51. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63693 by jeepyjay on August 15, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Contrary to AWACS77 I don't like Dershowitz's "Commendments".

They seem to me to be a plea to religious believers to be dishonest hypocrites.

My Commendment would be: Be honest with the electorate. If you believe God is on your side say so, so that we can judge how barmy you are. And do not confuse morality with religion.

There is no "proper role" for religion in public life. Respect diversity by all means, but not diversity of opinion if that means treating lies as equal to truth.

52. A Designer Universe?

Comment #61617 by jeepyjay on August 6, 2007 at 2:45 am

In response to my queries about whether the universe can be infinite, dancingthemantaray coments:

"Imagine you comprehended only 2 dimensions (well, 3 including time) and were actually running on the surface of a giant sphere, you could never ever reach the end of it, and wouldn't know why. This is kind of how the universe is infinite for us...does that make any sense (not sure I've explained it well)."

There you are confusing "endless" with "infinite". A circle or sphere is finite; it curls back on itself. As I understand it the seed from which the universe grew was some sort of hypersphere (four-dimensional space-time).

53. A Designer Universe?

Comment #61525 by jeepyjay on August 5, 2007 at 2:52 pm

In response to my query:

"How does one reconcile the idea of an infinite universe with the big bang?"

In #61421 steve99 wrote:

"Big Bang theory says nothing about the size of the entire 'seed', all it says is that the universe started off in a dense state, and the region we can see started off as a very, very small region."

So if the universe is infinite now, it was infinite to begin with? So did it "big bang" in every part of it, or just "our" part? If only in our part surely the rest of the surrounding universe would have resisted it. If it exploded in every part simultaneously (assuming simultaneity makes sense in an infinite universe) well that must have been some bang! Sorry I just don't see how the universe can be infinite.

54. A Designer Universe?

Comment #61410 by jeepyjay on August 5, 2007 at 4:27 am

I'm glad this has been published here. It is evidently the original source of Weinberg's most famous quote:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."


A question that has long puzzled me is where he says:

"The universe is very large, and perhaps infinite,"

I wonder if, eight years later, he still thinks this is possible? How does one reconcile the idea of an infinite universe with the big bang? Surely if it all began as a small seed 14 billion years ago, it cannot now be infinite.

Can anyone explain this?

55. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61403 by jeepyjay on August 5, 2007 at 3:47 am

I don't suppose Richard is actually going to be able to interview Prince Charles or Cherie Blair to find out how they justify their support for alternative ideas?

From a few people I know who are into astrology or paganism I get the impression that they are not interested in whether what they believe is the "scientific truth". They adopt it purely as a "lifestyle" choice. They are aware of this.

It is a matter of aesthetics, of the "art of life". It is a way of belonging to your own little private and limited and cosy world, among people of similar tendencies. I imagine groups of "goths" or the old mods and rockers, or teddy boys, or modern "chavs" are similar.

The problem arises of course when people actually start believing that their fantasies are real. Or when they cynically pretend to other suckers that their magic or astrological symbolism actually does work in the real world, as a way of gaining an income.

56. Come Out!

Comment #59517 by jeepyjay on July 29, 2007 at 10:17 am

You can find naughty words under every letter of the alphabet Henri!

57. Come Out!

Comment #59512 by jeepyjay on July 29, 2007 at 9:48 am

Thanks tp PZ for the link, I've put it in the Latest News section on the Leicester Secular Society Diary page:

http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/diary.htm

I don't mind if the A is taken as meaning "Anarchist". Quite a lot of our members are proud anarchists in the tradition of Peter Kropotkin, who even spoke here at one time.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

He had ideas about Altruism and evolution long before it became fashionable.

Altruist is another good A.

58. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #59220 by jeepyjay on July 28, 2007 at 11:23 am

There was a follow-up on this week's Now Show, in which he comments on all the emails he has received from atheists offering to pray for him!

59. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58819 by jeepyjay on July 26, 2007 at 8:27 am

Rieux: How can you possibly be a "Unitarian" AND an "Atheist"? A unitarian is someone who believes in one god (Uni = One). An atheist is someone who believes in no gods (A = Not). This is another case of people redefining words to mean anything they like.

