More first class analysis of the source of morality from QualiaSoup. I don't know how many of these there will be in total, but judging by the first two it seems likely that the complete set would be an excellent resource for schools (and politicians, for that matter).
http://youtu.be/hSS-88ShJfo
The dissection of "the Bible as moral authority" is probably the best I've come across — comprehensive, clear and succinct. (It should be required viewing for anyone holding to biblical inerrancy, but given that mindset it's unfortunately unlikely to make much impression there.)
Saturday, 30 July 2011
Friday, 29 July 2011
Corrupting the minds of children has got to stop
Schoolboy made to write 'Sorry' on piece of paper - then eat it - Parentdish
(Via Atheism UK.)
A mum has pulled her seven-year-old son out of school after he was made to write out an apology to 'repent his sins' on a piece of paper – then eat it.Don't tell me Christianity in Britain is all harmless dogoodery when this kind of stuff goes on. This isn't just indoctrination (as if that wasn't bad enough), it's opportunistic exploitation of vulnerable innocents. The culprits have placed an "apology" on their website (also as a downloadable PDF):
Horrified Celia Mullen, 46, claims her son Luis and other children were encouraged to take part in the bizarre ritual by members of an evangelical church during a visit to his class.
She says the incident has left her son so disturbed that he now refuses to sleep on his own and scrawls pictures of the Devil.
Tuesday 26th July, 2011Sorry, not good enough. What we want is an undertaking that they've stopped doing it.
Statement Re: News Story
Big Prayer Experience/Inflatable Church
Ainderby Steeple C of E Primary School
Week Commencing 13th June 2011
During this session, as part of an explanation of what Christians understand by confession and forgiveness, pupils were given the option of writing the word 'sorry' with icing on a piece of rice paper, which could then be eaten. This was intended as an illustration of the way in which God takes our sins away completely when we confess them. This exercise was one of a range of several different activities in which the children were invited to participate. We are very sorry for any upset caused, as we have no intention of upsetting anyone: we do not intimidate or force anyone to do anything.
(Via Atheism UK.)
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Burnee links for Thursday
The Rants of Cherry Black » Blog Archive » Oslo
Some people just have to be in the centre of things. Not content with an amazing month in Nepal, Trish now insists on reporting first-hand from the Oslo bomb site. Some people are never satisfied.
You are entering a Shariah controlled zone… | HumanistLife
Yikes, this is disturbing. What's the status of randomly posted notices? Is it an Advertising Standards Authority matter? Maybe some well-placed stickers "NO LEGAL JURISDICTION" wouldn't go amiss.
The Rants of Cherry Black » Blog Archive » Oslo: Part 2
More eye-witness reporting from Trish.
Thomas Monopoly (@thomasmonopoly) — "Dear Google"
A salutary warning to those who put all their eggs in one basket.
Some people just have to be in the centre of things. Not content with an amazing month in Nepal, Trish now insists on reporting first-hand from the Oslo bomb site. Some people are never satisfied.
You are entering a Shariah controlled zone… | HumanistLife
Yikes, this is disturbing. What's the status of randomly posted notices? Is it an Advertising Standards Authority matter? Maybe some well-placed stickers "NO LEGAL JURISDICTION" wouldn't go amiss.
The Rants of Cherry Black » Blog Archive » Oslo: Part 2
More eye-witness reporting from Trish.
Thomas Monopoly (@thomasmonopoly) — "Dear Google"
A salutary warning to those who put all their eggs in one basket.
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
A short rant on "explanatory power"
This was sparked off by this week's Atheist Experience TV show, in which Matt Dillahunty encapsulated in very few words why I find intelligent design wholly unsatisfactory:
This is science, this is maths, this is software development, this is education in general. This is how we find out how things work and why.
What Matt is describing in that almost throwaway line is the progressive method of explanation. When faced with something complex, which as a whole we might not understand, we tend to break it down into its component parts and seek to understand them. If these components parts are also complex, we will further break them down until we get to a level we do understand. This is a lot like maths. Higher mathematics can be complicated, but it's built up from lesser principles, all of which can be ultimately reduced to something basic and comprehensible.
