“Dear Google: So long, and thanks for all the phish”

Leave a reply

For a few days now, revelation after revelation has been breaking about the NSA’s secret internet snooping system, Prism, primarily via Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian.

Reactions have ranged from “It’s a misunderstanding” to “Obama should be impeached“.

My own is one of betrayal; these last few years, I’ve become something of a Google fanboy – I use most of their major online services and quite a few of their applications. I own an Android phone. I switched from using POP3 mail to Gmail. And now, I find they’ve granted free reign to the NSA to rifle through the email of unsuspecting users. It truly is Orwellian – Big Brother is watching me.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin;

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Continue reading →

The Highest Form of Respect

Leave a reply

In the ongoing tussle of competing ideas, be they on the axes of conservative/liberal, theist/atheist, secular/theocratic, capitalist/socialist, the word respect, or commentary on the pronounced lack of it, is bandied about a lot in this internet age.

I’ve not minced my words on this blog – an oft-used quote, attributed to Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her biography of Voltaire, sums up my position.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

A frequent reflex defence of, say, Christian apologists, is that criticism of their position is an attempt to silence them. This is of course nonsense – free speech in the secular West guarantees both their right to public opinions just as it guarantees the right to criticise them. To curb the former is totalitarianism, to curb the latter is enforcement of blasphemy.

Similarly, apologists will claim a lack of respect in criticism. Sometimes this is true, but if the discussion can remain civil, I would counter that the critic is paying them the highest form of respect i.e.

I can think of no higher compliment, than to care about someone’s opinion enough to want to change it if you think it wrong.

Continue reading →

The Null Hypothesis: A rational basis for scepticism

Leave a reply

This was posted as a response to this blog, Raised by ‘Theological Conspiracy Theorists’: How I Lost my Faith, concerning a former Young Earth Creationist who lost her faith due to uncovering the absurd lies that movement makes about reality. The author betrayed signs of missing religion – understandable, given her whole life has been steeped in it. I attempted to give some advice on how to stay the course and accept her scepticism (I used the American spelling below in view of the audience). The last line was thrown in because the likelihood is the author was hanging on to faith for emotional and moral, not intellectual, reasons.

Subsequent responses are reproduced from godofevolution.com with kind permission by Tyler Francke.

 

“I’m only just starting to claw my way out of deep, angry skepticism back toward religion in general.”

Why not try calm, rational skepticism? Religion has lied to you once, and so it’s quite possible it’ll continue to lie to you.

While YEC is absurdly wrong, take a look at the truth claims even ‘mainstream’ religion makes. Cutting right to the heart of the matter, let’s examine the resurrection. Note that in science, when making a null hypothesis, we use the most likely answer, then attempt to disprove it.

Thus, in order of increasing likelihood, the resurrection was:

1) Jesus rising from the dead by divine intervention,

2) Jesus arising from the dead due to being an alien, or use of alien technology,

3) Someone made it all up, because no religious figure worth his salt in those days didn’t have a resurrection myth e.g. Osiris, Mithras etc.

Dispassionately examine the evidence for this and then decide which is the most likely answer.

It’s perfectly possible to live a fulfilled, moral and loving life without a trace of religious observance. We are a moral species, it comes from within.

Continue reading →

The Good Wife: Atheism on American TV

Leave a reply

I’m a fan of The Good Wife, an American legal procedural drama that delves into law and politics in Illinois. I was catching up with the latest series showing in the UK (a few months behind the USA) and the lead character, Alicia Florrick, played by the lovely Juliana Margulies (most famously known for her ER role) finally ‘came out’ as an atheist, when her husband’s political team tried to score points by exposing an opponent as the same.

I had a look around on the internet, and sure enough, there was quite a reaction in USA to this apparent non-event. I found this article, So much for St. Alicia: The Good Wife and Atheism, on a religiously focused website – the article itself is balanced, however the comments below it were not. I responded as follows, though I repost it here should it not make it through moderation.

Continue reading →

Death, loss and unbelief in the afterlife

1 Reply

Death. It’s awfully final, isn’t it?

It’s something that those with belief grapple with, but take solace in their promise of an afterlife. However, it seems to be a problem for some unbelievers. For example, in a debate hosted by Cambridge Student Union, the motion “Religion has no place in the 21st Century” was defeated on the strength of the contribution of Douglas Murray, an atheist, with arguments he restated in The Spectator:

“We do not have many vessels for truth-carrying in our age. While of course not being an organised body of thought, atheism might one day speak to all those things religion once answered. But at present its voice is faint. It is faint on human suffering and tragedy. And although it does not have nothing to say, it barely speaks about death. It has little if not nothing to say about human forgiveness, remorse, regret or reconciliation.These are not small ellipses. Until atheism can speak into these voids, desiring to ban religion entirely seems a push not only to deprive individuals of a consolation at which Professor Dawkins scoffs — though he would do better to address it — but also to strip many discussions of profound dimensions.”

I was enraged by this because this is not the domain of atheism; atheism concerns belief in deities, and nothing else. It is not a religion, philosophy or belief system, only a conclusion, so to represent it as a direct replacement of religion is a gross mistake. Questions about death, loss and grief are more the domain of secular humanism, the most common philosophical position adopted by Western atheists, and indeed Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association would have had much to say on this, had he not spoken first. (Edit: Andrew pointed me towards a response he wrote afterwards.) Continue reading →

Northern Ireland no longer painted in black and white

Leave a reply

This comment was originally posted in response to a critical letter in the Belfast Newsletter of the Belfast peace rally held on 16th December 2012, which I attended, by an apologist for the #fleg protests that plagued Northern Ireland at the end of 2012, and at the time of writing, have resumed in 2013.

