Monday, 4 April 2011

A Secular Bible — and barely disguised disdain

The Today Programme this morning featured a discussion between "famous atheist" A. C. Grayling and Thought for the Day regular the Rev Canon Dr Giles Fraser. Grayling was on to plug his latest book, The Good Book: A Secular Bible — characterized as an atheist version of the Christian Bible. He's an accomplished philosopher with a knack for plain speaking without rancour, and so this is one I'll be checking out.

Giles Fraser — he of woolly theology — was apparently on as "balance". Despite his remarkable claim that very few Christians hold to the idea that belief in God is a necessary precondition for morality1, he could not restrain the typical disdain theists reserve for anyone of a godless persuasion who dares to imagine that a fully engaged life can be lived in the absence of a god. It was all jolly banter in the studio, but with a noticeably condescending subtext.

I doubt, however, that any of this will have put off Grayling from his book-promotion — nor should it. Compared to him, Fraser comes across as an intellectual midget whose jovial ripostes may make for a mildly entertaining end to the BBC's flagship morning news radio programme, but beyond that they are of little consequence.

Incidentally the Guardian has an extensive interview with A. C. Grayling that may serve as an antidote to the foregoing Fraser-frustration:
AC Grayling: 'How can you be a militant atheist? It's like sleeping furiously' | Books | The Guardian


1. So few Christians hold to this belief, and yet atheists debating theists encounter it all the time.

Sunday, 3 April 2011

Burnee links for Sunday

Religion scrapped from school admissions - East Hampshire - The News
"Religion is currently the third priority for accepting children in oversubscribed schools."
I'm amazed that this is the current situation for state schools, but pleased that it's being scrapped.
(Via @cherryblack)

BHA gives evidence to Commission on Assisted Dying
A summary of Andrew Copson's evidence to the Commission. It seems profoundly odd that the BHA has to spell this stuff out. To me, it's the obvious, moral standpoint.

Edge: THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2011
This looks like a good idea, but there's a lot to get through (specifically, 115,000 words).

Matthew Adams - Space for laughs | New Humanist
A piece about Helen Keen's Radio 4 show, It Is Rocket Science! (now finished). It was a good show, about an hour long in total (in four weekly parts). Based on her stand-up routine, which incidentally she performed on very short notice at Manchester's QED in February, including shadow-puppets. Weird but wonderful.

New Humanist (Rationalist Association) - Scientology to be taught in Religious Education lessons
Whatever next, for FSM's sake? Pastafarianism? (Actually, that's not a bad idea....)

Saturday, 2 April 2011

Everything and Nothing — Professor Jim Al-Khalili

We've had Professor Brian Cox's latest wondrous TV series ogling different aspects of the universe — and very splendid it was too. But I'd like to recommend a shorter and perhaps more focussed series recently broadcast on BBC Four. This was Professor Jim Al-Khalili's two-parter Everything and Nothing.
Two-part documentary which deals with two of the deepest questions there are - what is everything, and what is nothing?

In two epic, surreal and mind-expanding films, Professor Jim Al-Khalili searches for an answer to these questions as he explores the true size and shape of the universe and delves into the amazing science behind apparent nothingness.

The first part, Everything, sees Professor Al-Khalili set out to discover what the universe might actually look like. The journey takes him from the distant past to the boundaries of the known universe. Along the way he charts the remarkable stories of the men and women who discovered the truth about the cosmos and investigates how our understanding of space has been shaped by both mathematics and astronomy.

The second part, Nothing, explores science at the very limits of human perception, where we now understand the deepest mysteries of the universe lie. Jim sets out to answer one very simple question - what is nothing? His journey ends with perhaps the most profound insight about reality that humanity has ever made. Everything came from nothing. The quantum world of the super-small shaped the vast universe we inhabit today, and Jim can prove it.
Available on iPlayer for a limited time:

Everything:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yb59m/Everything_and_Nothing_Everything/

Nothing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zwndy/Everything_and_Nothing_Nothing/

For those beyond the reach of iPlayer, both programmes are available on YouTube (but expect them to be pulled soon):

Everything — Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psHPx4YezdE

Everything — Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQEHOuokWV8
Everything — Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4biSl7Fu04
Everything — Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDGxRrSkdNU

Nothing — Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiIaJ0hacwc

Nothing — Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45-XOBzoO-Y
Nothing — Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiWpb_v26dc
Nothing — Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWPzhQFL17w

In the words of Sir Arthur Eddington, "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

Friday, 1 April 2011

Apologists' own-goal in Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God

Chapter 9 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God is "The Pale Blue Dot Revisited" by Jay W. Richards & Guillermo Gonzalez; it appears to be an indictment of a modern — apparently revisionist — view of Copernicanism. Richards and Gonzalez quote Carl Sagan's famous musings on the scale of the universe and our place in it:
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark.
Those of a religious bent generally don't like such nihilistic stuff. How dare anyone suggest that humanity is unimportant in the grand scheme of things? Recently we had Brendan O'Neill in the Telegraph making exactly this point. But Richards & Gonzales are making a different point, that Copernicus did not overturn an essentially geocentric view of the universe. They are claiming that Ptolemy's view was that the Earth is at the bottom of the universe (where — I imagine — all the rubbish tends to collect), and that therefore Copernicus was not such an iconoclast after all.