Likewise engineering, technology, and indeed all of education can be seen as a series of hierarchical steps based on something lower down the tree of complexity. We explain things in terms of other things for which we already have explanations.
Intelligent design proponents don't use this method, so their claim of "explanatory power" is bogus. Trying to explain something in terms of something else that we don't understand is clearly a non-starter. It's not helpful, and it's not explanatory.
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-719-greg-paul-and-the-problem-of-evil-5408591
"...we tend to explain things in terms of things that we understand."
What Matt is describing in that almost throwaway line is the progressive method of explanation. When faced with something complex, which as a whole we might not understand, we tend to break it down into its component parts and seek to understand them. If these components parts are also complex, we will further break them down until we get to a level we do understand. This is a lot like maths. Higher mathematics can be complicated, but it's built up from lesser principles, all of which can be ultimately reduced to something basic and comprehensible.
Likewise engineering, technology, and indeed all of education can be seen as a series of hierarchical steps based on something lower down the tree of complexity. We explain things in terms of other things for which we already have explanations.
Intelligent design proponents don't use this method, so their claim of "explanatory power" is bogus. Trying to explain something in terms of something else that we don't understand is clearly a non-starter. It's not helpful, and it's not explanatory.
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-719-greg-paul-and-the-problem-of-evil-5408591
Theology isn't all hermeneutics and exegesis
Theology is such a useful subject. You can apply it to anything and nobody can contradict you. It uses strange words like "hermeneutics" and "exegesis", which allow you — if you're so inclined — to bamboozle the uninitiated. But the greatest thing about theology is that with it you can sound superficially intellectual even without the big words. All you need to do is link what you're saying back to scripture, and you will imbue your mundane rhetoric with the authority of holy writ.
But be careful not to overdo it, otherwise your fatuous ramblings could be seen for what they are, and you'll be in danger of exposure as an intellectual fraud.
Giles Fraser, Canon Chancellor of St. Paul's Cathedral, doesn't use the big words when he's on Radio Four's Thought for the Day. Three minutes isn't really enough to get down and dirty with the exegetical ramifications of a Bible verse, especially not at breakfast time. As for hermeneutics, unless they can be eaten with milk, sugar and added bran his audience probably isn't interested.
On Tuesday morning Giles took his cue from Rowan Williams and talked about debt. He laid out his relevant qualifications, just so we can be in no doubt of his authority on the subject. "I'm not an economist," he said. Nevertheless he went on to explain that America's current problems are the the same as those of Adam and Eve, and the reason Greece needs to be bailed out by the Eurozone is because of "the fall of man".
I'm not a theologian, but it seems to me that the Rev. Canon Dr. Giles Fraser has once again amply demonstrated theology's utility1 and its relevance to the modern world.
Behold — for thirty days and thirty nights — the Fraser thought here (mp3):
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thought/thought_20110727-1110a.mp3
1. I think there should be an "f" in that word somewhere.
But be careful not to overdo it, otherwise your fatuous ramblings could be seen for what they are, and you'll be in danger of exposure as an intellectual fraud.
Giles Fraser, Canon Chancellor of St. Paul's Cathedral, doesn't use the big words when he's on Radio Four's Thought for the Day. Three minutes isn't really enough to get down and dirty with the exegetical ramifications of a Bible verse, especially not at breakfast time. As for hermeneutics, unless they can be eaten with milk, sugar and added bran his audience probably isn't interested.
On Tuesday morning Giles took his cue from Rowan Williams and talked about debt. He laid out his relevant qualifications, just so we can be in no doubt of his authority on the subject. "I'm not an economist," he said. Nevertheless he went on to explain that America's current problems are the the same as those of Adam and Eve, and the reason Greece needs to be bailed out by the Eurozone is because of "the fall of man".
