5.2.06
More on 'The Root Of All Evil?'
I watched the second episode of 'The Root Of All Evil?'. Conclusion? Much better than the first. Better-reasoned, with more actual discussion that the first episode. It also ended with a positive overview of the naturalist outlook on life. We do need to emphasize the positive aspects of the natural perspective, rather than merely attacking religion and other irrational beliefs. So it was good to see Dawkins address this a little at the end of the episode. He still looked pretty grumpy most of the time though. I suppose he was trying to look serious, but this didn't quite work. Still, overall it was very good. More please.
BOOM!
Only in South Carolina would they schedule the implosion of a hotel for 8am on a Sunday. As a bonus, it was just down the road from me! Wakey, wakey. Perhaps they thought everyone would go and watch it on their way back from Church, or something..
.
I watched the second episode of 'The Root Of All Evil?'. Conclusion? Much better than the first. Better-reasoned, with more actual discussion that the first episode. It also ended with a positive overview of the naturalist outlook on life. We do need to emphasize the positive aspects of the natural perspective, rather than merely attacking religion and other irrational beliefs. So it was good to see Dawkins address this a little at the end of the episode. He still looked pretty grumpy most of the time though. I suppose he was trying to look serious, but this didn't quite work. Still, overall it was very good. More please.
BOOM!
Only in South Carolina would they schedule the implosion of a hotel for 8am on a Sunday. As a bonus, it was just down the road from me! Wakey, wakey. Perhaps they thought everyone would go and watch it on their way back from Church, or something..
.
4.2.06
Freedom of Speech
Looks like this whole situation may be getting out of hand. Notice how all the usual suspects are trying to have it both ways - freedom of speech is good, but not if it offends people. It seems to me that you either allow free speech, or not. Those who say the cartoons should not have been published are simply against free speech. They can't get out of it by saying that it's okay in theory but not in practice!
Certainly, as you can see for yourself, the cartoons are crude and ignorant and unintelligent, but the newspaper should still have the right to publish them.
The violent protests don't exactly help the Muslim cause, either; "How dare you publish cartoons that stereotype Islam as a violent, intolerant religion - now I will burn your embassies down and fire my gun!" Also, if it is only a few extremists causing all the violence, then I am sure we'll see the rest of the Islamic world condemn their violent actions. If they don't, that tells us something else, doesn't it..?
Dawkins - The Root of All Evil?
This was a two-part documentary by Richard Dawkins for the UK's Channel 4 TV. Having seen the first part, I have to comment a little on it. From what I had heard from many reviewers, Dawkins was an arrogant bully in his 'discussion' with Teg Haggard, an American evangelical. On the contrary, my criticism would be that Dawkins was rather meek & certainly let this guy get the better of him - Dawkins didn't have any real responses (other than offended disbelief whenever the pastor said something preposterous - like 'the Bible does not have any contradictions in it', for instance), and in any case they were just hurling soundbites back and forth.
I agree with those that say it wasn't particularly illuminating, but then again if you're going to make a show involving an atheist following religious people around and confronting them, you shouldn't expect too much in the way of nuanced dialogue.. The main value of the show comes from it simply being made at all - we need far more of this kind of thing. If we did, maybe we could eleborate a little, instead of merely squeezing every argument we can think of into a single documentary.
.
Looks like this whole situation may be getting out of hand. Notice how all the usual suspects are trying to have it both ways - freedom of speech is good, but not if it offends people. It seems to me that you either allow free speech, or not. Those who say the cartoons should not have been published are simply against free speech. They can't get out of it by saying that it's okay in theory but not in practice!
Certainly, as you can see for yourself, the cartoons are crude and ignorant and unintelligent, but the newspaper should still have the right to publish them.
The violent protests don't exactly help the Muslim cause, either; "How dare you publish cartoons that stereotype Islam as a violent, intolerant religion - now I will burn your embassies down and fire my gun!" Also, if it is only a few extremists causing all the violence, then I am sure we'll see the rest of the Islamic world condemn their violent actions. If they don't, that tells us something else, doesn't it..?
Dawkins - The Root of All Evil?
This was a two-part documentary by Richard Dawkins for the UK's Channel 4 TV. Having seen the first part, I have to comment a little on it. From what I had heard from many reviewers, Dawkins was an arrogant bully in his 'discussion' with Teg Haggard, an American evangelical. On the contrary, my criticism would be that Dawkins was rather meek & certainly let this guy get the better of him - Dawkins didn't have any real responses (other than offended disbelief whenever the pastor said something preposterous - like 'the Bible does not have any contradictions in it', for instance), and in any case they were just hurling soundbites back and forth.
