Notes from an Evil Burnee

Sunday, 30 September 2012

Skepticule goodness

The latest episode of Skepticule Extra — number thirty-three — is ready for download, streaming, retrieving from the feed, and generally being the internet's best batch of triple skeptical paulness. (The shownotes are pretty awesome too.)

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/09/skepextra-033-20120909.html

We discuss the plus, survive the live, pull a leg, refuse abuse and scorn the horn.

A challenging way to prove you're a True Christian^TM

Skepticule co-host Paul Thompson has issued a challenge to all Christians (and two in particular) calling for them to prove with hard cash that they are indeed True Christians^TM in accordance with the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament:

http://skepticalprobe.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/eric-and-sye-only-in-it-for-money.html

So head over to The Skeptical Probe to monitor progress as these True Christians^TM show what they're made of.

Or alternatively, anticipate the prospect of porcine aviation.

Monday, 17 September 2012

Burnee links for Monday

Repudiation | Pharyngula
Don't say there isn't a problem.

550 complaints | Butterflies and Wheels
Tom Holland's film Islam: The Untold Story has been withdrawn from re-screening by Channel 4, due to the "offence" it has caused. Interesting that those offended aren't saying his film isn't factual — I'm reminded of Rageh Omaar's documentary, The Life of Muhammad, in which he repeatedly used the phrase "according to Muslim tradition" when describing allegedly historical occurrences.

But…but…is it Biblical? | Pharyngula
The creotards have come up with a good one: the Ark had gas-lamps fed from environmentally friendly methane digesters. Whatever next? Read the comments for some great ideas, including my favourite: the Ark was powered by a nuclear reactor (I'm sure there's a biblical verse that mentions this — I just need to find it and give it the "correct" interpretation. Exegetical hermeneutics FTW.)

Is Prayer Selfish? | Alternet
The truth about praying. Forget the ridiculous "Atheist Prayer Experiment" — this is an honest, rational appraisal of what it is to pray.

Skepticule Extra 32

Download the latest episode of Skepticule Extra here:

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/09/skepextra-032-20120826.html

...and listen to some cutting remarks, some experimental remarks, some Sunday supermarket remarks and some healthy streetwise remarks.

(The next episode — already recorded — will be available with all due slowness.)

No more NOMA, no, no, no.

This evening I watched something my faithful telly-watching machine recorded for me last week — Rosh Hashanah: Science vs Religion, a half-hour programme presented by the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks.

Lord Sacks is often on Thought for the Day, speaking with his characteristic measured pace, endowing each word with great meaning and authority. His precise enunciation, however, fails to conceal an embarrassing fact: that the meaning and authority are wholly spurious. It's almost as if he strings words together solely based on their euphony, without consideration of what the words might actually mean.

"For me, science is one of the greatest achievements of humankind — a gift given to us by God."

Well, which is it, Lord Sacks? An achievement of humankind? Or a gift from God? (Is it any wonder he thinks science and religion are compatible when he obviously can't see the blatant incompatibility of what he's saying right at the start of his own TV programme?)

You have a couple of days to catch the whole thing on iPlayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mqvmv/Rosh_Hashanah_Science_vs_Religion/

Some clips:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mqvmv

The blurb from the BBC website:

Religion and science are frequently set up as polar opposites; incompatible ways of thinking. The Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks begs to differ. For him, science and religion can, and should, work together. To mark Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, he puts his position to the test. He meets three non-believing scientists, each at the top of their field: neurologist Baroness Susan Greenfield, theoretical physicist Professor Jim Al-Khalili, and the person best known for leading the scientific attack on religion, Professor Richard Dawkins. Will the Chief Rabbi succeed in convincing the militant defender of atheism that science and religion need not be at war?

It's clear that all three of the atheist scientists to whom Lord Sacks puts his plea are willing to concede that there are limits to science — and that's where the Chief Rabbi jumps in to claim the ground for himself, while simultaneously decrying "God of the gaps". But he doesn't seem to realise that just because science doesn't have answers to certain questions, he cannot claim that religion does. Because it doesn't. All that religion can do is interpret scripture — which more often than not means making stuff up.