I'm not a theologian, but it seems to me that the Rev. Canon Dr. Giles Fraser has once again amply demonstrated theology's utility1 and its relevance to the modern world.
Behold — for thirty days and thirty nights — the Fraser thought here (mp3):
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thought/thought_20110727-1110a.mp3
1. I think there should be an "f" in that word somewhere.
Labels:
BBC Radio 4,
Giles Fraser,
Rowan Williams,
theology,
Thought For The Day
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Burnee links for Sunday
Times Higher Education - Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked Into an Intellectual Black Hole
I'm currently reading Stephen Law's new book and was directed to this unfavourable review via his blog. As Law says, it's a very weird review. The comments to the review, however, are overwhelmingly in support of the book.
Data and marriage | HumanistLife
Someone's done the work, rather than just repeating the trope, and it turns out that children of cohabiting parents are no worse off than those of legally married parents.
New Humanist (Rationalist Association) — 3 things we have learnt from the Public Administration Committee debate on faith and the Big Society
Caspar Melville links to the transcript of the debate; read it and see how we make a difference.
Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: Why I'm So Sad to See the Space Shuttle Come Home
I'm not convinced that this really is the end of an era — I'm hoping it's just a temporary hiatus. As one who grew up with (and lately rediscovered) the inspiration of science fiction, I eagerly await humanity's next foray across the unknown frontier. Let's hope it's not too long coming.
God and the Universe
It's pondering one that reveals the non-existence of the other (but not vice versa).
I'm starting to think that the Left might actually be right - Telegraph
Surprising to find the former editor who exhibited such buffoonery in his debate about "atheistic fundamentalism" (partnered with Richard Harries and against Richard Dawkins and A. C. Grayling) writing something I could mostly agree with.
Texas SBOE takes final vote, science groups laud choice to pass over Intelligent Design | The American Independent
(Via James Williams.)
On idiocy « Andy Ellington's Blog
In rational discourse it usually pays to keep a level head and a polite demeanour. One's argument, however correct, can be diminished by charges of ad hominem attack. But when you're trashing the Discovery Institute the gloves can be well and truly off, as this disingenuous coterie of obfuscators deserves all the disrespect it gets.
Why I don't believe in gods : Pharyngula
P. Z. Myers states the obvious.
I'm currently reading Stephen Law's new book and was directed to this unfavourable review via his blog. As Law says, it's a very weird review. The comments to the review, however, are overwhelmingly in support of the book.
Data and marriage | HumanistLife
Someone's done the work, rather than just repeating the trope, and it turns out that children of cohabiting parents are no worse off than those of legally married parents.
New Humanist (Rationalist Association) — 3 things we have learnt from the Public Administration Committee debate on faith and the Big Society
Caspar Melville links to the transcript of the debate; read it and see how we make a difference.
Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: Why I'm So Sad to See the Space Shuttle Come Home
I'm not convinced that this really is the end of an era — I'm hoping it's just a temporary hiatus. As one who grew up with (and lately rediscovered) the inspiration of science fiction, I eagerly await humanity's next foray across the unknown frontier. Let's hope it's not too long coming.
God and the Universe
It's pondering one that reveals the non-existence of the other (but not vice versa).
I'm starting to think that the Left might actually be right - Telegraph
Surprising to find the former editor who exhibited such buffoonery in his debate about "atheistic fundamentalism" (partnered with Richard Harries and against Richard Dawkins and A. C. Grayling) writing something I could mostly agree with.
Texas SBOE takes final vote, science groups laud choice to pass over Intelligent Design | The American Independent
"In what public interest and science organizations are declaring a “victory” for Texas education, the Board of Education voted Friday to accept new online supplemental materials for science classrooms, unanimously rejecting Intelligent Design/Creationist backed information from digital vendor International Databases, in a 8-0 vote."8-0 — that's conclusive. Sanity prevails for a change.
(Via James Williams.)
