder Zhang Guo, Elum, Engurra, Enki, Enma, En-Mersi, Enurestu, Erlang Shen, Erzulie, Ezili Dantor, Fan Kuai, Fei Lian, Feng Bo, Four sons of Horus, Fu Lu Shou, Fu Xi, Fūjin, Fukurokuju, Furrina, Futsunushi, Gasan lil, Gasan-abzu, Goibniu, Gong Gong, Govannon, Gran Maître, Grand Bois, Guan Yu, Guangchengzi, Gunfled, Gwydion, Hachiman, Hadad, Hakudo Maru, Han Xiang, Hapi, Hapy, Heka , Hemen, Hermanubis, Hermes , Heryshaf, Hoderi, Hongjun Laozu, Hoori, Horus, Houyi, Huang Feihu, Hung Shing, Iah, Ibong Adarna, Iku-Turso, Ilmarinen, Ilmatar, Ilmatar, Imhotep, Imset, Iron-Crutch Li, Isis, Istar, Isum, Iuno Lucina, Izanagi, Jade Emperor, Jar'Edo Wens, Ji Gong, Julana, Jumala, Jupiter, Juroujin, Kaawan, Kagu-tsuchi, Kalfu, Kalma, Kara Khan, Karora, Kerridwen, Khaltesh-Anki, Khepri, Khnum, Khonsu, Kidili, Kini'je, Kitchen God, Kneph, Kōjin, Ksitigarbha, Kui Xing, Kuk, Kumakatok, Kuski-banda, Kuu, Ku'urkil, Lagas, Lan Caihe, Lei Gong, Leizhenzi, Lemminkäinen, Lempo, Ler, Li Jing , L'inglesou, Llaw Gyffes, Lleu, Loco (loa), Lü Dongbin, Lugal-Amarada, Maahes, Ma-banba-anna, Mademoiselle Charlotte, Maîtresse Délai, Maîtresse Hounon'gon, Maman Brigitte, Mamaragan, Mami, Mamlambo, Manawyddan, Mandulis, Mangar-kunjer-kunja, Marassa Jumeaux, Marduk, Maria Cacao, Maria Makiling, Maria Sinukuan, Marinette, Mars, Marzin, Matet boat, Mayari, Mbaba Mwana Waresa, Meditrina, Mehen, Melek, Memetona, Menthu, Merodach, Mider, Mielikki, Min , Molech, Mombu, Morrigu, Mounanchou, Mulu-hursang, Mu-ul-lil, Muzha , Na Tuk Kong, Nana Buluku, Naunet, Nebo, Nehebkau, Nergal, Nezha , Nga, Nin, Ninib, Ninigi-no-Mikoto, Nin-lil-la, Nin-man, Nio, Nirig, Ni-zu, Njirana, Nogomain, Nuada Argetlam, Numakulla, Num-Torum, Nusku, Nu'tenut, Nyyrikki, Odin, Ogma, Ogoun, Ogoun, Ogyrvan, Ohoyamatsumi, Ōkuninushi, Omoikane (Shinto), Ops, Osiris, Pa-cha, Pangu, Papa Legba, Peko, Perkele, Persephone, Petbe, Pie (loa), Pluto, Potina, Ptah, Pugu, Pundjel, Pwyll, Qarradu, Qebehsenuef, Qin Shubao, Qingxu Daode Zhenjun, Ra, Raijin, Randeng Daoren, Rauni , Resheph, Rigantona, Robigus, Royal Uncle Cao, Ryūjin, Saa, Sahi, Samas, Sarutahiko, Saturn, Sebek, Seker, Serapis, Sesmu, Shakpana, Shalem, Shangdi, Shango, Sharrab, Shen , Shennong, Shezmu, Shina-Tsu-Hiko, Simbi, Sin, Sirtumu, Sobek, Sobkou, Sōjōbō, Sokk-mimi, Sopdu, Sousson-Pannan, Statilinus, Suijin, Suiren, Suqamunu, Susanoo, Tagd, Taiyi Zhenren, Tala, Tam Kung, Tammuz, Tapio, Tenenet, Tengu, Tenjin, Theban Triad, Thoth, Ti Jean Quinto, Ti Malice, Tian, Ti-Jean Petro, Tilmun, Todote, Toko'yoto, Tomam, Tu Di Gong, Tu Er Shen, Tuonetar, Tuoni, Ubargisi, Ubilulu, U-dimmer-an-kia, Ueras, Ugayafukiaezu, U-ki, Ukko, UKqili, Umai, U-Mersi, Umvelinqangi, Ungud, Unkulunkulu, Ura-gala, U-sab-sib, Usiququmadevu, U-Tin-dir-ki, U-urugal, Väinämöinen, Vaisravana, Vaticanus, Vediovis, Vellamo, Venus, Vesta, Wadj-wer, Wen Zhong , Weneg, Wenshu Guangfa Tianzun, Wepwawet, Werethekau, Wollunqua, Wong Tai Sin, Wuluwaid, Xargi, Xaya Iccita, Xevioso, Xuan Wu , Yama, Yau, Yemaja, Youchao, Yuanshi Tianzun, Yuchi Jingde, Yunzhongzi, Zagaga, Zaraqu, Zer-panitu, Zhang Guifang, Zheng Lun, Zhongli Quan, Zhu Rong and Zonget.
Remind them how many "dead gods" there are, you know, gods that throughout our collective history people (often millions of them) have revered, worshipped, feared, slaughtered for and even sacrificed to, but are now dead. Here is a quick list to get you started it covers at least 500 of the better known ones, but the total estimate is around 20,000 - food for thought.
