Dark thoughts on The Dark Knight (repost from other blog)

Having watched Batman Begins a few days previously, and found all the tedious double-revelations of the Liam Neeson ninja character fairly underwhelming, I wasn't holding out much hope for the sequel.

The technology in The Dark Knight was impressive, up to a point. The explosions (and there were lots of them) were impressive, up to a point. The plot was okay, up to point.

That point, for all the above, was reached when the film could have been expected to conclude. It didn't conclude, but went on to portray technology way beyond the realm of credibility, with more and bigger explosions that resembled a random fireworks display, while the plot descended into mephistophelian obfuscation, forsaking any semblance of coherence.

And it was too long. Half an hour of plot-knotting could have been cut without adversely affecting the story - other than to make it marginally clearer.

The film's one redeeming feature was Heath Ledger's career-defining performance as the Joker: manic, psychotic, remorseless - a truly terrifying villain.

Numerology is not helpful

What does the BBC think it's playing at?

In this audio clip* from Friday's Today Programme we have two minutes of arrant nonsense about the significance of the number eight to the Chinese. Sonia Ducie, a numerologist, explains that letters too can be reduced to numbers, and that the word China reduces to the number eight. Is that the English word for the country, or is it the Chinese word? She didn't say. Nor did she say whether she herself actually believes this stuff is real, though she did mention superstition at least twice.

Does the fact that the Olympics were scheduled to start at the 8th minute past the 8th hour of the 8th month of the 8th year of the century actually mean that the Chinese take this stuff seriously? Or is it just a promotional gimmick? (China's record on this sort of thing isn't encouraging. They may have given us feng shui, but taking interior design advice from a country that insists on building houses on flood plains is not a good idea.)

Numerology can be a fun party game, but is it significant in the modern (or any) world?

No. And the BBC should have said so. There's enough woo-woo around as it is, without the BBC tacitly supporting nonsense like this.

*If the embedded player above doesn't work, an mp3 of the clip can be downloaded from RapidShare here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/215453790/Today_SoniaDucie_BBCR4i-20080808.mp3

The truth about Islam?

From the Radio Times website:

The Qur'an

Monday 14 July
8:00pm - 10:00pm
Channel 4

Too many Westerners criticise Islam while lacking a basic knowledge of it; this long (two hours) but rewarding primer is full of revelations. It reports what the Qur'an actually says about killing to defend the faith, and about women, and explains how Sharia operates, the differences between Sunni and Shia, and the recent influence of Saudi Wahhabism. It also reminds us that the Qur'an sanctifies Mary and Jesus, and that its emphasis on intellectual enquiry put medieval Muslim scholars ahead of ours. (Not to mention architects, who are lauded daily (7.50pm C4) as part of The Seven Wonders of the Muslim World.) Sticking to analysing the text would have made the film shorter, and perhaps better: the sections on "Islamic" terrorists skate over complex conflicts, giving succour to extremists on both sides. But the discovery that the violent and the virtuous can find support in the Qur'an is central to a portrait of a religion that, like so many others, is built on an arcane, equivocal text.

RT reviewer - Jack Seale

VIDEO Plus+: 4085

Subtitled, High definition

This appears to be part of Channel 4's current Islamic stream of TV. On the same day C4 will also give us The Seven Wonders of the Muslim World and Shariah TV.

It should be interesting.

Women bishops have a problem with reality

On the Today programme this morning:

Thirteen hundred clergy, including several bishops, have written to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in protest at the prospect of women being made bishops. Canon Beaumont Brandie, from the group Forward in Faith which opposes women priests, says this as a warning shot to the Church that they must do something to respect their views.

Listen to the streaming audio here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7483000/7483108.stm



The problem with the appointment of women bishops, apparently, is that according to a certain faction within the Anglican Church, they might not be "real" bishops, and consequently any male priests they ordain would not be "real" priests. And therefore any Communion Services these priests conduct would not be "genuine."

I'm sorry, I couldn't help laughing.

Is DNA proof of intelligent design?

"Everything we know about coded information leads us to believe that it requires a designer. DNA is coded information, therefore DNA requires a designer."