On idiocy « Andy Ellington's Blog
In rational discourse it usually pays to keep a level head and a polite demeanour. One's argument, however correct, can be diminished by charges of ad hominem attack. But when you're trashing the Discovery Institute the gloves can be well and truly off, as this disingenuous coterie of obfuscators deserves all the disrespect it gets.
Why I don't believe in gods : Pharyngula
P. Z. Myers states the obvious.
Saturday, 23 July 2011
The Life of Muhammad — BBC2
As discussed on Skepticule Extra 009, The Life of Muhammad is a three-part BBC TV documentary presented by Rageh Omaar. I've watched the first two — the final episode is next Monday at 9 pm.
It's engaging stuff, with eminent talking heads punctuating colourful location reports, but I've been struck by the singular lack of provenance for most of the events related. The story is fascinating, but it sounds like pure fantasy. For example, in the second episode we are told of the Prophet's so-called Night Journey, when he was apparently teleported to Jerusalem and then on up to heaven for a brief conflab with God. We know this happened because Muhammad said it happened. At night. When he was praying. When the Prophet returned from this extraordinary sojourn — to which there were no independent witnesses — he announced that God had told him that Muslims must pray five times a day.
Throughout his life Muhammad experienced a series of revelations from God — at least that's what the source says happened. And just who is the source of this "historical" information? (I'll give you one guess.) Some of these revelations were awfully convenient, to say the least. One of them, related in the second episode, was that Muslims should no longer pray towards Jerusalem, but towards Mecca. In discussing the significance of this change (regardless of whether or not it was a true revelation), much was made of how it marked Islam as being different and separate from previous religions, but nothing whatever was said about why the direction of prayers should matter. (Visions of some kind of inaccurately focussed prayer-beam spring to mind, with prayers dissipating ineffectually into space.) Presumably the direction of prayers is determined by which way the people praying are facing — except they aren't facing anything except the ground when their foreheads are touching it. It's all very confusing.
Rageh Omaar makes much use of the phrase "according to Muslim tradition" when talking about events that if they actually happened would be described as historical. I can't help concluding that this choice of words is probably an editorial decision to deflect possible accusations of making unsubstantiated factual claims.
The programme's website is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012mkh7
Episode 1 & 2 are currently available on the iPlayer until 1 August 2011:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012mkg5/The_Life_of_Muhammad_The_Seeker/
It's engaging stuff, with eminent talking heads punctuating colourful location reports, but I've been struck by the singular lack of provenance for most of the events related. The story is fascinating, but it sounds like pure fantasy. For example, in the second episode we are told of the Prophet's so-called Night Journey, when he was apparently teleported to Jerusalem and then on up to heaven for a brief conflab with God. We know this happened because Muhammad said it happened. At night. When he was praying. When the Prophet returned from this extraordinary sojourn — to which there were no independent witnesses — he announced that God had told him that Muslims must pray five times a day.
Throughout his life Muhammad experienced a series of revelations from God — at least that's what the source says happened. And just who is the source of this "historical" information? (I'll give you one guess.) Some of these revelations were awfully convenient, to say the least. One of them, related in the second episode, was that Muslims should no longer pray towards Jerusalem, but towards Mecca. In discussing the significance of this change (regardless of whether or not it was a true revelation), much was made of how it marked Islam as being different and separate from previous religions, but nothing whatever was said about why the direction of prayers should matter. (Visions of some kind of inaccurately focussed prayer-beam spring to mind, with prayers dissipating ineffectually into space.) Presumably the direction of prayers is determined by which way the people praying are facing — except they aren't facing anything except the ground when their foreheads are touching it. It's all very confusing.
Rageh Omaar makes much use of the phrase "according to Muslim tradition" when talking about events that if they actually happened would be described as historical. I can't help concluding that this choice of words is probably an editorial decision to deflect possible accusations of making unsubstantiated factual claims.
The programme's website is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012mkh7
Episode 1 & 2 are currently available on the iPlayer until 1 August 2011:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012mkg5/The_Life_of_Muhammad_The_Seeker/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)