RIP
Aa, Aah, Abil Addu, Addu, Adeona, Adjassou-Linguetor, Adjinakou, Adya Houn'tò, Agassou, Agé, Agwé, Ahijah, Ahti, Aizen Myō-ō, Ajisukitakahikone, Ak Ana, Aken , Aker , Äkräs, Aku, Allatu, Altjira, Amano-Iwato, Ame-no-Koyane, Am-heh, Amihan, Amon-Re, Amun, Amurru, Anapel, Anath, Andjety, Anhur, Anit, Anu, Anubis, Apsu, Arianrod, Ash , Ashtoreth, Assur, Astarte, Aten, Atum, Ayida-Weddo, Ayizan, Azaka Medeh, Azaka-Tonnerre, Azumi-no-isora, Baal, Bacalou, Badessy, Bagadjimbiri, Bahloo, Baiame, Bakunawa, Bamapana, Banaitja, Ba-Pef, Baron Cimetière, Baron La Croix, Baron Samedi, Barraiya, Bata , Bathala, Bau, Beltis, Beltu, Belus, Bernardo Carpio, Bes, Biamie, Bilé, Binbeal, Boli Shah, Bossou Ashadeh, Budai, Budai, Bugady Musun, Bugid Y Aiba, Bunjil, Cai Shen, Ceros, Chenti-cheti, Chi You, Chimata-No-Kami, Chun Kwan, Cihang Zhenren, City god, Clermeil, Congo (loa), Consus, Cronos, Cunina, Dagan, Dagda, Dagon, Daikokuten, Damballa, Dan Petro, Dan Wédo, Dauke, Dea Dia, Dhakhan, Diable Tonnere, Diana of Ephesus, Diejuste, Dimmer, Dinclinsin, Dragon King, Dragon King of the East Sea, Duamutef, Dumu-zi-abzu, Ea, Ebisu, Edulia, El, Elali, Elder Zhang Guo, Elum, Engurra, Enki, Enma, En-Mersi, Enurestu, Erlang Shen, Erzulie, Ezili Dantor, Fan Kuai, Fei Lian, Feng Bo, Four sons of Horus, Fu Lu Shou, Fu Xi, Fūjin, Fukurokuju, Furrina, Futsunushi, Gasan lil, Gasan-abzu, Goibniu, Gong Gong, Govannon, Gran Maître, Grand Bois, Guan Yu, Guangchengzi, Gunfled, Gwydion, Hachiman, Hadad, Hakudo Maru, Han Xiang, Hapi, Hapy, Heka , Hemen, Hermanubis, Hermes , Heryshaf, Hoderi, Hongjun Laozu, Hoori, Horus, Houyi, Huang Feihu, Hung Shing, Iah, Ibong Adarna, Iku-Turso, Ilmarinen, Ilmatar, Ilmatar, Imhotep, Imset, Iron-Crutch Li, Isis, Istar, Isum, Iuno Lucina, Izanagi, Jade Emperor, Jar'Edo Wens, Ji Gong, Julana, Jumala, Jupiter, Juroujin, Kaawan, Kagu-tsuchi, Kalfu, Kalma, Kara Khan, Karora, Kerridwen, Khaltesh-Anki, Khepri, Khnum, Khonsu, Kidili, Kini'je, Kitchen God, Kneph, Kōjin, Ksitigarbha, Kui Xing, Kuk, Kumakatok, Kuski-banda, Kuu, Ku'urkil, Lagas, Lan Caihe, Lei Gong, Leizhenzi, Lemminkäinen, Lempo, Ler, Li Jing , L'inglesou, Llaw Gyffes, Lleu, Loco (loa), Lü Dongbin, Lugal-Amarada, Maahes, Ma-banba-anna, Mademoiselle Charlotte, Maîtresse Délai, Maîtresse Hounon'gon, Maman Brigitte, Mamaragan, Mami, Mamlambo, Manawyddan, Mandulis, Mangar-kunjer-kunja, Marassa Jumeaux, Marduk, Maria Cacao, Maria Makiling, Maria Sinukuan, Marinette, Mars, Marzin, Matet boat, Mayari, Mbaba Mwana Waresa, Meditrina, Mehen, Melek, Memetona, Menthu, Merodach, Mider, Mielikki, Min , Molech, Mombu, Morrigu, Mounanchou, Mulu-hursang, Mu-ul-lil, Muzha , Na Tuk Kong, Nana Buluku, Naunet, Nebo, Nehebkau, Nergal, Nezha , Nga, Nin, Ninib, Ninigi-no-Mikoto, Nin-lil-la, Nin-man, Nio, Nirig, Ni-zu, Njirana, Nogomain, Nuada Argetlam, Numakulla, Num-Torum, Nusku, Nu'tenut, Nyyrikki, Odin, Ogma, Ogoun, Ogoun, Ogyrvan, Ohoyamatsumi, Ōkuninushi, Omoikane (Shinto), Ops, Osiris, Pa-cha, Pangu, Papa Legba, Peko, Perkele, Persephone, Petbe, Pie (loa), Pluto, Potina, Ptah, Pugu, Pundjel, Pwyll, Qarradu, Qebehsenuef, Qin Shubao, Qingxu Daode Zhenjun, Ra, Raijin, Randeng Daoren, Rauni , Resheph, Rigantona, Robigus, Royal Uncle Cao, Ryūjin, Saa, Sahi, Samas, Sarutahiko, Saturn, Sebek, Seker, Serapis, Sesmu, Shakpana, Shalem, Shangdi, Shango, Sharrab, Shen , Shennong, Shezmu, Shina-Tsu-Hiko, Simbi, Sin, Sirtumu, Sobek, Sobkou, Sōjōbō, Sokk-mimi, Sopdu, Sousson-Pannan, Statilinus, Suijin, Suiren, Suqamunu, Susanoo, Tagd, Taiyi Zhenren, Tala, Tam Kung, Tammuz, Tapio, Tenenet, Tengu, Tenjin, Theban Triad, Thoth, Ti Jean Quinto, Ti Malice, Tian, Ti-Jean Petro, Tilmun, Todote, Toko'yoto, Tomam, Tu Di Gong, Tu Er Shen, Tuonetar, Tuoni, Ubargisi, Ubilulu, U-dimmer-an-kia, Ueras, Ugayafukiaezu, U-ki, Ukko, UKqili, Umai, U-Mersi, Umvelinqangi, Ungud, Unkulunkulu, Ura-gala, U-sab-sib, Usiququmadevu, U-Tin-dir-ki, U-urugal, Väinämöinen, Vaisravana, Vaticanus, Vediovis, Vellamo, Venus, Vesta, Wadj-wer, Wen Zhong , Weneg, Wenshu Guangfa Tianzun, Wepwawet, Werethekau, Wollunqua, Wong Tai Sin, Wuluwaid, Xargi, Xaya Iccita, Xevioso, Xuan Wu , Yama, Yau, Yemaja, Youchao, Yuanshi Tianzun, Yuchi Jingde, Yunzhongzi, Zagaga, Zaraqu, Zer-panitu, Zhang Guifang, Zheng Lun, Zhongli Quan, Zhu Rong and Zonget.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Why don't Christian apologists use Google?
I recently came across this article by someone called “Mal Fletcher”, it so expertly summarised the ignorance of Christian apologetics and faith oriented criticism of Atheism in general, that I felt I had to share it, my comments are offered below each quote (in italics) from his article. There is nothing new here, all his points are easily refuted by a quick Google and a bit of research, so why didn't he use it?
"There are no easy answers to this conundrum. However, it is worth noting that atheism offers us no explanation for the presence of evil in the world or any hope for the eventual redemption and restoration of the natural order - both of which Christianity does."
Unlike Christianity, atheism does not claim to offer “explanation” of anything because it is not a dogmatic belief system; atheism is simply a lack of belief in any God or Gods, full stop, that’s it. Anything else attributed to Atheism by this Author exists only in his head! My question would be, so what does Christianity “explain” exactly?
