Saturday 26 May 2007
Comments for all
I have now enabled comments for all people, regardless of whether they have a blogger account. A few rules though. Comments should be relevant to the post, and all constructive criticism is welcome. Just sheer hate-mail will be removed and posted elsewhere for mine (and others) amusement. Your comment may be removed at my discretion (though I will try to avoid this). Sorry to sound Orwellian about this, but I want a bit of decorum on this blog. Many thanks.
Tuesday 22 May 2007
The wrecking of British Science
Yes I know this is the third Guardian link in as many posts but this is a truly interesting, if some what disturbing article. Written by Harry Kroto, winner of a Nobel prize for chemistry, in today's Education supplement he paints a sad indictment of the level of science teaching in Britain today. I won't say much more than that as you should really read the article in it's entirety. Hopefully it will be of interest.
Link:
* Original Article
Link:
* Original Article
Thursday 17 May 2007
Darwin's Letters
In today's Guardian there was a nice article about Darwin's letters. A new database of over 5,000 of Darwin's correspondence has recently gone live, and these letters reveal a uniquely personal look at one of the giants of science. Among the many letters include support for a friend who's son had Scarlet-Fever,
"I grieve to hear about the Scarlet-Fever: my poor dear old friend you are most unfortunate. The tide must turn soon... Much love much trial, but what an utter desert is life without love".
On a lighter note he shows incredible humility at his own mistakes. After asking naturalist John Lubbock to make observations about clovers and bees to test his theory about the evolution of bees, he wrote an abashed letter apologising for the data which turned out to be useless,
"I do so hope you have not wasted any time for my stupid blunder - I hate myself, I hate clover and I hate bees".
Also, to put to rest once and for all the talk of Darwin's support of racism and slavery we have his views on the Tories (Conservative party of Britain),
"I would not be a Tory, if it was merely an account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian Nations, Slavery".
The site can be found at here, and it looks like an interesting diversion for those who have read the 'Origin of Species', or any of Darwin's books, or even those just interested in a Victorians' take on his own time.
Links:
* Original article
"I grieve to hear about the Scarlet-Fever: my poor dear old friend you are most unfortunate. The tide must turn soon... Much love much trial, but what an utter desert is life without love".
On a lighter note he shows incredible humility at his own mistakes. After asking naturalist John Lubbock to make observations about clovers and bees to test his theory about the evolution of bees, he wrote an abashed letter apologising for the data which turned out to be useless,
"I do so hope you have not wasted any time for my stupid blunder - I hate myself, I hate clover and I hate bees".
Also, to put to rest once and for all the talk of Darwin's support of racism and slavery we have his views on the Tories (Conservative party of Britain),
"I would not be a Tory, if it was merely an account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian Nations, Slavery".
The site can be found at here, and it looks like an interesting diversion for those who have read the 'Origin of Species', or any of Darwin's books, or even those just interested in a Victorians' take on his own time.
Links:
* Original article
Wednesday 16 May 2007
Falwell dead...who?
Well of course I had heard of Jerry Falwell before the news of his death. Even a brief visit to the countless sites on evolution and atheism will undoubtedly mention Falwell. The notorious creationist and evangelical was well known for his attacks against minority groups, especially the gay and lesbian community.
But frankly I do not care for him. I will not feign sorrow for his passing. But neither will I gloat at it. He is dead, and the dead cannot answer the challenges of the living. There are many criticisms that can, should and have been made against him. But I think the best thing that can be done is to forget him. He is (hopefully) a sad, bigoted blip in a greater push towards a better and more reasonable world.
There are enough like him, who are still alive, that we should worry about, and not waste our energies on him. Consign Falwell to the rubbish heap of other such nonsense spewers and no-one in twenty years will remember him.
He wasted his life hating those who were different. Hopefully he and his views will be soon be forgotten, so we can all say truthfully "Falwell...who?".
But frankly I do not care for him. I will not feign sorrow for his passing. But neither will I gloat at it. He is dead, and the dead cannot answer the challenges of the living. There are many criticisms that can, should and have been made against him. But I think the best thing that can be done is to forget him. He is (hopefully) a sad, bigoted blip in a greater push towards a better and more reasonable world.
There are enough like him, who are still alive, that we should worry about, and not waste our energies on him. Consign Falwell to the rubbish heap of other such nonsense spewers and no-one in twenty years will remember him.
He wasted his life hating those who were different. Hopefully he and his views will be soon be forgotten, so we can all say truthfully "Falwell...who?".