I agree with those that say it wasn't particularly illuminating, but then again if you're going to make a show involving an atheist following religious people around and confronting them, you shouldn't expect too much in the way of nuanced dialogue.. The main value of the show comes from it simply being made at all - we need far more of this kind of thing. If we did, maybe we could eleborate a little, instead of merely squeezing every argument we can think of into a single documentary.
.
3.2.06
Deism?
Something that I would be interested to know is why there are so many religious people who claim to believe in God because of the teleological argument (argument from design), the cosmological (first cause) argument, or some other intellectual reason (as opposed to revelation or the authority of the Bible, etc.) without at the same time rejecting the notion of a soul or personal survival after death. I think this is telling.
Why don't they believe that the universe was created by God, but that we are just purely material beings? This is what the main theological arguments for God would suggest is the case, if they are true. Instead, it seems that the vast majority of people either believe in both God and some kind of afterlife, or neither of the two. Einstein comes to mind as someone who may have fitted into my intermediate category, which is similar to the classical forms of Deism - God created the universe but then has nothing more to do with it, and does not take a particular interest in Earthly matters. This would give people an answer to the questions of why we are here, why there is something rather than nothing (although admittedly not what the 'meaning of life' is.) etc.
Of course, I do not think that people really are religious for any intellectual reasons, and neither do I think such arguments are correct. I think people are religious for emotional reasons (particularly from fear of annihilation), and try to cling on to any rationizations of their beliefs when challenged. What possible reason could anyone have for thinking that death is just a hoax? The only one I can think of is that this is what people would like to be the case (and incidentally, in a later post I will argue that it is in fact a good thing that we don't live forever).
So that is why I think it is telling that there are not more Clockmaker hypothesis people out there; people only attempt to fall back on logical arguments for their religion when backed into a corner. Otherwise, they are perfectly happy to believe uncritically.
By the way, this book from 50 years ago is a good, comprehensive review of religious beliefs throughout the course of history. It puts various societies' religions nicely into context.
.
Something that I would be interested to know is why there are so many religious people who claim to believe in God because of the teleological argument (argument from design), the cosmological (first cause) argument, or some other intellectual reason (as opposed to revelation or the authority of the Bible, etc.) without at the same time rejecting the notion of a soul or personal survival after death. I think this is telling.
Why don't they believe that the universe was created by God, but that we are just purely material beings? This is what the main theological arguments for God would suggest is the case, if they are true. Instead, it seems that the vast majority of people either believe in both God and some kind of afterlife, or neither of the two. Einstein comes to mind as someone who may have fitted into my intermediate category, which is similar to the classical forms of Deism - God created the universe but then has nothing more to do with it, and does not take a particular interest in Earthly matters. This would give people an answer to the questions of why we are here, why there is something rather than nothing (although admittedly not what the 'meaning of life' is.) etc.
Of course, I do not think that people really are religious for any intellectual reasons, and neither do I think such arguments are correct. I think people are religious for emotional reasons (particularly from fear of annihilation), and try to cling on to any rationizations of their beliefs when challenged. What possible reason could anyone have for thinking that death is just a hoax? The only one I can think of is that this is what people would like to be the case (and incidentally, in a later post I will argue that it is in fact a good thing that we don't live forever).
So that is why I think it is telling that there are not more Clockmaker hypothesis people out there; people only attempt to fall back on logical arguments for their religion when backed into a corner. Otherwise, they are perfectly happy to believe uncritically.
By the way, this book from 50 years ago is a good, comprehensive review of religious beliefs throughout the course of history. It puts various societies' religions nicely into context.
.
1.2.06
Effort Inflation
It used to be the case that by giving something 100%, you were trying as hard as you possibly could. However, some time ago a trend developed whereby it became necessary to give 110% in order to be seen to be really trying. Even this is no longer sufficient, and I fear that we may be on the verge of what I like to call 'runaway effort inflation'.
My fears were increased recently when I heard a sportsman mitigate his teams defeat by saying that they 'gave it 200% out there, but it wasn't enough'. He must have thought that even more than 200% would have been necessary for them to win - I suggest that next time he urges his teammates to give it 1000%, just to be on the safe side.
For those Superbowl finalists, perhaps 'a million percent' will be required? There are dark times ahead, I fear; it is no use yearning for those simple, far-off days where 100% effort was all that was asked of you. Those days are gone. Anyone who wishes to be at all sucessful in life must now be prepared to give almost impossible percentages of effort to even stand a chance..
.
It used to be the case that by giving something 100%, you were trying as hard as you possibly could. However, some time ago a trend developed whereby it became necessary to give 110% in order to be seen to be really trying. Even this is no longer sufficient, and I fear that we may be on the verge of what I like to call 'runaway effort inflation'.
My fears were increased recently when I heard a sportsman mitigate his teams defeat by saying that they 'gave it 200% out there, but it wasn't enough'. He must have thought that even more than 200% would have been necessary for them to win - I suggest that next time he urges his teammates to give it 1000%, just to be on the safe side.