IMO Christianity “explains” precisely nothing, it simply states without evidence that “(our) god did it all”, in what way is that a satisfying explanation to anything in the same way that “science” explains “you need antibiotics to cure the bacterial infection that is killing your new born baby”.
Google "definition of atheism"
"However, as I once respectfully pointed out to the then head of BBC Religion (TV), Sir David constantly presents a world-view which assumes that there is little place for Christian faith in the world of reliable science."
So could the author explain what the Christian faith materially provides to the world other than a delusion that makes it’s followers “feel better”?, oh and before someone says “ah but what about all the charitable works”, you don’t need to be Christian to do good things, so what is their motivation? Think about it.
Google "atheism morality"
"The inference for the audience is that the natural world, when viewed with an informed eye, speaks against religious faith - especially the Christian faith."
No, “reality” more often than not turns out to be different from the various “holy books” and teachings of the Abrahamic religions, pretty much every major advance in science over the last 400 years has been fought for in the teeth of Religious opposition, from Galileo onwards.
The natural world reveals itself to operate without the need for divine intervention. Christians hate that like small children hate being told they can’t have a sweetie. Get over it Mal, reality isn’t like TV where you can simply switch channel if you don’t like what’s on, its the believer’s problem to "explain" how their belief is true, not the scientists. Science progresses based on evidence and peer reviewed, repeatable experimentation which validates behavioural predictions about how the "real" world operates, Christians are stuck with a 2000 year old desert dogma no matter how they try to spin it.
Google "scientific errors bible"
"For a sizeable body of scientists today, the incredible complexity of our universe suggests the work of a creator of some kind. They reject the idea, softly "preached" by people like Sir David, that the intricacy of nature and its finely tuned balances can be attributed simply to random chance."
What “sizeable body”, please provide evidence. It is fact that 98% of the members of the academy of science (the elite science body in the USA) are atheists, which alone speaks volumes.
Not a single (serious) scientist says that the diversity and sophistication of nature is due to “random chance” this is simply an ignorant and stupid thing to say and reveals a total lack of understanding of evolution and how it works. The author should read a few books and educate himself; evolution is the opposite of “random” it is utterly guided by the strongest force in nature, natural selection, i.e. you survive and pass on your genes or you die, nothing random about that.
Google "Atheism leading scientists"
"Darwinism can offer no credible theory for how life could have emerged naturally from nonliving chemicals. Earth's early atmosphere would have blocked the development of the building blocks of life, and assembling even the most primitive living matter would be so outrageously difficult that it absolutely could not have been the product of unguided or random processes. On the contrary, the vast amount of specific information contained inside every living cell - encoded in the four-letter chemical alphabet of DNA - strongly confirms the existence of an Intelligent Designer who was behind the miraculous creation of life." Indeed, Darwin himself was a theist when published the first edition of "The Origin of Species" was published. He later changed his mind, of course."
Well indeed, “Darwinism” (a ridiculously "made up" word BTW) does not make any predictions about how life emerged as it is a theory of evolution, not instantiation. That branch of science is called “Abiogenesis” and has its own theories (read a few books for pity sake!). Again, the author is revealing his complete ignorance of this subject.
Google "Abiogenesis"
"Yet it was not hard physical evidence from his much-touted fossil record that led Darwin away from religious faith; it was the personal pain of losing a much loved daughter and failing to find any comfort in institutional religion."
In the early 19th century pretty well everyone in the UK was a Christian, that doesn’t mean Christianity was any more or less “true” then than now, the fact that Darwin was a Christian is utterly predictable and totally irrelevant, the author is trying to make a misleading association between the “idea” and the “person” a classic straw man tactic that is without merit.
Google "Darwin faith"
"The point is that Darwin's rejection of faith was down to subjective factors, rather than pure science. Like the rest of us, scientists base their views not just on the facts before them, but on the assumptions they make about the facts; assumptions which will be coloured to some degree by emotion and personal bias."
That is why science has a peer review process which eliminates bias; again illustrating a childish understanding of the process the author is trying to fit science into a “faith based” world view and thinks he has achieved something interesting when he discovers it doesn’t.
Google "scientific process"
"Hoyle wrote a book entitled "The Intelligent Universe", in which he said that the idea that life originated through some random arrangement of molecules is, "as ridiculous and improbable as the proposition that a tornado blowing through a junkyard may assemble a Boeing 747." One of the world's greatest cosmologists, Hoyle started out as an atheist, but became a Christian."
The Boeing 747 argument was blown out of the water years ago, to see it being used here is kind of "quaint" but on the other hand pathetic, evolution simply doesn’t work like this; in any case attempting to explain life using something even more unlikely and improbable (i.e. a sky-fairy God) is logically laughable. This is just the "evolution is random" argument re-packaged to be more poetic, it's still wrong, clearly Hoyle understood bugger all about evolutionary Biology.
Google "747 argument"
"Albert Einstein, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1921, and by no means a Christian, wrote: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we must feel humble." Einstein believed, he said, in a "God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists."
Einstein was a Deist as are many leading scientists, this is well documented. This well trodden piece of “quote mining” is futile, Einstein also said he didn’t believe in a “God” that interferes in the affairs of man, and that his “God” was the “God” of Spinoza i.e. simply a label he gave to “nature” nothing to do with Christianity, again.
Google Spinoza!
"A growing number of modern scientists are coming to share this belief. In fact, in just about every major discipline of science, there is solid support for a theistic view of the origins of the universe."
“A growing number” – please provide evidence, the author is simply making this up! Of course, there is the “discovery institute” a Christian funded pseudo-scientific organisation that attempts to promote something called “intelligent design”, this nonsense has been literally thrown out of court (Dover trial) in the USA, it is not science, it is religion re-packaged as science in order to deliberately confuse people, and I thought Christians were supposed to be moral?
Google "Dover Trial"
"Catholic writer George Sim Johnson notes that: "Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopaedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."
Rubbish, DNA is a digital code based on a quadnary system of chemical bases, the encyclopaedia Britannica is not and is entirely different, the two cannot be compared directly this is a false analogy.
Google "DNA information"
"Many of science's most revered pioneers went further than adopting a general theistic view. They specifically believed in the God of the Bible. They took the Christian Scriptures seriously."
Mainly because the faith-heads would burn them alive if they didn’t – convincing argument hey?
Google "Spanish Inquisition"
"Among them were such notables as Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Faraday, Kelvin, Lister, Mendel and many others. And there is a strong Christian presence within the scientific community today: more than a few scientists have come to faith because of their study of the natural order. Indeed, one can argue that modern Western science was born out of a Judeao-Christian world-view, three centuries before the rise of Darwinism."