Tuesday 15 May 2007
Cristina Odone on Richard Dawkins
In last Sunday's Observer there was a short article in the Comment section by Cristina Odone. Called "Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins", it discusses the conversation she had with Dawkins whilst in the country. He started off by proposing a hypothetical dilemma,
"You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?".
She replied that she would shoot the elephant, at which:
"He was outraged by my answer: man, beast, they were all the same to him and the priority must be to protect the endangered species. He berated me for my foolish belief in the specialness of humanity for its soul".
To be honest I disagree with Dawkins here merely for the fact if the elephant is the last of its species then it is extinct anyway, but I feel he was merely trying to make a point about the human centric view many people take.
However later on in the article things take a turn. She admonishes Dawkins, as well as Christopher Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for their "secularist extremism". First, what the hell is "secularist extremism", no special treatment; to the extreme? Obviously she is merely trying to use word with obvious religious overtones, a technique which seems endemic among those who criticise the critical. She continues to do this in the article for example: "the tenets of Dawkins dogma", "Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism" and "The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers".
However I find this particular part extremely telling so I will quote it in full. I apologise for the repeats.
"Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism. Christopher Hitchens is similarly critical of religion; so is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch MP who received death threats for her criticism of Islam. But Hitchens and Ali now operate primarily in America, a nation where 95 per cent of citizens believe in God and church attendance is growing, not dwindling. They can jab God and his followers, but theirs is only a faint note of discord, overwhelmed by the church choir." (My emphasis)
Evidently it seems anybody who criticises religion is a secularist extremist! And yet there is no such condemnation of the death threats Ayaan Hirsi Ali received. Does this not seem backwards? Why is criticism of religion seen as such an extreme action, comparable with acts of mass murder (*2)? This is even more irritating as after having recently watched the second episode of 'A rough history of disbelief', which I thoroughly recommend, I learnt that three or four hundreds years ago, I would have been executed for 'Atheism and disbelief'. Is this not insane, that these old portents of horrific intolerance are forgotten so quick, in the rush to brand any person who has a differing opinion on religion as a bigot?
Odone then goes on about how this 'faith-bashing' is extremely damaging in Britain as belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot. Because the religious are so downtrodden that they have to scuttle around in fear of persecution. What rubbish. A case could be made for an increase discrimination against Muslims in Britain, but that is a complex issue I will no doubt address in a later post. No what this really is about is religious people like Odone not getting the respect they crave. Any differing view is just bigotry disguised in logical arguments.
Finally she states that if it wasn't for religious "persecutors" like Dawkins, the religious:
"would see no need for hard-line posturing. They would once again feel like ordinary citizens rather than a hunted species that must bare its fangs to survive."
I have no idea in what way believers are a hunted species. This is hardly Nazi Germany, where believers are made to wear their religious icons sewn into their clothes (though many choose to wear identifiers by choice). Maybe she is confusing the lessening of belief in this country to an actual attempt at extermination of belief. And the idea that without Dawkins suddenly every believer would become a religious moderate is just laughable. Where was the Afghani Dawkins to force the Taliban to "bare its fangs to survive"?
Really, the unwilling nature of religion to actually deal with criticism is beyond belief. If believers want to float their exotic ideas about how life should be run and the wills and powers of god(s), they should be prepared with some well thought out rational arguments to respond. As well as some evidence. Just labelling criticism as intolerance is asking for special treatment, which is one thing this "secularist extremist" is wholeheartedly against, for any idea.
Links:
* 1 - Original Article
* 2 - See third paragraph
"You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?".
She replied that she would shoot the elephant, at which:
"He was outraged by my answer: man, beast, they were all the same to him and the priority must be to protect the endangered species. He berated me for my foolish belief in the specialness of humanity for its soul".
To be honest I disagree with Dawkins here merely for the fact if the elephant is the last of its species then it is extinct anyway, but I feel he was merely trying to make a point about the human centric view many people take.
However later on in the article things take a turn. She admonishes Dawkins, as well as Christopher Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for their "secularist extremism". First, what the hell is "secularist extremism", no special treatment; to the extreme? Obviously she is merely trying to use word with obvious religious overtones, a technique which seems endemic among those who criticise the critical. She continues to do this in the article for example: "the tenets of Dawkins dogma", "Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism" and "The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers".
However I find this particular part extremely telling so I will quote it in full. I apologise for the repeats.
"Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism. Christopher Hitchens is similarly critical of religion; so is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch MP who received death threats for her criticism of Islam. But Hitchens and Ali now operate primarily in America, a nation where 95 per cent of citizens believe in God and church attendance is growing, not dwindling. They can jab God and his followers, but theirs is only a faint note of discord, overwhelmed by the church choir." (My emphasis)
Evidently it seems anybody who criticises religion is a secularist extremist! And yet there is no such condemnation of the death threats Ayaan Hirsi Ali received. Does this not seem backwards? Why is criticism of religion seen as such an extreme action, comparable with acts of mass murder (*2)? This is even more irritating as after having recently watched the second episode of 'A rough history of disbelief', which I thoroughly recommend, I learnt that three or four hundreds years ago, I would have been executed for 'Atheism and disbelief'. Is this not insane, that these old portents of horrific intolerance are forgotten so quick, in the rush to brand any person who has a differing opinion on religion as a bigot?
Odone then goes on about how this 'faith-bashing' is extremely damaging in Britain as belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot. Because the religious are so downtrodden that they have to scuttle around in fear of persecution. What rubbish. A case could be made for an increase discrimination against Muslims in Britain, but that is a complex issue I will no doubt address in a later post. No what this really is about is religious people like Odone not getting the respect they crave. Any differing view is just bigotry disguised in logical arguments.
Finally she states that if it wasn't for religious "persecutors" like Dawkins, the religious:
"would see no need for hard-line posturing. They would once again feel like ordinary citizens rather than a hunted species that must bare its fangs to survive."
I have no idea in what way believers are a hunted species. This is hardly Nazi Germany, where believers are made to wear their religious icons sewn into their clothes (though many choose to wear identifiers by choice). Maybe she is confusing the lessening of belief in this country to an actual attempt at extermination of belief. And the idea that without Dawkins suddenly every believer would become a religious moderate is just laughable. Where was the Afghani Dawkins to force the Taliban to "bare its fangs to survive"?
Really, the unwilling nature of religion to actually deal with criticism is beyond belief. If believers want to float their exotic ideas about how life should be run and the wills and powers of god(s), they should be prepared with some well thought out rational arguments to respond. As well as some evidence. Just labelling criticism as intolerance is asking for special treatment, which is one thing this "secularist extremist" is wholeheartedly against, for any idea.
Links:
* 1 - Original Article
* 2 - See third paragraph
Wednesday 9 May 2007
In the beginning...
Well if this is truly to be a blog about religion, and lack thereof especially, it seems prudent to explain how I fell from religion.
Within a few months of my birth I was christened into the Church of England. I still have the bible given to commemorate it. Of course I had no choice in the matter, and I still somewhat feel that my acceptance of such affairs was taken as a given. I think the main reason though, may have been to assure my grandmother I wasn't headed for Hell or Purgatory, if I happened to die too young. Being Catholic I'm sure that was a fear. Growing up until about the age of four I can't remember any overt religious presence, but then I was very young and may just have taken it as make believe.
Anyway fast forward to Primary school and I enter into a Church of England school. It was the local school, so I don't believe this was an attempt at early indoctrination, but it certainly worked that way. There were bible stories in the Year 2 reading section, all Samson and David and Goliath, but I don't think I ever read them. There were hymns sung at assemblies and visits to the local church on special occasions. But all in all I would say there was little proselytising.
However by Year 4, we began R.E. Religious Education. I thought at first this was great fun, and it was in many ways. We learnt all about Islam, Hinduism and Judaism. Its only now when I look back that I realise there was questioning of God. No mention of doubt. It was all certain.
Thus I went through the first years of my life blissfully unaware of the possibility of 'God's' non-existence. Yet all it took was the nonchalant question of whether I still believed in 'God', by my (slightly older) next door neighbour. This opened a flood gate. Suddenly there was a world without 'God', that before I had no idea could exist. What's more, I could think of to good reason to why I believed.
However this was not enough to end my faith. It took a personal tragedy to do that. Not too long after that fateful conversation, my Godmother died. It was really hard for me to understand. How could it have happened? She left behind two of her own children, and I felt such sadness for them, and just the sheer thought of losing a loved one. I shouted and cried and prayed to 'God' to bring her back. If he was there 'He' had the power, 'He' could do it. But 'He' did not. From then on I saw no good in this 'just' god. If he could let such suffering happen, then he was inhuman and I had no time for him.
Yet I still had a belief in him. But instead of the great purveyor of love, justice and peace which many Christians see in God, I saw only a crippled old man; too weak or evil to help mankind. This belief eventually faded and agnosticism took over. I neither knew nor cared, but I still had a strong dislike for Christianity, due to past experiences. But I was still searching for answers that would fit with my rational understanding of the world, and thought I had found them in Taoism. However that proved short lived, due to the endless backwards and forwards of Taoist belief.