For those Superbowl finalists, perhaps 'a million percent' will be required? There are dark times ahead, I fear; it is no use yearning for those simple, far-off days where 100% effort was all that was asked of you. Those days are gone. Anyone who wishes to be at all sucessful in life must now be prepared to give almost impossible percentages of effort to even stand a chance..
.
30.1.06
Inquisition Torture & Murder Justified!
You'll like this - a senior Vatican official has defended the torture & executions conducted by the Inquisition. Says the Very Rev Joseph Augustine Di Noia:
This also seems to imply that, with regard to standards of behaviour, the Church aspires to follow society as a whole, rather than setting the standards for the rest of us to follow. Interesting. What was the point of Christianity supposed to be, again..?
Denmark Defends Free Speech
It's good to see someone defending civil liberties, even if that burden must fall to Denmark. With Britain set to curtail criticism of religion, and the present US government's disturbing record on torture and habeas corpus, Denmark heroically holds the line against the forces of repression. Well done the Danes, leaders of the Free World!
Update 1: The Danish government backs down after being threatened. The pressure of being the leading nation in the Free World was clearly too much for them! However -
Update 2: The Blair government is defeated in bid to curb criticism of religion. Huzzah! A watered-down version that merely prohibits 'threatening' words passes instead. Sounds eminently sensible, although incitement to violence is already covered under the law, so the new law seems superfluous. Hopefully we will now have a review of Britain's outdated blasphemy laws as well.
.
You'll like this - a senior Vatican official has defended the torture & executions conducted by the Inquisition. Says the Very Rev Joseph Augustine Di Noia:
"..torture was regarded as a perfectly justified, legitimate way of producing evidence and it was therefore legally justified...it seems to me it is possible to understand it within the context of its times and also to understand it within the sociology of religion, how communities react to threats which they regard to be dire or fatal."concluding
"You cannot project backwards our modern morality to a society which did not know toleration, in politics as well as religion. Even one death for heresy is a problem."There's a nice bit of moral relativism for you! But wait a minute, isn't the whole point of the Church's morality supposed to be that it is absolute - sent from God - and not subject to 'changing with the times'? Can't we expect the Church to be above the secular standards of the day? It would seem not.
This also seems to imply that, with regard to standards of behaviour, the Church aspires to follow society as a whole, rather than setting the standards for the rest of us to follow. Interesting. What was the point of Christianity supposed to be, again..?
Denmark Defends Free Speech
It's good to see someone defending civil liberties, even if that burden must fall to Denmark. With Britain set to curtail criticism of religion, and the present US government's disturbing record on torture and habeas corpus, Denmark heroically holds the line against the forces of repression. Well done the Danes, leaders of the Free World!
Update 1: The Danish government backs down after being threatened. The pressure of being the leading nation in the Free World was clearly too much for them! However -
Update 2: The Blair government is defeated in bid to curb criticism of religion. Huzzah! A watered-down version that merely prohibits 'threatening' words passes instead. Sounds eminently sensible, although incitement to violence is already covered under the law, so the new law seems superfluous. Hopefully we will now have a review of Britain's outdated blasphemy laws as well.
.
29.1.06
Backgammon
I have been playing a bit of backgammon lately. Backgammon seems to be a game that most people have heard of, but not many have played. If you don't know how to play, the easiest way to learn is to either find someone who does know, or play against your computer. GNU Backgammon is free, incredibly strong and even has a pretty 3D mode! If you want to play against people over the internet, then FIBS is for you.
Backgammon is a race game of luck and skill, with a good balance of strategy and tactics (although because it is based on rolling dice, tactics tend to predominate). Each player must move their men around the board in opposite directions into a 'home' area where they can be removed. Although a very simple game to learn, backgammon contains great subtlety and depth.
It is also the game that uses those doubling cubes (2,4,8,16,32,64) you may have seen but never knew the purpose of. The doubling cube adds an extra element of strategy and also serves to end games where the outcome has become obvious. For someone like me who lacks the patience and concentration to be really good at chess, backgammon is a good cop-out. Rules & playing guide here.
Orwell on 'Politics and the English Language'
George Orwell wrote this wonderful essay in 1946. I think it has become even more important as the years have gone by...
.
I have been playing a bit of backgammon lately. Backgammon seems to be a game that most people have heard of, but not many have played. If you don't know how to play, the easiest way to learn is to either find someone who does know, or play against your computer. GNU Backgammon is free, incredibly strong and even has a pretty 3D mode! If you want to play against people over the internet, then FIBS is for you.
Backgammon is a race game of luck and skill, with a good balance of strategy and tactics (although because it is based on rolling dice, tactics tend to predominate). Each player must move their men around the board in opposite directions into a 'home' area where they can be removed. Although a very simple game to learn, backgammon contains great subtlety and depth.