Oh please, not the “random” thing again. Does it really surprise anyone that scientists living 200-300 years ago were (supposedly) Christian?, is the author forgetting that “Blasphemy” was a crime punishable by prison and in some cases death in those days, what a pathetic argument. Actually, Newton was also into Alchemy, does that mean Alchemy must be right as well? Again, the author is confusing the ideas with the people, classic straw man tactic.
First of all this Author is attempting to trash science and scientists, now he’s trying to take credit for it; please, make your mind up! Any scholar knows that “Science” was born in ancient Greece, long before the “desert religions” were invented by men. It seems to be characteristic of faith-heads that the more outrageously infeasible a claim is (like God) the more they believe it – strange that.
Google "origin of science"
"As C. S. Lewis observed, people only became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law because they believed in a lawmaker. Getting back to Sir David's comments: I do not for a moment believe that television, or any publicly funded medium, should become a pulpit for preaching. He is, of course, entitled to his views. Yet there appears to be very little attempt on the part of mainstream broadcasters to offer any countervailing viewpoint."
So what exactly is the countervailing viewpoint? “God did it” – that would be a very short program wouldn’t it?
"There should be a place where supposedly "mainstream" scientific ideas (which are not always as mainstream, or as up-to-date as they make out) can be challenged and opposing viewpoints given a fair hearing. Sir David is being given £800,000 to make each episode of a new series entitled "Life in Cold Blood". No doubt, for their portrayal of life in the wild they will be brilliant, even exhilarating; filmed in exotic locations, they will be shot and edited using the very latest production equipment and a production team featuring some very committed and creative people. Meanwhile, theistic and Christian voices are only ever heard in more sterile, studio-based, debate-style situations that are made on a shoestring budget. Not surprisingly, given their budgets and promotion, they're watched by relatively few."
If this article is indicative of the Christian viewpoint then clearly Christians have absolutely nothing new or interesting to say, just the same old ignorance, error and prejudice. Is the author seriously suggesting that “the church” (say for example the Roman Catholic Church) is not wealthy enough to make a simple television program?, why not?, perhaps they should sell a palace or two and get cracking, I always enjoy a good comedy!
"There are no easy answers to this conundrum. However, it is worth noting that atheism offers us no explanation for the presence of evil in the world or any hope for the eventual redemption and restoration of the natural order - both of which Christianity does."
Unlike Christianity, atheism does not claim to offer “explanation” of anything because it is not a dogmatic belief system; atheism is simply a lack of belief in any God or Gods, full stop, that’s it. Anything else attributed to Atheism by this Author exists only in his head! My question would be, so what does Christianity “explain” exactly?
IMO Christianity “explains” precisely nothing, it simply states without evidence that “(our) god did it all”, in what way is that a satisfying explanation to anything in the same way that “science” explains “you need antibiotics to cure the bacterial infection that is killing your new born baby”.
Google "definition of atheism"
"However, as I once respectfully pointed out to the then head of BBC Religion (TV), Sir David constantly presents a world-view which assumes that there is little place for Christian faith in the world of reliable science."
So could the author explain what the Christian faith materially provides to the world other than a delusion that makes it’s followers “feel better”?, oh and before someone says “ah but what about all the charitable works”, you don’t need to be Christian to do good things, so what is their motivation? Think about it.
Google "atheism morality"
"The inference for the audience is that the natural world, when viewed with an informed eye, speaks against religious faith - especially the Christian faith."
No, “reality” more often than not turns out to be different from the various “holy books” and teachings of the Abrahamic religions, pretty much every major advance in science over the last 400 years has been fought for in the teeth of Religious opposition, from Galileo onwards.
The natural world reveals itself to operate without the need for divine intervention. Christians hate that like small children hate being told they can’t have a sweetie. Get over it Mal, reality isn’t like TV where you can simply switch channel if you don’t like what’s on, its the believer’s problem to "explain" how their belief is true, not the scientists. Science progresses based on evidence and peer reviewed, repeatable experimentation which validates behavioural predictions about how the "real" world operates, Christians are stuck with a 2000 year old desert dogma no matter how they try to spin it.
Google "scientific errors bible"
"For a sizeable body of scientists today, the incredible complexity of our universe suggests the work of a creator of some kind. They reject the idea, softly "preached" by people like Sir David, that the intricacy of nature and its finely tuned balances can be attributed simply to random chance."
What “sizeable body”, please provide evidence. It is fact that 98% of the members of the academy of science (the elite science body in the USA) are atheists, which alone speaks volumes.
Not a single (serious) scientist says that the diversity and sophistication of nature is due to “random chance” this is simply an ignorant and stupid thing to say and reveals a total lack of understanding of evolution and how it works. The author should read a few books and educate himself; evolution is the opposite of “random” it is utterly guided by the strongest force in nature, natural selection, i.e. you survive and pass on your genes or you die, nothing random about that.
Google "Atheism leading scientists"
"Darwinism can offer no credible theory for how life could have emerged naturally from nonliving chemicals. Earth's early atmosphere would have blocked the development of the building blocks of life, and assembling even the most primitive living matter would be so outrageously difficult that it absolutely could not have been the product of unguided or random processes. On the contrary, the vast amount of specific information contained inside every living cell - encoded in the four-letter chemical alphabet of DNA - strongly confirms the existence of an Intelligent Designer who was behind the miraculous creation of life." Indeed, Darwin himself was a theist when published the first edition of "The Origin of Species" was published. He later changed his mind, of course."
Well indeed, “Darwinism” (a ridiculously "made up" word BTW) does not make any predictions about how life emerged as it is a theory of evolution, not instantiation. That branch of science is called “Abiogenesis” and has its own theories (read a few books for pity sake!). Again, the author is revealing his complete ignorance of this subject.
Google "Abiogenesis"
"Yet it was not hard physical evidence from his much-touted fossil record that led Darwin away from religious faith; it was the personal pain of losing a much loved daughter and failing to find any comfort in institutional religion."
In the early 19th century pretty well everyone in the UK was a Christian, that doesn’t mean Christianity was any more or less “true” then than now, the fact that Darwin was a Christian is utterly predictable and totally irrelevant, the author is trying to make a misleading association between the “idea” and the “person” a classic straw man tactic that is without merit.
Google "Darwin faith"
"The point is that Darwin's rejection of faith was down to subjective factors, rather than pure science. Like the rest of us, scientists base their views not just on the facts before them, but on the assumptions they make about the facts; assumptions which will be coloured to some degree by emotion and personal bias."
That is why science has a peer review process which eliminates bias; again illustrating a childish understanding of the process the author is trying to fit science into a “faith based” world view and thinks he has achieved something interesting when he discovers it doesn’t.
Google "scientific process"
"Hoyle wrote a book entitled "The Intelligent Universe", in which he said that the idea that life originated through some random arrangement of molecules is, "as ridiculous and improbable as the proposition that a tornado blowing through a junkyard may assemble a Boeing 747." One of the world's greatest cosmologists, Hoyle started out as an atheist, but became a Christian."