I later stumbled upon my own form of Pantheism, though I didn't know it as that. My belief was of a god that was the universe, detached and uncaring about humanity, not sentient at all. This belief survived in one form or another up until my reading of 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. This book opened my eyes to what I had really believed in all along. My early attempts at trying to find some kind of answer in spirituality, was due to the importance and sanctity our culture gives to such ideas. He's book changed my views about how we as a society view and treat religion, and I urge you to read it. It may not convince you outright, but it may just open you to the possibility of a world without gods or superstition of any kind. And that is a view I would thoroughly recommend.
Within a few months of my birth I was christened into the Church of England. I still have the bible given to commemorate it. Of course I had no choice in the matter, and I still somewhat feel that my acceptance of such affairs was taken as a given. I think the main reason though, may have been to assure my grandmother I wasn't headed for Hell or Purgatory, if I happened to die too young. Being Catholic I'm sure that was a fear. Growing up until about the age of four I can't remember any overt religious presence, but then I was very young and may just have taken it as make believe.
Anyway fast forward to Primary school and I enter into a Church of England school. It was the local school, so I don't believe this was an attempt at early indoctrination, but it certainly worked that way. There were bible stories in the Year 2 reading section, all Samson and David and Goliath, but I don't think I ever read them. There were hymns sung at assemblies and visits to the local church on special occasions. But all in all I would say there was little proselytising.
However by Year 4, we began R.E. Religious Education. I thought at first this was great fun, and it was in many ways. We learnt all about Islam, Hinduism and Judaism. Its only now when I look back that I realise there was questioning of God. No mention of doubt. It was all certain.
Thus I went through the first years of my life blissfully unaware of the possibility of 'God's' non-existence. Yet all it took was the nonchalant question of whether I still believed in 'God', by my (slightly older) next door neighbour. This opened a flood gate. Suddenly there was a world without 'God', that before I had no idea could exist. What's more, I could think of to good reason to why I believed.
However this was not enough to end my faith. It took a personal tragedy to do that. Not too long after that fateful conversation, my Godmother died. It was really hard for me to understand. How could it have happened? She left behind two of her own children, and I felt such sadness for them, and just the sheer thought of losing a loved one. I shouted and cried and prayed to 'God' to bring her back. If he was there 'He' had the power, 'He' could do it. But 'He' did not. From then on I saw no good in this 'just' god. If he could let such suffering happen, then he was inhuman and I had no time for him.
Yet I still had a belief in him. But instead of the great purveyor of love, justice and peace which many Christians see in God, I saw only a crippled old man; too weak or evil to help mankind. This belief eventually faded and agnosticism took over. I neither knew nor cared, but I still had a strong dislike for Christianity, due to past experiences. But I was still searching for answers that would fit with my rational understanding of the world, and thought I had found them in Taoism. However that proved short lived, due to the endless backwards and forwards of Taoist belief.
I later stumbled upon my own form of Pantheism, though I didn't know it as that. My belief was of a god that was the universe, detached and uncaring about humanity, not sentient at all. This belief survived in one form or another up until my reading of 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. This book opened my eyes to what I had really believed in all along. My early attempts at trying to find some kind of answer in spirituality, was due to the importance and sanctity our culture gives to such ideas. He's book changed my views about how we as a society view and treat religion, and I urge you to read it. It may not convince you outright, but it may just open you to the possibility of a world without gods or superstition of any kind. And that is a view I would thoroughly recommend.
Sunday 6 May 2007
Coming soon... A change of direction
As you can see its been over two months since I last posted, well anything, here on The Bad News Bible. Originally this blog was started as my comedic take on world affairs. Sadly it wasn't very funny. And I lost interest. But now I'm back (hopefully), with a new ax (or several) to grind. It is now religion. I have certain views about religion, which having moaned about ad nauseum to my family and friends, I have decided to spare their collective minds, and moan out loud to the internet. Well its not like anyone will read it anyway. Plus the title of my blog is almost prophetic.
So anyway, as soon as I find time in my busy schedule I will begin my full on rants. Fun. Hopefully there will still be my 'comedic' takes on all things current, but that remains to be seen.
So anyway, as soon as I find time in my busy schedule I will begin my full on rants. Fun. Hopefully there will still be my 'comedic' takes on all things current, but that remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)