It is also the game that uses those doubling cubes (2,4,8,16,32,64) you may have seen but never knew the purpose of. The doubling cube adds an extra element of strategy and also serves to end games where the outcome has become obvious. For someone like me who lacks the patience and concentration to be really good at chess, backgammon is a good cop-out. Rules & playing guide here.
Orwell on 'Politics and the English Language'
George Orwell wrote this wonderful essay in 1946. I think it has become even more important as the years have gone by...
.
23.1.06
Psssstt..
Hey you! If you haven't already done so, get Firefox. Well, what are you waiting for?
Want a free office suite? How about a multi-protocol instant messenger?
Surely you'd be thrilled with a free Photoshop replacement?
After all those goodies, it's time to relax with the thought for the day.
.
Hey you! If you haven't already done so, get Firefox. Well, what are you waiting for?
Want a free office suite? How about a multi-protocol instant messenger?
Surely you'd be thrilled with a free Photoshop replacement?
After all those goodies, it's time to relax with the thought for the day.
.
Prove It
The Christian says that we cannot prove that God does not exist. I agree (at least we cannot prove that some god does not exist); to me athiest means anti-theist - rejecting religious faith itself, on principle, and instead embracing reason, logic and empiricism.
But the Christian (as well as the atheist and everyone else) must also logically be agnostic on all other religions. They must, for example, accept the possible existence of the Greek gods - for they cannot prove that they do not exist. But if they accept even the possibility of the existence of the Greek gods (whose existence would preclude the existence of the Christian God), then they cannot also logically claim certainty for the existence of their own, Christian, God.
So, if there is the possibility that the Greek gods exist, and therefore that their Christian God does not exist, then they must logically become agnostic with regard to all religions, including their own.
It is only through faith, i.e. unwarranted certainty, that anyone can choose a specific religion to adhere to. This amounts to 'it's true because I believe it'. I am unrepentant about my contempt for such a position.
.
The Christian says that we cannot prove that God does not exist. I agree (at least we cannot prove that some god does not exist); to me athiest means anti-theist - rejecting religious faith itself, on principle, and instead embracing reason, logic and empiricism.
But the Christian (as well as the atheist and everyone else) must also logically be agnostic on all other religions. They must, for example, accept the possible existence of the Greek gods - for they cannot prove that they do not exist. But if they accept even the possibility of the existence of the Greek gods (whose existence would preclude the existence of the Christian God), then they cannot also logically claim certainty for the existence of their own, Christian, God.
So, if there is the possibility that the Greek gods exist, and therefore that their Christian God does not exist, then they must logically become agnostic with regard to all religions, including their own.
It is only through faith, i.e. unwarranted certainty, that anyone can choose a specific religion to adhere to. This amounts to 'it's true because I believe it'. I am unrepentant about my contempt for such a position.
.
21.1.06
Scientific Naturalism
Here's a very clear, well-reasoned and thorough summary of the central arguments against religion, and in favour of atheism. It is well worth a careful reading.
Of particular interest in these days of increasing encroachment of Christianity into the government of the United States, is the reference to the 'Treaty of Tripoli' (and specifically Article 11):
This was approved by then-President John Adams, and unanimously ratified by the Senate. Of course, those who would turn the USA into a theocracy aren't overly impressed by such things as 'facts' or 'evidence', so don't expect things like this to change their minds. They're not the most intellectually flexible (or honest) of people, after all..
I always find the claims of superior morality made by Christians (and Muslims) to be quite amusing, when they expect a divine reward for being good, and a horrible punishment for those who are bad or who do not believe the applicable doctrine. Sounds like self-interest to me - whereas to the atheist, virtue is its own reward.
.
Here's a very clear, well-reasoned and thorough summary of the central arguments against religion, and in favour of atheism. It is well worth a careful reading.
Of particular interest in these days of increasing encroachment of Christianity into the government of the United States, is the reference to the 'Treaty of Tripoli' (and specifically Article 11):
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Islamic] nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
This was approved by then-President John Adams, and unanimously ratified by the Senate. Of course, those who would turn the USA into a theocracy aren't overly impressed by such things as 'facts' or 'evidence', so don't expect things like this to change their minds. They're not the most intellectually flexible (or honest) of people, after all..
I always find the claims of superior morality made by Christians (and Muslims) to be quite amusing, when they expect a divine reward for being good, and a horrible punishment for those who are bad or who do not believe the applicable doctrine. Sounds like self-interest to me - whereas to the atheist, virtue is its own reward.
.
