As part of Antony Gormley's living art "One & Other" on the empty fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, lots of people are getting their chance to become a piece of artwork for 60 minutes. One such is Andrew West, a "plinther" who used his hour on Sunday afternoon to teach onlookers the dance moves to Michael Jackson's "Thriller", while displaying the BHA's atheist bus advertisement. If you watch the video (click on the image above) you'll see that Ariane Sherine, creator of the Atheist Bus Campaign, is amongst those on the ground learning the dance.
Seems like a good time was had by all. You can see what's going on right now by watching the live feed.
In much of the mainstream media coverage of Camp Quest UK one can detect barely concealed false puzzlement, if not actual contempt, expressed with the merest hint of a sneer: "Why on earth would you want to send your kids to an atheist summer camp?" - as if the very idea of a summer camp with some kind of agenda is totally new and distinctly weird.
This knee-jerk reaction is symptomatic of the blind-spot in media treatment of religious issues - like the water in which fish swim, religion is everywhere, so people don't perceive it as anything special (when in fact much of religion is profoundly disturbing). As for summer camps, Christians wouldn't dream of setting up anything remotely similar, expressly to inculcate children with religious beliefs, would they?
We know, of course, that this is exactly what they do. Case in point, click the link below to hear a four-minute audio clip from this morning's Today Programme on BBC Radio 4, about Christian Skaters:
Such blatant indoctrination is endemic in the US. As a further example I commend to you the documentary film Jesus Camp, though it's advisable not to have any heavy objects within reach - unless you were already planning to buy a new TV.
Camp Quest UK has received plenty of media coverage, thanks to Samantha Stein (camp director) and Crispian Jago (whose children attended the camp this year), and despite media hostility the public support - as indicated by the majority of comments on one particularly egregious online article - seems to be favourable. All such efforts to provide secular and freethought alternatives - devoid of the taint of religious faith - need to be publicised to the maximum extent, simply to let people know that alternatives exist, and that their choices, contrary to what they might have believed, are not limited only to faith-based options.
Dan Barker's Godless is part autobiography and part atheist polemic. It charts his gradual transition from fundamentalist evangelical Christian minister to co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). Barker's style is relaxed and honest, presenting what appears to be a realistic picture of what it was like to be a bible-literalist who sincerely believed that anyone unsaved is destined for eternal damnation in a lake of fire.
Some of us without faith wonder how such belief is possible. In Godless Dan Barker explains how one such believer – himself – came to doubt, and eventually to lose his faith. He tells us how he was initially ostracised by his family, and how the members of his religious community refused to believe his unbelief, convinced that he would soon return to the fold. He tells how those of faith who eventually accepted that he could not in all honesty continue to believe, maintained that he surely could not have been a "true Christian" because no true Christians would ever renounce their faith the way he did.
Being an evangelical Christian – who made it his business to preach the gospel to anyone who would listen – has inevitably led Barker to be something of an evangelical atheist, and he has found his natural niche in the FFRF. And so we have the other half of Godless, devoted to countering the arguments of Christian apologists. Barker has most of those arguments and counter-arguments at his fingertips (and where he didn't, he took advice from experts, be they physicists or philosophers). He's good on the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments, but less so on the matter of God's omniscience, where his refutations struck me as lightweight (but the omni-whatever arguments are pretty lightweight in themselves, if not actually nonsensical, so I'll happily cut him some slack there).
Where he excels is in Bible study. Here is a man who knows the Bible back to front, upside down and sideways, in its various translations and in its original Greek and Hebrew. I've often heard criticisms of the Bible's more dubious and unsavoury passages dismissed by apologists as errors in translation and interpretation. Barker slaughters these arguments with thorough textual analysis and scholarship, quoting chapter and verse at length.
Godless is an easy read, despite the depth that Barker necessarily has to plummet plumb* in exploration of his subject. He maintains a light literary style by keeping it personal, with plenty of amusing and enlightening anecdotes together with understated wry comedy. Anyone who has heard him on Freethought Radio (the weekly radio show and podcast he presents with his wife and FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor) will gain extra insight into the mind of someone who has thought long and hard about his subject – and then radically reversed his outlook.