The Boeing 747 argument was blown out of the water years ago, to see it being used here is kind of "quaint" but on the other hand pathetic, evolution simply doesn’t work like this; in any case attempting to explain life using something even more unlikely and improbable (i.e. a sky-fairy God) is logically laughable. This is just the "evolution is random" argument re-packaged to be more poetic, it's still wrong, clearly Hoyle understood bugger all about evolutionary Biology.
Google "747 argument"
"Albert Einstein, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1921, and by no means a Christian, wrote: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we must feel humble." Einstein believed, he said, in a "God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists."
Einstein was a Deist as are many leading scientists, this is well documented. This well trodden piece of “quote mining” is futile, Einstein also said he didn’t believe in a “God” that interferes in the affairs of man, and that his “God” was the “God” of Spinoza i.e. simply a label he gave to “nature” nothing to do with Christianity, again.
Google Spinoza!
"A growing number of modern scientists are coming to share this belief. In fact, in just about every major discipline of science, there is solid support for a theistic view of the origins of the universe."
“A growing number” – please provide evidence, the author is simply making this up! Of course, there is the “discovery institute” a Christian funded pseudo-scientific organisation that attempts to promote something called “intelligent design”, this nonsense has been literally thrown out of court (Dover trial) in the USA, it is not science, it is religion re-packaged as science in order to deliberately confuse people, and I thought Christians were supposed to be moral?
Google "Dover Trial"
"Catholic writer George Sim Johnson notes that: "Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopaedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."
Rubbish, DNA is a digital code based on a quadnary system of chemical bases, the encyclopaedia Britannica is not and is entirely different, the two cannot be compared directly this is a false analogy.
Google "DNA information"
"Many of science's most revered pioneers went further than adopting a general theistic view. They specifically believed in the God of the Bible. They took the Christian Scriptures seriously."
Mainly because the faith-heads would burn them alive if they didn’t – convincing argument hey?
Google "Spanish Inquisition"
"Among them were such notables as Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Faraday, Kelvin, Lister, Mendel and many others. And there is a strong Christian presence within the scientific community today: more than a few scientists have come to faith because of their study of the natural order. Indeed, one can argue that modern Western science was born out of a Judeao-Christian world-view, three centuries before the rise of Darwinism."
Oh please, not the “random” thing again. Does it really surprise anyone that scientists living 200-300 years ago were (supposedly) Christian?, is the author forgetting that “Blasphemy” was a crime punishable by prison and in some cases death in those days, what a pathetic argument. Actually, Newton was also into Alchemy, does that mean Alchemy must be right as well? Again, the author is confusing the ideas with the people, classic straw man tactic.
First of all this Author is attempting to trash science and scientists, now he’s trying to take credit for it; please, make your mind up! Any scholar knows that “Science” was born in ancient Greece, long before the “desert religions” were invented by men. It seems to be characteristic of faith-heads that the more outrageously infeasible a claim is (like God) the more they believe it – strange that.
Google "origin of science"
"As C. S. Lewis observed, people only became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law because they believed in a lawmaker. Getting back to Sir David's comments: I do not for a moment believe that television, or any publicly funded medium, should become a pulpit for preaching. He is, of course, entitled to his views. Yet there appears to be very little attempt on the part of mainstream broadcasters to offer any countervailing viewpoint."
So what exactly is the countervailing viewpoint? “God did it” – that would be a very short program wouldn’t it?
"There should be a place where supposedly "mainstream" scientific ideas (which are not always as mainstream, or as up-to-date as they make out) can be challenged and opposing viewpoints given a fair hearing. Sir David is being given £800,000 to make each episode of a new series entitled "Life in Cold Blood". No doubt, for their portrayal of life in the wild they will be brilliant, even exhilarating; filmed in exotic locations, they will be shot and edited using the very latest production equipment and a production team featuring some very committed and creative people. Meanwhile, theistic and Christian voices are only ever heard in more sterile, studio-based, debate-style situations that are made on a shoestring budget. Not surprisingly, given their budgets and promotion, they're watched by relatively few."
If this article is indicative of the Christian viewpoint then clearly Christians have absolutely nothing new or interesting to say, just the same old ignorance, error and prejudice. Is the author seriously suggesting that “the church” (say for example the Roman Catholic Church) is not wealthy enough to make a simple television program?, why not?, perhaps they should sell a palace or two and get cracking, I always enjoy a good comedy!
Friday, December 14, 2007
Pat Condell for prime minister
Here is a video by a comedian called Pat Condell; I think he's great, nice mix of intelligent banter, wit and sarcasm. Anyway check him out on YouTube or at his own website if you like this kind of thing.
This example of his work is one of my favourites, particularly the line about Islam having a better logo than Christianity, i.e. the crescent moon is better than the cross, mainly because it doesn't have someone nailed to it... keep up the good work Pat!
This example of his work is one of my favourites, particularly the line about Islam having a better logo than Christianity, i.e. the crescent moon is better than the cross, mainly because it doesn't have someone nailed to it... keep up the good work Pat!
Not in my living room please!
A while back I blogged about a particularly obnoxious Catholic Priest called “Father Jonathan”; he is a regular on the ultra-right wing Fox network in the USA and IMO so full of it you can see the brown tide mark in his pretty blue eyes. You can imagine my horror when this ludicrously deluded wind-bag popped up on the BBC, hyperventilating and spouting his anti-rational nonsense right there in my living room!; I nearly fell off my chair!
The program was a discussion (You can see it here) featuring Richard Dawkins about the existence or otherwise of God (the “personal” type as opposed to the Deistic type); the usual bland and long ago refuted arguments were being enthusiastically dragged up by various faith heads and pitched in the normal wide-eyed ignorant manner and although he was being the ever courteous gent, you could visibly see Dawkins shoulders sinking lower and lower in response to the sedate banality of it all, then all of a sudden there was FJ, immaculately groomed and media ready blasting out this rapid fire wah, wah, wah, rather like a fire alarm going off in a monastery; unfortunately he didn’t provide the content to match his forceful presentation. Actually it was slightly embarrassing, old FJ took the conversation off in a completely tangential direction, echoing the statements made by the Pope in a recent “encyclical” (whatever that is?) apparently some kind of document.
In this paper the Pope confidently claimed that Atheism is obviously bad because just look at all those 20th century regimes that slaughtered millions of people; Stalin, Mao and Hitler were all the usual names trotted out as examples of people killing others “in the name of Atheism” or in the cause of eliminating religion. The incredibly annoying yeah but, yeah but, no but, Vicky pollard’esc diatribe being delivered by FJ was aimed at suggesting that all these deaths should be weighed against the paltry 10,000 or so eliminated by the inquisition, like some kind of bizarre pissing contest, nah, nah your body count is bigger than ours, Atheist poster boy!.