18.1.06
More on Darts
So the darts is over, and there was an all-Dutch final in which a 21-year old 100-1 outsider by the name of 'Old' Jelle Klaasen beat the 4-time champ Raymond 'Barney Rubble' van Barneveld. Actually, the 'Old' epithet is my idea. Clever, eh? So now pundits are predicting a 'darts revolution', where darts cleans up its image and gets a new, younger, healthier type of player. This could happen; we'll just have to wait and see.
After the final, Eric Bristow sourly remarked that he'd just seen "a nice game of amateur darts" - a pointed put-down of the British Darts Organisation/World Darts Federation, which Bristows rival Professional Darts Council split from in the early nineties. Bristow said that Klaasen shouldn't play a unification match against Phil Taylor, or "He'd be killed".
His Craftyness may have a point - Taylor is surely the best player darts has ever seen, but take him out of the equation and play a tournament with the top 16 from each of the two organizations, and there's be nothing to choose between them. After all, in the rival PDC World Championships, Taylor won 7-0 against Peter Manley in the final. No-one's saying that the PDC is therefore rubbish, but if Taylor beat Klaasen 7-0 you can bet they'd hammer the BDO. Play Manley against Klaasen and Old Jelle would have every chance.
Interestingly, ESPN are going to screen a 'World Series of Darts' this summer, featuring the world's best 16 players plus 16 American qualifiers. If an American wins they get $1,000,000, with just $100,000 should the winner be non-American (which of course will be the case. The only way an American could even reach the final would be if they put all the US contingent in the opposite side of the draw to the rest).
However, I think Darts may indeed have a chance (as speculation from some quarters suggests) of following Poker as the next-big-spectator-sport-in-the-USA-thing, since with 18 million casual players in the US and big prize money being stumped up, who's to say it won't take off? And if it does, the large influx of (US) playing talent will lead to big changes in the world of Darts, especially if the aforementioned Dutch-led 'healthy' revolution also occurs. Exciting times ahead, oh yes..!
.
So the darts is over, and there was an all-Dutch final in which a 21-year old 100-1 outsider by the name of 'Old' Jelle Klaasen beat the 4-time champ Raymond 'Barney Rubble' van Barneveld. Actually, the 'Old' epithet is my idea. Clever, eh? So now pundits are predicting a 'darts revolution', where darts cleans up its image and gets a new, younger, healthier type of player. This could happen; we'll just have to wait and see.
After the final, Eric Bristow sourly remarked that he'd just seen "a nice game of amateur darts" - a pointed put-down of the British Darts Organisation/World Darts Federation, which Bristows rival Professional Darts Council split from in the early nineties. Bristow said that Klaasen shouldn't play a unification match against Phil Taylor, or "He'd be killed".
His Craftyness may have a point - Taylor is surely the best player darts has ever seen, but take him out of the equation and play a tournament with the top 16 from each of the two organizations, and there's be nothing to choose between them. After all, in the rival PDC World Championships, Taylor won 7-0 against Peter Manley in the final. No-one's saying that the PDC is therefore rubbish, but if Taylor beat Klaasen 7-0 you can bet they'd hammer the BDO. Play Manley against Klaasen and Old Jelle would have every chance.
Interestingly, ESPN are going to screen a 'World Series of Darts' this summer, featuring the world's best 16 players plus 16 American qualifiers. If an American wins they get $1,000,000, with just $100,000 should the winner be non-American (which of course will be the case. The only way an American could even reach the final would be if they put all the US contingent in the opposite side of the draw to the rest).
However, I think Darts may indeed have a chance (as speculation from some quarters suggests) of following Poker as the next-big-spectator-sport-in-the-USA-thing, since with 18 million casual players in the US and big prize money being stumped up, who's to say it won't take off? And if it does, the large influx of (US) playing talent will lead to big changes in the world of Darts, especially if the aforementioned Dutch-led 'healthy' revolution also occurs. Exciting times ahead, oh yes..!
.
11.1.06
Reasonable Behaviour
There seems to be some disagreement as of late as to the correct tactics to employ in the eternal battle against the ignorant and stupid.
I refer of course to the debate around Richard Dawkins and his new two-part documentary on religion. Many are saying that Dawkins' full-on take-no-prisoners approach is counter-productive as it 'turns people off' taking a rational approach to life.
Newsflash: people aren't being 'turned on' to reason, nor have they been. Organised religion may have (until recently) been on the decline in the west, but there's always been a substitute. Whether it be New Age religions, Scientology, celebrity-worship, 'alternative' medicine, psychic healing, crop circles, UFOs, etc. There has been no real decline in the general level of credulity, as far as I can tell.
Furthermore, in the West (and especially here in the US), Christianity is still very much the default position. If you go for a job interview in the US and mention you're not religious, for example, don't expect them to call you back (although you may do rather better if you talk about your alien abduction experience). It's also not polite to mention your atheism in the presence of Christians, although of course they may talk about God all night long. These are the rules.