Congress, on Monday July 13, 2009, passed what’s been nicknamed the “Critique Bill.” It’s currently before President Obama, and there is no indication that he will veto the controversial bill. The bill, officially titled the “Artistic Expression Protection Act,” would make it illegal to criticize works of art…
That's pretty scary, but it gets worse:
Prime Minister Gordon Brown of England, on the other hand, expressed dismay that the bill was not inclusive enough to be effective. “Generations from now,” he said, “they will look back upon this day not as a positive precedent, but, instead, as an embarrassment. Imagine having to pass a new law each and every time one can imagine a particular person’s point of view could be offended. That’s incredibly inefficient and a waste of resources, and England would have no such thing.”
When asked what he meant by that, the Prime Minister shrugged and responded, “Our government will be foregoing the tedium and needling of individual, overly-specific instances of offense, and will be, instead, covering all potential offenses with a blanket law protecting everyone’s right not to be offended, not just artists.”3 His statement substantiated recent rumors that Britain was on the verge of passing yet another set of surveillance-style laws meant to protect its citizens from themselves.
Ray Comfort doesn't understand evolution - this is clear from his failure to engage in the basic concepts. He says he doesn't believe evolution is true (elsewhere he repeatedly describes it as "a fairy tale for grownups"), but if he doesn't understand it he's attacking a straw man - whatever he thinks evolution is, rather than what it actually is.
Given what he's said (and published), this isn't surprising, but it raises an interesting parallel with his own reasons for believing in God. During his discussion with Thunderf00t he mentioned that there was much in the Bible that he didn't understand until he accepted Jesus Christ into his heart as his personal Saviour. Relative to this he's previously stated that the evidence for the existence of God is available to everyone - all they need to do is do as he did: open their hearts to the Lord.
Atheists who have honestly tried this route, without the promised revelation, are told they're obviously doing it wrong. This is a self-fulfilling/defeating prophecy - just like the mediaeval dunking stool used to test witches. Any suspected witch who uses her craft to survive the test is proven guilty and shall not be suffered to live. If she drowns she was clearly innocent - no powers, no witch, and she will be set free to live her life in peace, unmolested. Unfortunately she's already dead.
With most atheists the "you're doing it wrong!" excuse understandably won't wash - it's a "heads I win/tails you lose" kind of reasoning.
Ray's argument in this part of the discussion also seemed equivalent (though with less sophistication) to the reasons given by theologians who object to Richard Dawkins' refutation of "simplistic" theism. A theologian will claim (with suitable snootiness) that the religion Dawkins attacks is "not my religion", and will then expound on some abstruse and intensely personal - but most importantly incomprehensible - faith (usually with profligate redefinition of terms), to the extent that the only other person who could share it is God. PZ Myers satirised this style of theology in his Courtier's Reply.
One could argue, however, that atheistic objections to theology are similar to creationists' simplistic objections to evolution. We complain that the likes of Ray Comfort have no real grasp of the principles of evolution, though they decry it as fictional. Conversely, many a theologian has complained that Richard Dawkins has no real grasp of theology, while at the same time he decries the subject as vacuous.
Of course, there is a crucial difference between the two disciplines. Evolution (by random genetic mutation and natural selection) is documented science that makes predictions (such as what we should expect to find in the fossil record) and so far its principles have not been disproved. In fact, each new discovery whether in genetics, paleontology or any other evolution-related field, has further confirmed evolutionary theory, to the extent that it is as near to a scientific fact as the theory of gravity. Theology, on the other hand, appears to be entirely made up. Theologians of a particular creed may agree on a core set of theological principles, but these result from consensus only, and cannot be falsified. This would be all fine and dandy for literary criticism, but for telling us anything at all about the real world, or the people in it, it's useless.
I popped down to my local Maplin Electronics store today. I needed a few odds and ends in the electronics line, and found them quickly, but as I usually do I allowed time to browse around the store for anything particularly interesting. I did find a Freeview PVR that apparently records to external USB drives, which I thought was neat, though expensive at about £50 (considering it comes without storage). But that's by the by.
While browsing I noticed something on display called an "eye massager". I didn't pay it much attention, though I did wonder if it physically touched your eyes in some way, or simply showed you some soothing pictures. Then I forgot about it.
I don't go to the Maplin shop very often, so I picked up a copy of their Spring/Summer 2009 catalogue as it usually contains lots of useful info on all kinds of electronics-related stuff. Back home I continued my browsing, but this time in more detailed, printed form. And what did I find on page 529, in the Health section of the catalogue?