I was appalled, the combination of arrogance and ignorance on display was breathtaking; interestingly FJ backed off this line of attack when he realised the sheer stunned reaction that he got, hopefully he felt as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit; I don’t think the presenters even knew where to begin with this utter toilet. The discourse ended in a whimper with Dawkins somewhat open mouthed, sporting a treasured “what the fuck was that all about” look on his face, they quickly moved on to the next caller.
Clearly not being able to “let things go”, FJ has stuck faithfully to his dogmatic nature and subsequently presented an “open letter” to Dawkins on his blog; he attempts to summarise his points and taunts Dawkins to repudiate all the “slaughter” in the name of Atheism, the same way that some previous Pope had apparently “apologised” for all the “slaughter” in the name of Christianity. As I said previously there are so many errors and logical fallacies propped up by straw-men here that it’s difficult to know where to start, let me jot down a couple of points that spring to mind.
First let’s look at the assertion that Nazis were an “Atheistic” regime,
Even if all of this is lies; what did the Vatican Secretary of State (later to become Pope Pius XII) say against the Nazi party at the time, here is a quote from him,
"The Nazis are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult."
This is interesting, no mention of Atheism, but superstition, race and blood cult are clearly marked out; doesn’t sound much like the Atheism I know.
So, what about Stalin,
Interestingly Stalin was educated in an Orthodox seminary; his mother wanted him to become a priest. As FJ says clearly in his blog “action follows ideas”, wonder where Joe Stalin got his “ideas” from in that case?
Most historians seem to agree that Stalin established a cult of personality; his cult had everything that Christian religions had, miracles, inquisitions, special dispensations etc. etc. His regime certainly persecuted religious people, along with just about everyone else that stood against him, not a conclusive argument that he did it in the “name of atheism” that I can see – perhaps FJ can furnish us with some documentary evidence that this was the case?
History is history, clearly many interpretations are possible, so what about today?
What evidence do we have that societies mainly consisting of Atheists are bad?
Which countries have the best healthcare, lowest crime, best education, best standard of living, longest life expectancy and most freedom in the world today? Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Japan, France, Finland – all these countries are statistically best when it comes to measures of standards of living but unfortunately for the Pope they are all, majority irreligious, isn’t it interesting that the most irreligious nations on Earth which are not communist also have the highest standards of living, could the Pope be getting communism and atheism mixed up here I wonder?
How about those countries that have the worst standard of living indices, oh dear, what do we find, unfortunately for the Pope and his little imp (FJ) it turns out that they are almost exclusively theocracies governed by religions.
Here is a (recent) chart which shows my point quite nicely... (notice the freaky outlier..)
It is clear to me that this evidence makes both sets of comments seem absurd and so wrong that a child could debunk them.
The program was a discussion (You can see it here) featuring Richard Dawkins about the existence or otherwise of God (the “personal” type as opposed to the Deistic type); the usual bland and long ago refuted arguments were being enthusiastically dragged up by various faith heads and pitched in the normal wide-eyed ignorant manner and although he was being the ever courteous gent, you could visibly see Dawkins shoulders sinking lower and lower in response to the sedate banality of it all, then all of a sudden there was FJ, immaculately groomed and media ready blasting out this rapid fire wah, wah, wah, rather like a fire alarm going off in a monastery; unfortunately he didn’t provide the content to match his forceful presentation. Actually it was slightly embarrassing, old FJ took the conversation off in a completely tangential direction, echoing the statements made by the Pope in a recent “encyclical” (whatever that is?) apparently some kind of document.
In this paper the Pope confidently claimed that Atheism is obviously bad because just look at all those 20th century regimes that slaughtered millions of people; Stalin, Mao and Hitler were all the usual names trotted out as examples of people killing others “in the name of Atheism” or in the cause of eliminating religion. The incredibly annoying yeah but, yeah but, no but, Vicky pollard’esc diatribe being delivered by FJ was aimed at suggesting that all these deaths should be weighed against the paltry 10,000 or so eliminated by the inquisition, like some kind of bizarre pissing contest, nah, nah your body count is bigger than ours, Atheist poster boy!.
I was appalled, the combination of arrogance and ignorance on display was breathtaking; interestingly FJ backed off this line of attack when he realised the sheer stunned reaction that he got, hopefully he felt as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit; I don’t think the presenters even knew where to begin with this utter toilet. The discourse ended in a whimper with Dawkins somewhat open mouthed, sporting a treasured “what the fuck was that all about” look on his face, they quickly moved on to the next caller.
Clearly not being able to “let things go”, FJ has stuck faithfully to his dogmatic nature and subsequently presented an “open letter” to Dawkins on his blog; he attempts to summarise his points and taunts Dawkins to repudiate all the “slaughter” in the name of Atheism, the same way that some previous Pope had apparently “apologised” for all the “slaughter” in the name of Christianity. As I said previously there are so many errors and logical fallacies propped up by straw-men here that it’s difficult to know where to start, let me jot down a couple of points that spring to mind.
First let’s look at the assertion that Nazis were an “Atheistic” regime,
- Hitler seems to have had the tacit support of the Catholic Church in many things via the Concordat established in 1933 (ref. “The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany” by Guenter Lewy)
- The current Pope actually belonged to the Hitler youth at age 14 (bit close to home don't you think Mr Ratzinger, put up much resistance to these godless ideas did you?)
- German soldiers’ belt buckles had “Gott Mit Uns” (God with us) written on them
- Hitler said he believed in creation (various speeches)
- Hitler said he detested Atheism (Mein Kampf)
- The Nazi party closed down the Atheist-Freethinkers HQ converting it to a Christian religious advisory establishment. (Berlin)
- Hitler was bought up a Roman Catholic (historical record)
- The SS head of Auschwitz, history’s greatest mass murderer, Rudolf Hoess was a strict Catholic. (historical record)
- And so on and so on…
Even if all of this is lies; what did the Vatican Secretary of State (later to become Pope Pius XII) say against the Nazi party at the time, here is a quote from him,
"The Nazis are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult."
This is interesting, no mention of Atheism, but superstition, race and blood cult are clearly marked out; doesn’t sound much like the Atheism I know.
So, what about Stalin,
Interestingly Stalin was educated in an Orthodox seminary; his mother wanted him to become a priest. As FJ says clearly in his blog “action follows ideas”, wonder where Joe Stalin got his “ideas” from in that case?
Most historians seem to agree that Stalin established a cult of personality; his cult had everything that Christian religions had, miracles, inquisitions, special dispensations etc. etc. His regime certainly persecuted religious people, along with just about everyone else that stood against him, not a conclusive argument that he did it in the “name of atheism” that I can see – perhaps FJ can furnish us with some documentary evidence that this was the case?