And here's my central point - it's also considered bad form even by many atheists to come straight out and criticise the 'faithful' directly for their beliefs. They have some kind of special immunity or something. The poor dears get all shocked and tearful if you don't play nice. Well I for one say that this is wrong. There are no sacred cows. Nothing off-topic. It's all to play for. There will always be those who take a more diplomatic approach - and that's fine. Those of us who want to be a little more uncompromising, can be. There's no one correct route to take, and in fact I would say that these different methods actually complement each other, in many ways.
We're not exactly in a position of strength here; let's not get into pointless debates on the 'correct' tactical course, when fundamentalism is on the rise in many parts of the globe..
.
There seems to be some disagreement as of late as to the correct tactics to employ in the eternal battle against the ignorant and stupid.
I refer of course to the debate around Richard Dawkins and his new two-part documentary on religion. Many are saying that Dawkins' full-on take-no-prisoners approach is counter-productive as it 'turns people off' taking a rational approach to life.
Newsflash: people aren't being 'turned on' to reason, nor have they been. Organised religion may have (until recently) been on the decline in the west, but there's always been a substitute. Whether it be New Age religions, Scientology, celebrity-worship, 'alternative' medicine, psychic healing, crop circles, UFOs, etc. There has been no real decline in the general level of credulity, as far as I can tell.
Furthermore, in the West (and especially here in the US), Christianity is still very much the default position. If you go for a job interview in the US and mention you're not religious, for example, don't expect them to call you back (although you may do rather better if you talk about your alien abduction experience). It's also not polite to mention your atheism in the presence of Christians, although of course they may talk about God all night long. These are the rules.
And here's my central point - it's also considered bad form even by many atheists to come straight out and criticise the 'faithful' directly for their beliefs. They have some kind of special immunity or something. The poor dears get all shocked and tearful if you don't play nice. Well I for one say that this is wrong. There are no sacred cows. Nothing off-topic. It's all to play for. There will always be those who take a more diplomatic approach - and that's fine. Those of us who want to be a little more uncompromising, can be. There's no one correct route to take, and in fact I would say that these different methods actually complement each other, in many ways.
We're not exactly in a position of strength here; let's not get into pointless debates on the 'correct' tactical course, when fundamentalism is on the rise in many parts of the globe..
.
10.1.06
Bible Stories
Genesis
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
So let's get this straight - God made the heavens and the earth in seven days, yes? Creationists still hold to this view even today, so at least they're logically consistent. However, 'moderate' Christians says that these words are just a metaphor. So 'seven days' actually means 'millions of years'. I see; that makes sense. Because the people who were around at the time the Bible was written couldn't understand 'million of years', you see. They couldn't understand 'many years', or 'a very, very long time', either. In fact, they couldn't conceptualize any number greater than 7, apparently.
If the Bible was written today, no doubt we would get the real story. But wait a minute - how much else of what is written in the Bible is merely metaphorical? How are we to know which bits are supposed to be literal truth and which bits are wildly inaccurate (I mean metaphorical)? Surely the only way we can find out is by questioning what is written? But isn't this not strictly allowed? So if we don't question the Bible, maybe we run the risk of believing literally something which was only intended to be a vague, even meaningless allegory? On the other hand, what if we no longer take seriously passages which were meant to be lived by each day ('Exd 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', for instance). I'm so confused!
.
Genesis
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
So let's get this straight - God made the heavens and the earth in seven days, yes? Creationists still hold to this view even today, so at least they're logically consistent. However, 'moderate' Christians says that these words are just a metaphor. So 'seven days' actually means 'millions of years'. I see; that makes sense. Because the people who were around at the time the Bible was written couldn't understand 'million of years', you see. They couldn't understand 'many years', or 'a very, very long time', either. In fact, they couldn't conceptualize any number greater than 7, apparently.
If the Bible was written today, no doubt we would get the real story. But wait a minute - how much else of what is written in the Bible is merely metaphorical? How are we to know which bits are supposed to be literal truth and which bits are wildly inaccurate (I mean metaphorical)? Surely the only way we can find out is by questioning what is written? But isn't this not strictly allowed? So if we don't question the Bible, maybe we run the risk of believing literally something which was only intended to be a vague, even meaningless allegory? On the other hand, what if we no longer take seriously passages which were meant to be lived by each day ('Exd 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', for instance). I'm so confused!
.
7.1.06
Evolutionary Medicine
This is an area of particular interest to me. I was reintroduced to it through Paul Ewalds entry in this years Edge 'World Question Center' (which I highly recommend you read - thoroughly thought-provoking, and educational too!), available at the Edge website.