The Eye Massager is also on the Maplin website, and I reproduce the entry for this device below:
Product Features
Ideal for users of computers, long distance drivers, equipment operators and students and office users alike
Helps ease tired eyes, including swollen, sore, dry and over-sensitive eyes
Aids sleep by relaxing the brain and the eyes to induce a state of deep relaxation
Music therapy by listening to the soothing sounds of nature
Improves poor circulation around the eyes
Various operation states, including anti-clockwise/clockwise movement, gentle, intermediate and strong effect and wave effect
Timer function allows you to set the required workout time
Intensity adjustment adjusts the vibration
Eye strain is common with people who use a computer for long periods of time, when reading, long-distance drivers and when concentrating, which can lead to headaches or even migraines. It makes you feels tired, lethargic and reduces concentration.
Using this eye massager regularly can ease the problems above, making your eyes feel rejuvinated and ready for the hours ahead.
Now, here’s the science behind it all. Magnetic field, in the form of physical energy, when applied on special acupuncture points, can activate the function of the cell, enlarge the blood capillary and raise the level of oxygen supply, improving the nutrition state of tissues of cells, and balance the self-disciplined nerves.
Applying the above theory, and combining the curing theory of channel acupuncture in traditional Chinese medicine, this product uses both the magnetic acupuncture and mechanical acupuncture to activate the important acupuncture points around the eyes and harmonise the blood, thus improving the adjustment functions of the eye muscles and the eye nerves.
The state of relaxtion is further enhanced through musical therapy as you listen to the soothing sounds of nature for a complete stimulating sensation.
Powered by 2 x AA batteries, supplied
Bulk Prices Quantity Price including VAT : 1£17.99 10£15.83
Notice the paragraph beginning, "Now, here's the science behind it all." This paragraph and the one after contain some of the most nonsensical woo-woo pseudoscience I've ever come across. It has been shown beyond any scientific doubt that acupuncture doesn't work - its effects are no more beneficial than the effects of placebo. I am not a doctor, but "self-disciplined nerves"? "Harmonise the blood"? Harmonise with what?
Maplin's website has a FAQ section in the description of their products, and someone named Mick has asked one:
Q- Will these eye massagers relieve a migraine too? - Mick
Answer- This would depend upon the type of migrane you had and the severity but yes this should work.
Pardon me for being sceptical, but isn't this a little irresponsible? There's no disclaimer on the page (web or print) regarding the medical qualifications of the person answering the question. Maybe the type of migraine that the eye massager will relieve is the type that is susceptible to placebo. But considering the popular interpretation of "migraine" is that of a severe, throbbing headache accompanied by nausea and disturbed vision, I doubt the device would have any effect at all.
Nevertheless, I'm willing to be proved completely wrong on this. If anyone has references to decent quality clinical trials, studies or surveys that show that this eye massager is anything other than electronic snake oil, please post them in the comments.
(One last point to ponder: if the device was as effective as Maplin claim, I'd expect it to cost more than £17.99.)
BBC Radio Four's Today Programme this morning had a five-minute segment on what has become known as the "moon hoax". There are some people who don't believe that NASA sent men to the moon; they maintain that it was all a hoax, a massive special effect set on a sound stage somewhere.
"On the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, Marcus Allen, the British publisher of Nexus - a magazine which deals with the paranormal - and Professor Martin Ward, Head of physics at Durham University, discuss the conspiracy theories that have plagued this event."
Interesting to hear Marcus Allen, the moon-landing denier, maintain his denial about the specific things he raised (the excellent quality of the photographs taken by the astronauts in extremes of temperature, and the fact that their film wasn't fogged by radiation). Even after Martin Ward debunked those two "anomalies" with obvious ease, Allen stated, "You can dismiss the radiation, you can dismiss the temperature - these things still exist. Photographic film is affected by radiation."
At the beginning of this segment Allen said he hadn't seen the evidence for the moon-landings. Prof. Ward, in response to his specific points, presented the evidence, but the moon-landing denier refused to hear it.
Paul S. Jenkins, writer, podcaster and tech-enthusiast (and atheist and skeptic) lives and works in Hampshire, UK. Notes from an Evil Burnee is his blog about things skeptical.
Posts