History is history, clearly many interpretations are possible, so what about today?
What evidence do we have that societies mainly consisting of Atheists are bad?
Which countries have the best healthcare, lowest crime, best education, best standard of living, longest life expectancy and most freedom in the world today? Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Japan, France, Finland – all these countries are statistically best when it comes to measures of standards of living but unfortunately for the Pope they are all, majority irreligious, isn’t it interesting that the most irreligious nations on Earth which are not communist also have the highest standards of living, could the Pope be getting communism and atheism mixed up here I wonder?
How about those countries that have the worst standard of living indices, oh dear, what do we find, unfortunately for the Pope and his little imp (FJ) it turns out that they are almost exclusively theocracies governed by religions.
Here is a (recent) chart which shows my point quite nicely... (notice the freaky outlier..)
It is clear to me that this evidence makes both sets of comments seem absurd and so wrong that a child could debunk them.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Is belief harder than non-belief?
I sense a tidal backlash forming; it’s a war of words emanating from people and organisations of faith of all colours and hues, it is aimed firmly and squarely at the feet of a group of people I'm going to label "rational atheists". Clearly, it is not accurate to "lump" atheists into any kind of group really, the only certain thing that is common between them is a lack of belief in a God or Gods, and this is rather like grouping people together who don't collect stamps, but for the purposes of this article please bear with me.
Broadly, I’m thinking of a set of people who, spurred on by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and religiously inspired stupidity (like 9/11) have found the courage and motivation to speak out and express their viewpoint via books (the God delusion, God is not Great etc.), in blogs Pharangula, RRS and through television and films, Root of all evil, Golden Compass etc. the viewpoint that is being discussed is strongly rational at it's core and typically an atheistic one.
The backlash that I’m seeing is so wide and varied that its difficult to know where to start, we seem to have the full spectrum of possible “backlashes” going on all at once, we have, hatred, threat, ridicule, argument, disagreement, dismissal and I’m sure many more, the range is quite impressive, unfortunately the vast majority of the content isn’t, clearly a nerve has been “struck”.
“His crucifixion is a matter of history (so is his resurrection)” – If this chap has “historical” evidence for Jesus, like a contemporary “independent” account, not one written hundreds of years after his supposed death, like most of the Bible was and most definitely not one supposedly written by the “disciples”, after all, the disciples are part of the story! It’s a bit like trying to argue that Giants exist because otherwise why would Jack have climbed the beanstalk? If such an account existed it would be the most venerated document in the whole world and certainly widely known about, clearly, no such thing exists!
“Atheists seem to suggest that they are more enlightened than x, y, z”; interestingly the list of people consists entirely of religious people with a huge vested interest in maintaining the status-quo of religion or politicians who would not have been elected if they hadn’t declared “faith” in something, the notable exception is “Isaac Newton”, presumably this entry is there as the token “scientist” doesn’t this author understand that for someone in the 17th century like Newton to declare disbelief in God was as best guaranteeing banishment and at worst a horrible death, this argument is pure desperation, we might as well say, “lot’s of people believe something so it must be true”. Can’t the author see the logic trap that he’s plunging into here, for this point to hold true he *must* then accept that Islam is “true”, Hinduism is “true”, Judaism is “true” and last but not least “Atheism” is true, they all have millions of adherents and they can’t all be true!
The Author of this article is clearly a devout believer, but practically everything he says are misrepresentations of reality, if I were a cynic I would say he is simply “lying for Jesus”, but I’d rather give him the benefit of the doubt, he is clearly ignorant of some parts of science but that isn’t a crime, he probably believes the things he says are true and he probably is a “good” person (although I have no evidence for that) I think there is something deeper going on here. Ask yourself this, which is easier, belief or non-belief? I’m not talking about actions, clearly good people do good things and sometimes they are motivated by belief, I’m talking about the actual process of belief itself and the social repercussions of it, is it easier to run with the crowd or to stand against it and say no, I believe certain things are wrong and they should change. I can imagine at some point in historical time even early Christians were labelled “Atheists” by their Roman oppressors who believed in different gods. Holding a different view to the majority is always harder than not, however I for one, sincerely hope that the mood (particularly in the USA) is changing, people are beginning to speak out for rationality and change, I think what we are witnessing here are the protestations of the “establishment” and apologists leaping to its defence.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Catholic = Hypocrite?
I recently watched a humorous video clip of a Fox News (
There were two speakers on the clip, one a Catholic priest called “Father Jonathan” and Annie Gaylor who is the head of something called the “Freedom from Religion Foundation”. I have to say the interview was totally uninspiring, both contributors seemed not to want to cover the actual topic at hand, and the moderator was so plainly biased in favour of the Priest that it was embarrassing; but then Fox News is a legend in its own trousers for being pro-Religious and "kick-ass" right-wing conservative. As you’d expect the priest and the moderator planted and harvested more straw-men that you can shake a stick at, all the usual crap was trotted out, i.e.
- Some religious people are good - therefore god exists
- Millions of people have faith – therefore God exists
- Science can’t explain everything – therefore God exists
- Atheism is just another faith – therefore God exists
This “media friendly” father was only referring to the Catholic "God" of course, not Allah, Buddha, Thor or the flying spaghetti monster, no because those ones aren't true are they, silly.
My main beef with the report is not the report itself, which was really just comedy, it is the blog entry that relates to it by good old “FJ”, and you can read it here. Now here is a gold-plated lesson in pious hypocritical slimebaggyness married to stunning, planet sized arrogance, let me see if I can précis the article and extract the points I think he is trying to make,
- Beware, of the “militant atheists”, they are not “traditional atheists” because they don’t believe in the supernatural – huh, sounds pretty traditional to me?
- Beware of the “militant atheists” because if you’re not a scientist then they want to “silence” you – huh, science is a universal, how can you not believe in science, is there such a thing as "Catholic physics" or "Hindu calculus", do Jewish aeroplanes work differently to “new atheist” ones?
- “Militant Atheists” love straw-man attacks and substitute rational discourse with personal attacks – I think poor old Father Johnny is confusing “personal” with “religion”, Atheists attack religion, FJ then takes it personally. As for straw men, you really shouldn't criticise someone for using a straw man argument by using a straw man argument, it just insults everyone's intelligence.
- "FJ" implies that “Militant Atheists” are “Angry” and “Mean”, he gives no examples, but I assume he thinks we’re angry because we say things like “telling people with HIV not to use condoms because the baby Jesus cries when you do is evil". Well, actually yes, I suppose he’s right, I could get pretty angry about the unnecessary death and misery of millions of people and the utter waste of human capital because of bronze age myths. As for “mean”, well, I guess if you have the mental perspective of a pre-pubescent child then it would be “mean” to point out all the inconsistencies and errors (like “limbo”) in your supernatural fantasy world that cause pain and suffering to many innocent people, how childish!