The question this year is "What is Your Dangerous Idea?", and Ewald says that his is that we are about to enter a new Golden Age of medicine. Why is this dangerous? Because of the threat to the 'big medicine' industry - pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, etc. He also says that a flu epidemic on the scale of the 1918 outbreak could not happen today - the environmental circumstances are not right.
I find taking an evolutionary view of the development of pathogens very interesting and potentially very fruitful. I am just in the beginner stage myself, really, so I'll keep you posted on how things go; I'm currently ploughing my way through Dawkins' 'The Ancestors Tale', after which I will read a couple of Evo-Med books.
Ubuntu
I switched a couple of months back from FreeBSD to Ubuntu, as I decided to change tack from a techies OS to a power-end-users one. I am very happy with my choice.
After launching a little over 1 year ago, Ubuntu has already become one of the top distributions of GNU/Linux. It is based on Debian and is aimed at the desktop user. If you're looking for an easy-to-use, powerful and Free operating system, give Ubuntu a try!
Darts
Yes, it's that time of year again - "Let's.. Play.. Darts!" The World Championships have just started on the BBC - being the wrong side of the Atlantic, I have to watch their streaming video. There is something strangely compelling about televised darts; two colossi battling it out with rods of steel.. actually, I really do like darts and am unashamed to admit it. Give it a try.
Darts, Cricket & Snooker (and Chess) are to me far more entertaining than any of the more mainstream sports, Football & Rugby in the UK, and American Football, Ice Hockey, Basketball or Baseball in the US. The Americans insert such distractions as cheerleaders, half-time shows, endless statistics and pointless over-analysis, not to mention the almost continuous adverts - these are all presumably an attempt to cover up the sheer dullness of their sports. All four of those I mentioned are ball-shatteringly tedious. The Superbowl is supposed to be the biggest event in sports, and what do people talk about the next day? Who had the funniest commercial. I rest my case..
.
This is an area of particular interest to me. I was reintroduced to it through Paul Ewalds entry in this years Edge 'World Question Center' (which I highly recommend you read - thoroughly thought-provoking, and educational too!), available at the Edge website.
The question this year is "What is Your Dangerous Idea?", and Ewald says that his is that we are about to enter a new Golden Age of medicine. Why is this dangerous? Because of the threat to the 'big medicine' industry - pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, etc. He also says that a flu epidemic on the scale of the 1918 outbreak could not happen today - the environmental circumstances are not right.
I find taking an evolutionary view of the development of pathogens very interesting and potentially very fruitful. I am just in the beginner stage myself, really, so I'll keep you posted on how things go; I'm currently ploughing my way through Dawkins' 'The Ancestors Tale', after which I will read a couple of Evo-Med books.
Ubuntu
I switched a couple of months back from FreeBSD to Ubuntu, as I decided to change tack from a techies OS to a power-end-users one. I am very happy with my choice.
After launching a little over 1 year ago, Ubuntu has already become one of the top distributions of GNU/Linux. It is based on Debian and is aimed at the desktop user. If you're looking for an easy-to-use, powerful and Free operating system, give Ubuntu a try!
Darts
Yes, it's that time of year again - "Let's.. Play.. Darts!" The World Championships have just started on the BBC - being the wrong side of the Atlantic, I have to watch their streaming video. There is something strangely compelling about televised darts; two colossi battling it out with rods of steel.. actually, I really do like darts and am unashamed to admit it. Give it a try.
Darts, Cricket & Snooker (and Chess) are to me far more entertaining than any of the more mainstream sports, Football & Rugby in the UK, and American Football, Ice Hockey, Basketball or Baseball in the US. The Americans insert such distractions as cheerleaders, half-time shows, endless statistics and pointless over-analysis, not to mention the almost continuous adverts - these are all presumably an attempt to cover up the sheer dullness of their sports. All four of those I mentioned are ball-shatteringly tedious. The Superbowl is supposed to be the biggest event in sports, and what do people talk about the next day? Who had the funniest commercial. I rest my case..
.
30.12.05
Happy New Year
The Gibsonian will return in 2006!
.
The Gibsonian will return in 2006!
.
15.11.05
Objective Truth
I have posted about this before, so you will know my irritation with those who try to claim that there are no objective standards for discerning truth. I usually like to target the usual right-wing-religious-fundamentalist suspects, so lets have a go at the left-wing-behaviourist/mind-as-blank-slate school.
I have a problem with those who seek to simultaneously promote, on the one hand, universal human rights, and on the other hand, the notion that there are no universal truths (this second idea manifesting itself in 'cultural relativism'). These two ideas are quite clearly mutually exclusive, and yet we continue to see them promoted by the same groups and individuals (often at the same time).
For example, there are those campaigning for womens' rights in Islamic countries, whilst at the same time defending Islamic beliefs as an equally legitimate way of looking at the world as any other. If this second assertion is so, then any Islamic-sanctioned repression of women is surely justified, logically.