One might well ask, so what? This is in the section titled The Question of Science, but nowhere do the authors make a case, propose an argument or provide evidence for the existence of God. Strangely, it seems that Richards & Gonzales are claiming that Copernicus didn't originate the view that humanity is insignificant in the cosmic vastness — humanity has always been so. Maybe they're right — but if so, that's evidence against God.


4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952951

Thursday, 31 March 2011

Burnee links for Thursday

Ray Comfort is gonna die : Pharyngula
P. Z. Myers reports on a near-death experience.

Gingrich fears 'atheist country … dominated by radical Islamists' – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
Hours after declaring Sunday that he expects to be running for president within a month, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he's worried the United States could be “a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists,” in the foreseeable future, according to Politico.
Radical Islamists — who are secular atheists? Obviously this is nonsense, but it shows how muddled some people can become when they equate "secular" and "atheist" with "sin" and "evil".

I’m a new atheist
Nullifidian takes possession of a term.

The 21st Floor » Blog Archive » Rock Stars: Woo Magnets?
I'd like to know whether the proportion of woo peddlers in Rock is any different from that in the general population.

BigAl's Books and Pals: The Greek Seaman / Jacqueline Howett
Lesson for the author: when you're in a hole, stop digging! (Actually I think she did, but not before she'd alienated everyone else in the comments.)

Bad Comments Round #2: Jacqueline Howett, Responding to Criticisms, and the (Usual) Dangers of Positive Thinking « The Indelible Stamp
More insight on the crash-and-burn author who threw her career into a black hole over an entirely reasonable but moderately unfavourable book-review.

Flying robots play ping-pong: war with the machines is one step closer – Telegraph Blogs

Very impressive, but can they juggle?

NeuroLogica Blog » Video Evidence
Steve Novella debunks.

New Humanist (Rationalist Association) - Blackburn schools to teach humanism in RE
Paul Sims' article describes welcome developments but it seems there's still much confusion as well as blatant ignorance and bigotry when it comes to the religious perception of humanism.

Latin-Spani-Croco-Duck
Surly Amy expounds on comfortable creationism.

The 21st Floor » Blog Archive » Be Skeptical – Lessons From Linguistics
Some interesting insights about the structure of language and the scientific method.

The Biggest Lie in British Politics « sturdyblog
Support for Johann Hari's recent article on why cuts will kill the economy.
(This one: The biggest lie in British politics : Johann Hari)

Wednesday, 30 March 2011

Marcus chown at TAM London 2010

Into the second day of TAM London with Marcus Chown and his Ten Bonkers Things About The Universe:

DSC_1898w_MarcusChown


DSC_1899w_MarcusChown


DSC_1901w_MarcusChown


DSC_1902w_MarcusChown


Among these bonkers things were the fact that the entire human race would fit in the volume of a sugar cube; if the sun were made of bananas it would be equally hot; 98% of the universe is invisible; and you age more slowly on the ground floor of a building than on the top floor.

Marcus went through his ten items at some speed, perhaps mindful of the necessity of engaging his audience on a Sunday morning after a possibly late night, and he therefore didn't go into much detail. Probably he could have done a complete presentation on each item. He paced the stage rather than standing at the lectern, and his slides were varied — though naturally had a cosmological emphasis. He book-ended his talk with audio-visuals that included music from Elton John and David Bowie. This was a good start to the second day.

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

The Comfort zone of a fundagelical Christian

Well, it happened. Ray Comfort was on the Atheist Experience last Sunday. I listened to the podcast, and it was one of the fastest hours I can remember.



I didn't know what to expect, although I thought it likely, given the professionalism of the Atheist Experience hosts, that it would be a civilized affair. Ray is a decent chap, that's clear, though plainly misguided and lacking intellectual rigour when it comes to matters of science — especially biology. At one point he started in with his argument about male and female evolving separately; that he still proposes this as a refutation of evolution demonstrates that he has minimal grasp of what the theory of evolution actually states, and that he's willfully ignoring patient explanations offered to him in the past (P. Z. Myers', for example).

One problem the Axp has with a discussion like this, is that an hour is nowhere near long enough to address all the various nonsense that Ray continues to come out with over the years. Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser did a good job, but the show could easily have been three times as long and just as packed.

If I have reservations, these would be about the wider effect of a match like this. Though it was hugely entertaining, the show let Ray appear as pleasant but deluded — not as a raving fundagelical who actively promotes a hellfire and brimstone version of Christianity that he wants everyone else to adopt. Which of these portrayals is more likely to motivate active opposition? When two members of the Rational Response Squad debated Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron the latter were shown up as creationist loons. When Ray Comfort and Thunderf00t took part in a video-recorded discussion, Ray came over as sincere but disastrously wrong. And here on the Axp he seemed to be a regular guy with some wonky ideas about evolution and nature.

Whether this show motivates opposition to Ray's wrong-headed views or not, it's necessary to challenge such views wherever and whenever they threaten to impinge on people's rights, and on that score the Axp hosts continue to be supremely competent.