I've heard statements similar to the above put forward as scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. Rephrased as a formal syllogism it becomes:

Coded information requires a designer; DNA is coded information; therefore DNA requires a designer.

But the first premise only tells part of the story. Coded information has been produced in vast quantities, by humans. Every instance of coded information, other than DNA, has been produced by humans. Are we to infer that the information in DNA was produced by humans?

The problem with the argument as initially phrased is that everything we know about coded information is probably not everything there is to know about it. Until Darwin, the same logic was used to show that the complexity of life requires a designer. It doesn't. There may well be something fundamentally simple and elegant - the equivalent of Darwinian natural selection - that will explain how coded information can arise naturally. Just because we don't yet know what it is, doesn't make positing a designer (intelligent or otherwise) at all valid.

'Homeopathy works!' - Mail Online

Homeopathy really does work and doctors should recognise its healing effects, say researchers.

This is from the Mail Online website. I don't know if it's also in the printed version (I try to avoid the Mail if at all possible). But the title above, including the quotation marks, is the title used on the site. So maybe this is a sceptical report after all - who can tell? Is this an example of the Mail just presenting the facts, with no imposed spin?

A study found that allergy sufferers who were given homeopathic treatment were ten times more likely to be cured than those given a dummy pill instead.

What kind of study?

The study was carried out by doctors in Glasgow, led by Dr David Reilly of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital, one of five specialist hospitals in Britain. He said the difference in results from the two treatments was statistically significant.

Ah. Well he would say that, wouldn't he, being "of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital"?

Or perhaps I'm being unfair. Perhaps this was a double-blinded, randomised clinical trial. The phrase "clinical trials" is actually attributed to Dr Reilly later in the report, so I posted a comment* on the article, suggesting that we might like to see references to his study, so that it can be checked out, and perhaps reveal homeopathy to be the wonderfully efficacious evidence-based medicine it has hitherto failed to be considered as.

Or not.

*UPDATE 2008-07-01:

Well, I tried to post a comment. It didn't appear, and I can't believe I was the only one who tried. Despite the invitation to share your thoughts, it seems the Mail doesn't want any feedback on this article**.

**UPDATE 2008-08-01:

It has come to my attention that this is an old article from 2003. Unfortunately Mail Online gives no indication of this on its website, but it presumably explains why comments are not being accepted.

The Atheist Thirteen

Taking up Nullifidian's challenge:

(If you’d like to take part, copy these questions, and answer them in your own words on your own blog.)

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

Atheism is not believing in god(s). Strictly speaking, a-theism is not believing in a theistic god, so one could perhaps be an atheist and a deist at the same time. Whatever, atheism is not a religion. Nor is it, strictly, the active denial of the existence of gods.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Anglican. C of E. I went to a Methodist Sunday School.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

Antiscience.

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Computer technology. This is science that has direct and immediate impact on a huge number of people, in so many different ways.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

If only atheists could agree with each other, some momentum for social change could be built up. But that's a forlorn hope - atheists tend to be independent and freethinking. They arrive at their views by their own considered thinking process, so it's hardly surprising there's no agreed script. The religious have dogma, so they don't need to think about these things....

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

Surprise. Because, for a start, I don't have any children.

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

The teleological argument: that without God, the universe has no meaning or purpose. Guess what? The universe has no meaning or purpose.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

That religious moderates aren't really religious? I don't understand how anyone can be considered truly religious without being devoutly religious. And it's a short step from devout to fundamentalist - that's why I think religion should be stamped out.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Horses (horsemen) for courses: Dawkins for his careful consideration and precise expression; Dennett for his gentle, rational deconstruction of religion; Hitchens for his rapier intellect in a scrap; and Harris for his sublime mastery of language.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Pope Benny. There are lots of cranky religions out there, but the Roman Catholics have global reach, and their loony superstitions bear down with an alarming weight of numbers.

Now name three other atheist blogs that you’d like to see take up the Atheist Thirteen gauntlet:

1. Pharyngula
2. onegoodmove
3. Julia Sweeney

Hurry up now - there's not much of Friday the Thirteenth left!