60. Touch Me Feel Me Science

Comment #57670 by jeepyjay on July 20, 2007 at 1:55 pm

There is plenty of room for alternative approaches to the presentation of science to be tried. I don't think there is any one "right" method. Despite visits to well known science museums in London, I'm not sure I remember anything I learned there that I didn't know before. On the other hand, attending a lecture at the Royal Institution where Faraday gave his demonstrations is something I still recall after 50 years. It was a lecture given by Lawrence Bragg.

61. Darwin or Design

Comment #56754 by jeepyjay on July 17, 2007 at 5:51 am

In response to "the assayer"'s comments: why should anyone "fear death"? Everyone is going to die sometime, it's a fact of life.

As Mark Twain pointed out, he was dead for milions of years before he was born and that didn't bother him!

The only thing to fear is a painful dying, not death itself, which is just cessation of conscious existence.

I'm not afraid of death. In fact I'll probably be quite happy to welcome it when it comes, because it's been a bit of a pain and struggle being alive.

I'd just like to have time be able to complete some of my projects before I go. If I'm diagnosed that I'm going to die in two days time, well I'll just have to try to put at least some of my affairs in some sort of order in the time available, or else leave the mess for others to sort out.

62. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50714 by jeepyjay on June 19, 2007 at 3:19 pm

"We were all circumcised when I was born," said R. Louis Schultz, a 79-year-old New Yorker and author of "Out in the Open: The Complete Male Pelvis." "People thought it could ward off masturbation or disease, and those funny attitudes have really changed. Now people are saying, `Why do it?'"

The complete male PELVIS ?!

Shumshing wrong shurely?

Sorry. Comes of misspending one's life as a proofreader. A now obsolete profession.

63. In U.S., faith is never far from politics

Comment #49013 by jeepyjay on June 10, 2007 at 2:25 am

In response to:

"The strict separation of church and state in the U.S. actually fosters a broader role for religion in public life," said Matthew Wilson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

"It means religious institutions have long felt very free to publicly criticize the government and public norms," he said, pointing to the historic role of churches in the anti-slavery and civil rights movements.

64. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45998 by jeepyjay on May 30, 2007 at 1:49 am

If anyone thinks the Archbishop of Canterbury is not seriously deluded they need to read some of his sermons and speeches, for instance:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/2005/050222.htm

"And so it is that the calling of God's priestly people narrows down to the one who is our great high priest, Jesus Christ, priest forever after the Order of Melchizedek as the Letter to the Hebrews has it." ... "The Church is a place where the peacemaking worship of Christ is real. A pillar of fire in our midst between Earth and Heaven." ... "He has made peace by the blood of his Cross, and we live in the fullness of what he has done and we warm ourselves at the pillar of fire that is set, up in our midst, between Earth and Heaven by his prayer and sacrifice." ... "a priest is someone who in his or her friendship reveals to me the face of God."

65. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42348 by jeepyjay on May 18, 2007 at 5:20 am

Wicca is basically worship of Nature, but for some reason most such "Naturists" then have to introduce super-Natural beings, usually male and female principles such as Herne the Hunter and Gaia the Earth-Mother the same as other religions.

The Pagans I've met also seem to believe in magic, which some of them try to explain in terms of Jung's confusing idea of "synchronicity".

Personally I would find a type of Secular Paganism quite attractive. I suppose that is what Environmentalism is.

66. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #41603 by jeepyjay on May 16, 2007 at 11:41 am

Writers are often not responsible for the headings given to their articles in newspapers; they may reveal the subconscious of the subeditor.

I bought Anthony Gottlieb's "The Dream of Reason" subtitled "A History of Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance" which was published in 2000. It's a pretty good survey, if a bit lightweight compared to, say, Bertrand Russell.

Unfortunately it stops suddenly at Descartes. Does anyone know if he has given up on the idea of a Volume Two, or is he stil working on it? I'd like to get up to date on more recent philosophers! Post-Russell.

His essay here at least shows some independent thinking.

67. Unintelligent Design

Comment #39882 by jeepyjay on May 12, 2007 at 7:14 am

It is always surprising to me that someone who is clearly capable of thinking so clearly about science, and especially about biological evolution, cannot separate ethics from religion.