You can't have it both ways, so which is it to be?
.
I have posted about this before, so you will know my irritation with those who try to claim that there are no objective standards for discerning truth. I usually like to target the usual right-wing-religious-fundamentalist suspects, so lets have a go at the left-wing-behaviourist/mind-as-blank-slate school.
I have a problem with those who seek to simultaneously promote, on the one hand, universal human rights, and on the other hand, the notion that there are no universal truths (this second idea manifesting itself in 'cultural relativism'). These two ideas are quite clearly mutually exclusive, and yet we continue to see them promoted by the same groups and individuals (often at the same time).
For example, there are those campaigning for womens' rights in Islamic countries, whilst at the same time defending Islamic beliefs as an equally legitimate way of looking at the world as any other. If this second assertion is so, then any Islamic-sanctioned repression of women is surely justified, logically.
You can't have it both ways, so which is it to be?
.
16.10.05
This weeks Gibsonian was entirely touch-typed, by the way.
Single-mindedness
Traditionally, most libertarians (and other freemarket zealots) cannot accept the existence of global warming, since this would undermine their whole ideology, as within such an acceptance there is an implicit assumption that large-scale governmental intervention in the sacred markets is necessary. However, some libertarians now do accept not only that global warming is happening, but also that we are responsible for much of it; they manage to escape with their fatal conceit by claiming that it would be too expensive to do anything about it; our only viable course of action being to press on with the project of opening up markets in the hope (and expectation) that technological solutions will present themselves in due course.
Whether this is the case or not, for the libertarian it is the only option, and certainly the preferred way of rationalising their continued head-in-the-sand approach to such matters.
Technology may indeed be our best hope, in any case, since it is plain which way the economic winds are blowing (i.e. at best there will be small, isolated & half-hearted measures to counter any global warming that there may be), but this is no reason why we should not press for anything we can get in terms of mitigation; even if this falls far short of what we deem sufficient. Change is incremental and cumulative (feedback mechanisms notwithstanding), and every little helps, as they say..
More Cricket
With regard to my remarks last time about it not being surprising that the World II lost (in the end, 3-0) to Australia. This seems to me to be pretty obvious; so far as a sport is a team sport, you would expect the teamwork factor to play a significant part in the outcome. For example, in athletics (track & field), I would expect the best individual country (the United States) to lose against a rest-of-the-world team, since athletics is an individual sport, and therefore a team is merely a collection of individuals competing individually. Since the United States wins a minority of the available gold medals, they would not be able to defeat a world team (although they could get a small psychological boost from feeling more cohesive than the world team). On this basis, cricket is somewhere in the middle, since it is more of a team sport than baseball, for instance, but less than football (of either kind).
I have changed the method for adding comments, incorporating a new-fangled are-you-a-real-human checking device. Let's see if it works (should spam continue to get through, I will of course continue deleting it.)..
.
Single-mindedness
Traditionally, most libertarians (and other freemarket zealots) cannot accept the existence of global warming, since this would undermine their whole ideology, as within such an acceptance there is an implicit assumption that large-scale governmental intervention in the sacred markets is necessary. However, some libertarians now do accept not only that global warming is happening, but also that we are responsible for much of it; they manage to escape with their fatal conceit by claiming that it would be too expensive to do anything about it; our only viable course of action being to press on with the project of opening up markets in the hope (and expectation) that technological solutions will present themselves in due course.
Whether this is the case or not, for the libertarian it is the only option, and certainly the preferred way of rationalising their continued head-in-the-sand approach to such matters.
Technology may indeed be our best hope, in any case, since it is plain which way the economic winds are blowing (i.e. at best there will be small, isolated & half-hearted measures to counter any global warming that there may be), but this is no reason why we should not press for anything we can get in terms of mitigation; even if this falls far short of what we deem sufficient. Change is incremental and cumulative (feedback mechanisms notwithstanding), and every little helps, as they say..
More Cricket
With regard to my remarks last time about it not being surprising that the World II lost (in the end, 3-0) to Australia. This seems to me to be pretty obvious; so far as a sport is a team sport, you would expect the teamwork factor to play a significant part in the outcome. For example, in athletics (track & field), I would expect the best individual country (the United States) to lose against a rest-of-the-world team, since athletics is an individual sport, and therefore a team is merely a collection of individuals competing individually. Since the United States wins a minority of the available gold medals, they would not be able to defeat a world team (although they could get a small psychological boost from feeling more cohesive than the world team). On this basis, cricket is somewhere in the middle, since it is more of a team sport than baseball, for instance, but less than football (of either kind).
I have changed the method for adding comments, incorporating a new-fangled are-you-a-real-human checking device. Let's see if it works (should spam continue to get through, I will of course continue deleting it.)..
.