Do Catholics really want such blatant hypocrisy by Catholics on behalf of Catholics to be pointed out to the world like this, or can they just not see it, maybe not, let me spell it out.
- Saying that exposing children to Atheism is wrong, but indoctrinating them in the Catholic church from birth is OK, is hypocrisy.
- Criticising Atheists for being "mean" because they point out facts regarding the absurdity of your religious dogma, but then saying "believe our myths or burn in hell for eternity", is hypocrisy
- Criticising Atheists for being "angry", whilst supporting policies (like condom use) which cause or prolong suffering in millions of people, is hypocrisy
- Saying that your religion supports evolution and then saying that Atheists are wrong to believe that evolved animals such as ourselves don't have supernatural components, is hypocrisy
- Saying that science is in opposition to "faith" and then living and prospering in the modern world, benefiting from (secular, scientific advances) like, medicine, transport, media, technology and ethics, is hypocrisy
- Criticising science for not being able to explain "everything", then offering no explanation yourselves other than "god did it", is hypocrisy
- Saying that its wrong to have a film "suggesting" Atheism is wrong for children to see, but a film showcasing Christianity (like Narnia) is right, is hypocrisy
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Worse than Bush?
I read today that American presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is on record as saying the following in an interview given recently,
"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do. In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."
WTF! - This is idiocy (or lies) layered on top of stupidity wrapped up in arrogance with a bow on top!; lets look at this statement more closely. Firstly, what he's saying is that God doesn't change, i.e. 21st century Christians are no different from 1st century Christians, well, perhaps round his neck of the woods they still stone women to death for being suspected of adultery but not here old boy! Secondly he seems to be suggesting that because science is constantly making new discoveries and better explaining reality that somehow that is not as good as something conceived in a primative Bronze age desert society, all I can suggest is that all the hard working scientists in the USA remind Mr Huckabee when (in his twilight years) he pitches up for his hip replacement or some new drug therapy that the "science" he will need will almost certainly be "new" science" and that perhaps he'd be better off asking his "God" for a prescription instead.
Hypocrite just doesn't seem to cover it; please Americans, for all the world's sake, don't vote for this buffoon.
"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do. In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."
WTF! - This is idiocy (or lies) layered on top of stupidity wrapped up in arrogance with a bow on top!; lets look at this statement more closely. Firstly, what he's saying is that God doesn't change, i.e. 21st century Christians are no different from 1st century Christians, well, perhaps round his neck of the woods they still stone women to death for being suspected of adultery but not here old boy! Secondly he seems to be suggesting that because science is constantly making new discoveries and better explaining reality that somehow that is not as good as something conceived in a primative Bronze age desert society, all I can suggest is that all the hard working scientists in the USA remind Mr Huckabee when (in his twilight years) he pitches up for his hip replacement or some new drug therapy that the "science" he will need will almost certainly be "new" science" and that perhaps he'd be better off asking his "God" for a prescription instead.
Hypocrite just doesn't seem to cover it; please Americans, for all the world's sake, don't vote for this buffoon.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Islamic fundamentalism - It's all Dawkins' fault
I was amazed to hear on the Radio 4 program "Start of the Week" this week, published author and theologian Karen Armstrong accuse Richard Dawkins (et al) of causing previously reasonable and rational Islamic fundamentalists to suddenly start believing in a "literal" account of creation. Apparently no one believed all that nonsense until Dawkins pointed out what it "actually" says in these holy books is scientifically absurd, for instance that the entire universe was created just slightly after the domestication of the dog.
Apparently this simple pointing out of some basic scientific facts has contributed to Muslims all over the world suddenly seeing the light and fleeing back to the perfectly reasonable position that a mythical superhuman created everything in 6 days a few thousand years ago. I don't know which Islamic countries Ms Armstrong has visited to research this theory but I'd wager that most Muslims in most Islamic states I have ever been to would never have heard of Richard Dawkins, let alone explain why genes are selfish.
What on earth is this idiot spouting on about, are the theologians running scared, what next, new antibiotic causes millions of Christians to reach for the leach jar?
It is interesting to note that Dawkins has just launched a fresh assault on "Theology" as a subject, his opinion is that it is not fit to be taught at Oxford (and presumably any university) because it has yet to prove that it has any real "content". If this woman is a product of that learning process then I can fully see his point!
Apparently this simple pointing out of some basic scientific facts has contributed to Muslims all over the world suddenly seeing the light and fleeing back to the perfectly reasonable position that a mythical superhuman created everything in 6 days a few thousand years ago. I don't know which Islamic countries Ms Armstrong has visited to research this theory but I'd wager that most Muslims in most Islamic states I have ever been to would never have heard of Richard Dawkins, let alone explain why genes are selfish.
What on earth is this idiot spouting on about, are the theologians running scared, what next, new antibiotic causes millions of Christians to reach for the leach jar?
It is interesting to note that Dawkins has just launched a fresh assault on "Theology" as a subject, his opinion is that it is not fit to be taught at Oxford (and presumably any university) because it has yet to prove that it has any real "content". If this woman is a product of that learning process then I can fully see his point!
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
More political ignorance
More blood boiling (well for me anyway) triggered by a comment from a (stupid) Labour politician today at the party conference.
David Miliband was waxing lyrical about how our (UK) foreign policy would be different under Gordon Brown (great, it couldn't get much worse!) and uttered the following piece of crap, "Europe can't be a closed Christian club". He was of course referring to the current debate about Turkey (a predominantly Islamic country) becoming a full member of the EEC.
Firstly, Europe is not a "Christian club", at the last count only 52% of people in Europe claimed to be "religious" and the second largest religious group is Muslim, so Christianity is almost certainly in a minority. Secondly, I'd prefer to see a politician say "Europe can't become an intolerant, backward, superstitious, woman-hating, anti-scientific, theocratic, education and innovation wasteland, like most of the Middle East seems to be", that sounds like a much more worthwhile aspiration to me.
David Miliband was waxing lyrical about how our (UK) foreign policy would be different under Gordon Brown (great, it couldn't get much worse!) and uttered the following piece of crap, "Europe can't be a closed Christian club". He was of course referring to the current debate about Turkey (a predominantly Islamic country) becoming a full member of the EEC.
Firstly, Europe is not a "Christian club", at the last count only 52% of people in Europe claimed to be "religious" and the second largest religious group is Muslim, so Christianity is almost certainly in a minority. Secondly, I'd prefer to see a politician say "Europe can't become an intolerant, backward, superstitious, woman-hating, anti-scientific, theocratic, education and innovation wasteland, like most of the Middle East seems to be", that sounds like a much more worthwhile aspiration to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)