When he writes: "In the competition for moral allegiance, secular ideologies are at a disadvantage. For if some better ideology is likely to be available down the line, then reasoning by backward induction, there is no more justified reason to accept the current ideology than convenience." He is overlooking the evolution of moral ideas over time.

It is not religion that "passionately rouses hearts and minds" but the rational ethical desire for justice. If there is a "vicious cycle" it is not of rational self-interest but of irrational in-group identification and out-group alienation.

The philosophy of "every man for himself" is not a rational ethic. We are far more likely to survive and prosper if we all work together for mutual benefit.

68. More on the Atheism Front

Comment #39436 by jeepyjay on May 10, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Philip Johnson is the 'eminence gris' behind the 'intelligent design' movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson

which is now I notice morphing into the 'intellectual diversity' movement.

By the way, that pose they both adopt on their book covers is evidently trying to give the impression that their machismo matches up to that of Humphrey Bogart in his Sam Spade role.

69. Martin Amis reviews The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Hussain

Comment #37898 by jeepyjay on May 6, 2007 at 7:16 am

Robert Maynard writes: "Secularism is not a belief system. It is literally nothing more than a description of things which are neutral in regards to religion. Look it up, for the love of words. Making a damn sandwich is a secular act.
If you believe it to be a belief system, I expect that you will need to describe its basic tenets for us, as we are unaware of them, and certainly do not follow them."

The term 'secularism' has several different meanings. It can be a philosophical belief (as G.J.Holyoake used the term): it is a philosophy of life based on the belief that we have the one life here and now and should make the most of it in a constructive manner. This is in contrast to having a fantasy belief in a life to come, after death, which is regarded as more important than real life.

The idea of a "secularist suicide-bomber" is therefore a contradiction in terms, since it is a total waste of the suicide's own life as well as those of his victims.

George Jelliss (Leicester Secular Society)

70. Medicine without Evolution Make Sense?

Comment #32865 by jeepyjay on April 18, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Deimos wrote: "I propose a ban on Jews, Christians and Muslims from studying Medicine."

I certainly wouldn't endorse that. I'm sure there are many good doctors with religious beliefs. It's only a problem if their religious beliefs are strong enough to overrule their clinical judgment. Conversely there are probably many bad doctors with atheistic views.

71. Medicine without Evolution Make Sense?

Comment #32695 by jeepyjay on April 18, 2007 at 3:37 am

Zappi asks: "Is there really a significant resistance to the subject among medical students?"

This is very definitely a problem. Particularly as many medical students come from a Muslim background. Here's a couple of recent articles:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1714171,00.html

http://education.independent.co.uk/schools/article485814.ece

Some universities in the UK are having to introduce special courses for new students.

72. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31646 by jeepyjay on April 13, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Today's Times (13th April) puts a heavier spin on the pope's words: "Pope puts his faith in the Book of Genesis, not Darwin":

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1647614.ece

Article by Richard Owen

"His predecessor appeared, on balance, to favour the scientists. But the present Pope may have tipped the scales the other way in the argument over which is the truer account of the Creation: On the Origin of Species or the Book of Genesis."

"Pope Benedict XVI has stepped into the debate over Darwinism with remarks that will be seen as an endorsement of "intelligent design"."

If so this is a distinctly retrograde step. But I've an idea the Times is known to have an anti-catholic bias, so the report may be skewed.

Incidentally is this Richard Owen any relation of the Victorian Richard Owen who invented the term "dinosaur" and was an opponent of Darwin? Probably a coincidence, but serendipitous in this case.

73. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31346 by jeepyjay on April 12, 2007 at 5:07 am

jamesstephenbrown (post 10) says: Everytime someone says to me, but you can't disprove that God created the universe I reply: "As you cannot disprove anything else created the universe. So when it comes to gambling on what created the universe I'm betting on ANYTHING ELSE"

I'm betting on Nothing Else. Who says the universe was "created" at all? What does it mean to say that there was something "before" the universe? What was it - a "Pre-Universe"? If so how did it differ from an extension of the Universe we know?

The whole idea of a "creation" makes no sense. We can probably say the universe "began", i.e. that there was a time zero, but there was nothing before that time, because time didn't exist. "Existence" didn't exist!

74. Religious bias colors doctors' views: survey

Comment #31119 by jeepyjay on April 11, 2007 at 4:10 am

Dr Farr Curlin! Can that really be his name?

http://www.rampantscotland.com/songs/blsongs_road.htm

This cries out for a parody!

