One justice away...

This is really scary.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2829599695690924108


Edward Tabash gave this speech to members of the Center For Inquiry during a recent cruise in the Galapagos.

(via RichardDawkins.net)

Here's the Q&A session:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4191917977194347234


I hadn't realised that the separation of church and state in America was so precarious. If the US becomes a theocracy in just a matter of months, what hope do we have of avoiding global holy war?

The four ages of sand and the alpha male monkey

Jason Rennie of The Sci Phi Show podcast recently posted a recording of an off-the-cuff talk given by Douglas Adams at the Digital Biota 2 conference in 1998. The talk was called "Is there an Artificial God?" and you can find it, along with Jason's introduction, here. The audio is a little hard to hear, but Jason also linked to Biota's transcription of Adams' talk.

Using his "four ages of sand" structure Adams explored how the first notions of a supreme being might have arisen as part of human evolution, and how an artificial god might not be such a bad idea. Well worth a listen/read for his typically skewed but insightful take on such things.

Not content with alerting us to this gem, however, Jason went on to devote two subsequent episodes of The Sci Phi Show to a discussion of Adams' talk with Matt Arnold (who recently co-hosted Jason's podcast) and linked to Matt's explanation of the Alpha Male Monkey concept, which they discussed in the show.

Engaging stuff -- I recommend it.

Repost: Patrick McLean's The Seanachai: "Blame Abraham"

Here's another repost from my other blog, this one from August 2006.

Reposted from: http://witteringon.blogspot.com/2006/08/patrick-mcleans-seanachai-blame.html

I've been a fan of The Seanachai for quite some time. Patrick McLean's short podcasts are little gems of mastery -- beautifully written, expertly delivered and flawlessly produced. Mostly he does serialized fiction; I particularly enjoyed his story about the man who shot his guitar.

But occasionally Patrick does a one-off commentary, and his latest, "Blame Abraham" cuts right through all the nonsense, spin and partisan hype surrounding the current Middle-Eastern crisis.

Listen to it. And then share it.
.

Let them down gently

James Randi's latest Swift commentary has this piece about Street Light Interference:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-06/060807.html#i1

It reminded me of something I read recently while browsing the JREF forums, concerning an applicant for the million dollar challenge:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50014

Marcus Tisdale, a 19-year-old student, applied for the challenge in January 2006, claiming that he could control street lights "by paranormal or otherwise unknown circumstances."

What struck me about the email exchange was not the claim itself, or the conviction of the applicant that he was able to do this thing, but the sensitivity with which Kramer dealt with the application: "Perhaps the answer you seek is simpler than the one you have imagined."

Occam's Razor, yet again.

Potter's witchcraft - a threat after all?

I used to think that the Christian outcry against Harry Potter was just plain silly. I've said as much online. More recently though, I've come to the conclusion that Christians are right to be concerned. J K Rowling's blockbuster series could indeed be a serious threat to religious belief. Children who read about Harry's exploits may eventually come to realise that the events depicted have about as much basis in fact as those in certain other books they are being asked to take seriously.

So perhaps the religious uprising against Harry Potter should be welcomed. At least it should prompt people to think about what they are being told to believe.

My own prompting for this post was this article at Guardian Unlimited:

"Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter"

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2098322,00.html
(via RichardDawkins.net)

Carl Sagan: Pale Blue Dot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Carl Sagan reads from his book Pale Blue Dot

Church to impose 'rule book' of beliefs

This from the Sunday Telegraph (2007JUN03):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/03/nchurch03.xml

The bishops' paper warns that in order to preserve the unity of the Church, those who do not conform to a more prescriptive statement of faith will be "forced out".

I appreciate that this is probably the Telegraph's journalistic interpretation, but it still left me wondering about the logic of trying to counter disunity by ... enforcing disunity.

And anyway, doesn't the Church of England already have a 'rule book'? (I think King James had something to do with it....)

The Bill O'Reilly Delusion

A few seconds into this clip I couldn't believe my ears. The interview with Richard Dawkins that O'Reilly refers to is the one I linked to here.


Direct link to YouTube video:
http://youtu.be/GY6pKsBR8UQ

No, Bill, you didn't 'beat' Dawkins, and if you honestly think you did then you weren't listening to what he said.

Scotland on the way to theocracy?

BBC Radio 4 Today (Thursday, May 31):

"The head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Patrick O'Brien, will today warn Catholic politicians they can't remain full members of the church if they support abortion. We speak to the Bishop of Paisley."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_20070531.ram
Piece starts 18'18" into the clip (duration approx 4'10")


Download RealPlayer here

We don't have separation of Church and State here in Britain, so I suppose this kind of thing is to be expected.

Creation Museum

BBC Radio 4 Today (Thursday, May 31):

"If you want to see a reconstruction of Noah's Ark - complete with boarding dinosaurs - then head to the American state of Kentucky to a newly-opened museum devoted to creationism, the belief in the literal truth of the biblical account of how life came to exist."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today2_20070531.ram
Piece starts 18'52" into the clip (duration approx 4'32")


Download RealPlayer here

It couldn't happen here in Britain . . . could it?

Redefining meaning?

There's an argument that says that without God, life has no meaning. Some of us actually embrace this as a great liberation. If life has no meaning we are free to imbue it with any meaning we wish. This, however, doesn't satisfy those whose faith demands meaning imposed from above. If you deny that life has intrinsic meaning, they say, and maintain that meaning imposed by God is a myth, inventing meaning in its place is surely equally mythical.

For me, this misunderstands the kind of thing that 'meaning' -- in this context -- is. Meaning in life is not, as some would have it, a kind of goal, or purpose, or ideal end target. To say that life has meaning does not necessarily imbue it with externally imposed direction or intention, and neither does inventing your own meaning. Life just is. What you do with it is your affair.

Meaning in life is not so much a property that it possesses, more a declaration of those who live it.

In a hypothetical conversation between three umpires about strikes in baseball, Umpire 1 says, "I call 'em as they are." Umpire 2 says, "I call 'em as I see 'em." Umpire 3 says "They ain't nothin' till I call 'em." This illustrates the difference between attempting to perceive something that's already there, and acknowledging that some properties don't actually exist at all. Umpire 3 is not claiming flawless perception of objective reality as Umpire 1 is, nor is he admitting imperfect perception of reality, as Umpire 2 is. Umpire 3 is saying that this particular reality doesn't exist until he says it does. That, after all, is his job.

(Incidentally I put some of this worldview speculation into my very first published short story, "The Journey of Jonathan Cave" -- initially published on line at Alien Q, subsequently read on my podcast The Rev Up Review, then re-recorded for publication in Mur Lafferty's audio anthology Voices: New Media Fiction, available for free at Podiobooks.com.)

The concept of 'meaning' in life is a bit like the concept of evolution. Saying 'survival of the fittest' is not to say that the overall grand purpose of evolution is to weed out those less fit. Evolution doesn't have a grand purpose. It just is. If it does tend to weed out those less fit to survive and reproduce in prevailing environmental conditions, this says nothing about whether it's a good or bad thing. Morality doesn't come into it. It's simply the way the mechanism of evolution works.

Your life has no meaning until you say it does. That's your job.