Unionist and Nationalist. Protestant and Catholic. Black and White.

As much as it suits the simple mental faculties of the letter author, N. Ireland is no longer drawn up on these petty, tribalistic lines.

The people at this event were of all faiths and none. Many are very well aware of the issues of N.Ireland, all are sick of the continuing pettiness of our politicians.

I was interviewed by a radio journalist from Berlin. I got across two points – that the yobs blocking traffic in the streets embarrassed us all, and that the economic damage of these protests will make N.Ireland’s financial plight that much more severe.

The 2011 census results show a growing sense of ‘Northern Irishness’, and the Belfast Agreement has made the union as secure as it has ever been – the chances of two referenda both favouring Irish unity is receding fast, for very sensible economic reasons. The only threat to the union is to make N.Ireland such an unappealing member of the UK that the rest of the UK cuts us loose.

A state that embarrasses the UK in the world media and costs them a fortune is a prime candidate. For that reason, these senseless protests do more to harm our place in the union than Sinn Fein ever can.

Creationist limericks #2

Leave a reply

More limericks – I’m on a bit of a roll!

With views from a previous century
creationist knowledge is quite rudimentary.
Despite our groans,
They believe the Flintstones
is a documentary.

The National Trust is a laughing stock,
in their attempt to turn back the clock,
Giving credence to nonsense,
must weight on their conscience
Yet our complaints to them come as a shock?

The Trust buckled and took the money,
But the stonewalling is no longer funny,
Noah’s Flood has no place,
In a factual space
Anymore than the Easter Bunny.

The National Trust cannot be fussed,
about the truth of the age of Earth’s crust,
Their reputation in tatters
Fact no longer matters
They’re a Trust we can no longer trust.

In the Causeway visitors’ complex
An exhibit promotes young Earth bollocks,
Many times they’ve been told,
it’s not 6,000 years old,
It’s thousands of upended Daleks?

Creationist limericks #1

Leave a reply

Here’s my first instalment of limericks to do with creationism at the Giant’s Causeway and elsewhere.

Of the Giants Causeway formation,
an audio exhibit does say,
though their minds are deluded,
some nutjobs concluded
the debate continues today….

Creationists hate good scientists,
with their adherence to reason and fact.
“They’re just showing defiance
to God with their science”
even though their own story is quite whacked.

The National Trust were so foolish,
To Caleb they did consult,
Paying lipservice to dogma,
about how molten magma
formed hexagonal pillars of basalt.

Are creationists really as stupid,
as they appear at first glance?
Ken Ham’s nonsense they swallow,
Yet of science they wallow
in a state of total ignorance.

Faith in Secular Education : How faith schools are the anti-thesis of secularism

Leave a reply

This is adapted from an argument with a Christian that secularism precluded faith schools from state sponsorship, were he defined secularism as:

“But I also say that its not the job of government to promote one form of education (non religious) over all others. The government should provide the funding for whatever kind of education parents want”

- and that’s fine as your opinion, but it is not, and never will be, secularism – it is multi-culturalism, and there’s a world of difference.

Let me illustrate the problem – let’s say the system remains were the faith of the majority is the faith of choice in schools. In 30 years time, your grandchild is attending class in the nearest school – in the interim, Christianity has dwindled to almost nothing and Islam is now the dominant religion.

In the middle of her first class, the teacher stops, indicates the time, points the direction to Mecca and directs students to take out their prayer mats, and they dutifully do…apart from your grandchild, looking lost and bewildered. She sits somewhere else while the other students complete their prayers.

Later that day, the child tells her grandad what happened, and explains how uncomfortable and isolated she felt, effectively being excluded from a class activity which came about because of your own conditions. The child indicates an interest in Islam, wanting to feel more included and involved with her classmates.

Now do you see the problem? Continue reading →

Betrayal of Trust : The National Trust promotes Young Earth Creationism

8 Replies

I’ve not been blogging much recently, as I’ve been rather busy with this – I just wanted to let you know that the campaign to remove a creationist display from the Giant’s Causeway Interpretive Centre is ongoing, and want to keep it in the public eye to shame the National Trust into removing it. A review of the current situation is available here on our group. We’d appreciate your support!

The National Trust are currently in a state of review (and some would say, denial) of the offending exhibit. Meanwhile, they have abdicated their responsibility as a public educator by allowing it to remain in place. The exhibit states “Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was created some 6000 years ago” and “This debate continues today for some people, who have an understanding of the formation of the earth which is different from that of current mainstream science”. There is no ‘mainstream’ science and ‘fringe’ science, only science and non-science (or ‘nonsense’ for short).

Not only is this a stain on the National Trust’s reputation as a public educator, but it is an embarrassment to Northern Irish citizens and most Christians (the tract states this viewpoint is Biblically derived).

Details of the offending exhibit are on our ‘About’ page, including an audio recording that amounts to an advertisement for Young Earth Creationism, the only religious view to be represented in the facility. The National Trust still seem to think our complaint extends to the historical discussions, which is not so – the history of science always has a place.

What we do not accept is that the display is appropriate, representative, or possibly legal, under terms laid down in the Belfast Agreement. We are not attacking religion either; some of our most vocal group members are Christians, putting the lie to our opponents’ argument that this is a matter of science v religion. It is not. It is a matter of reality v fantasy.

This is a full review of the matter so far – feel free to join the group and add your voice to those asking the National Trust to explain themselves:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/CausewayCampaign/280560768710266/