Sunday, 16 September 2012

Thought for the Day will not be opened to atheists

"Thought for the Day will not be opened to atheists, says BBC religion chief" — says the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9530350/Thought-for-the-Day-will-not-be-opened-to-atheists-says-BBC-religion-chief.html

Not a surprise, but some of us will keep plugging away. I object to the implication that theists are the only commentators qualified to think. The BBC should include non-religious viewpoints on Thought for the Day, or else rename it Religious Thought for the Day or something similar — something clearly indicating that these are thoughts from a religious perspective.

I was alerted to this latest non-development — and latest demonstration of BBC obstinacy — by Justin Brierley's post on the Unbelievable? Facebook page, to which I added a comment (whole thread to date follows):

Unbelievable? · 1,641 like this.

Thursday at 23:32 via Twitter ·

The BBC won't be letting atheists on Thought For The Day - but you can still come on my radio show instead http://t.co/7RudXHoA

Thought for the Day will not be opened to atheists, says BBC religion chief - Telegraph

telegraph.co.uk

The BBC will resist calls to include atheists on Thought for the Day, the corporation’s head of religion has said.

Like · · Share · @UnbelievableJB on Twitte

7 people like this.
Alan Vaughan Good for them! Those with no religion have no place on a religious programme. If it were a stamp collecting programme I would expect only those who collect stamps to participate. Listeners would have no desire to listen to someone with no interest in stamps. Kudos

Thursday at 23:48 · Edited · Like
Justin Schieber We appreciate it Justin.

Thursday at 23:50 · Like
Addison Hodges Hart Good.

Friday at 00:06 · Like
Paul Jenkins “People have complained, as they have the right to, and I have taken a view that at this moment in time as far as I’m concerned we stay as we do.

“It is a specific slot within the Today programme which is a reflection from a religious perspective on stories of importance in the news.”

Well, the slot *is* called "Religious Thought for the Day", so therefore no-one but the religious is qualified to be on it. If, however, the slot was called merely "Thought for the Day" then one could naturally expect non-religious viewpoints to be given a proportionate hearing.

Or have I got that wrong?

Friday at 00:15 · Like
Paul Jenkins Frankly I can't decide whether I'm disgusted or simply resigned.

(In protest, I'm resolved to look elsewhere for my platitudes.)

Friday at 00:17 · Like
Andrew McBrearty Booooo! for the BBC... Yay! for Justin. :)

Friday at 00:19 · Like
Ian-Luke Penwald Where is the share link????

Friday at 01:32 via mobile · Like
Peter Byrom We've been given plenty of rhetoric recently about how atheism is not a religion or even a worldview (e.g. "if atheism is a religion, then off is a TV channel, and abstinence is a sex position" etc) so if this really is an officially religious slot then, frankly, the atheists can't have it both ways.

However, I must say I'm disappointed that the BBC doesn't have a programme like Justin's! Indeed there's plenty of anti-religion and pro-secularism bias in the BBC already so, again frankly, I hardly think the NSS have much to complain about and it looks much more like they're trying to encroach upon one of the few religious slots left.

Friday at 10:04 · Edited · Like
Fergus Gallagher Atheism is not a religion, but it is a position with respect to religion.

Friday at 13:59 · Like
Paul Jenkins If TftD is an officially religious slot, that ought to be clear from its name.

Friday at 14:13 via mobile · Like
John Humberstone "We've been given plenty of rhetoric recently about how atheism is not a religion or even a worldview (e.g. "if atheism is a religion, then off is a TV channel, and abstinence is a sex position" etc) so if this really is an officially religious slot then, frankly, the atheists can't have it both ways."

All that needs to happen is that they stick to the title of the slot - Thought for the Day. Couldn't be simpler really.

Yesterday at 12:11 · Like