Sorry, couldn't resist it.

75. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30631 by jeepyjay on April 9, 2007 at 4:31 am

I'm starting to see a pattern emerging with the latest group of anti-atheist commentators, Roger Scruton, Charles Moore and Bruce Anderson. They all cite Lord Salisbury, who represents "traditional conservatism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Review

No doubt there are other connections between them. They certainly seem to have ready access to, if not control of, particular sections of the UK media.

76. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30427 by jeepyjay on April 8, 2007 at 3:15 am

This is an interesting line of attack: that "the new atheism" is a new religious faith!
He claims that atheism begins with faith that only material and physical (not spiritual)
causes make the world run. Some atheists (usually former theists) may start from this
assumption, but for most of us rationalism comes first and atheism is just an incidental
consequence of the lack of evidence for a spirit-guided universe. Rationalism (by which
I mean the modern version, based on the scientific method that combines both logic and
experiment) does indeed enable us to make "exclusive claims for its truth and explains
[at least some of] the mysteries of the universe". It's called science!

His claim that "God gives objective definition to our ideas of right and wrong" and
"provides meaning to life itself", is just sad. What an empty life he must have that
he can find nothing worthwhile to do than live in terms of a fantasy of another life
to come, and in which he is unable to make moral decisions, based on the facts, except
by reference to an ancient code of laws formulated to suit stone-age tribes.

77. E.O. Wilson Accepts his 2007 TED Prize

Comment #30404 by jeepyjay on April 8, 2007 at 2:19 am

Apparently TED stands for "Technology Entertainment and Design". For which of these did EOW get his prize?

78. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29835 by jeepyjay on April 5, 2007 at 4:48 am

There's another image of the "pale blue dot" here:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061016.html

Seen from beyond Saturn.

79. The Selfish Green

Comment #29338 by jeepyjay on April 2, 2007 at 3:31 pm

I'd not seen this debate before. It's very stimulating indeed (apart from part 1 which just introduces the speakers at great length).

David Attenborough and Jane Goodall are right that the ever increasing human population is the problem. However the only way to reduce it that was mentioned was education of women, which is surely a very long term process.

But what alternative methods are there that don't violate human rights, apart from natural disasters like plagues and famines or worse?

I'm afraid I don't share the general optimism that was expressed at the end.

80. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29257 by jeepyjay on April 2, 2007 at 9:08 am

In response to EnricoPallazo: surely there cannot be such a think as "hoax poetry" since there are no standards of objectivity by which poetry can be judged.

One can have parodies written in the style of an established poet, or one can write under a pen-name, perhaps in cooperation with a colaborator (like the two men who wrote the Ellery Queen mysteries), or one can write as if in an old style (as in McPherson's "Ossian"), or one can write deliberate nonsense verse (like Lewis Carroll and Edward Lear).

Frankly a lot of Ezra Pound or T.S.Eliot makes as much sense as Edward Lear to me.

81. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #28005 by jeepyjay on March 27, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Snap Henri!

82. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #28000 by jeepyjay on March 27, 2007 at 2:52 pm

The Pope says, when addressing a parish gathering: Hell really exists and is eternal, even if nobody talks about it much any more. But: Vatican officials say the Pope was speaking in simplified language like a parish priest to local idiots, and [officially] Hell is a state of eternal separation from God, symbolical rather than physical.

In other words there are two versions, one for the peasants and one for the intelligentsia.

The usual doublespeak.

83. A hundred residents of a Russian village have refused to switch to new passports because they believe the documents' bar codes contain satanic symbols

Comment #27660 by jeepyjay on March 26, 2007 at 3:28 am

I've had correspondence with several christian fundamentalists who claim to 'prove' that the bible is the word of god because of the numerological results they derive from the words of Genesis. For example:

http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/

I've used similar methods to derive results from Lewis Carrol's Jabberwocky, but this doesn't seem to change their minds.

Of course a lot of the results given by Jenkins on his site are perfectly correct and interesting results from the Mathematical Recreations point of view (which is my interest).

84. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27193 by jeepyjay on March 23, 2007 at 1:34 pm

John P wrote: "I've always thought there was a language barrier between theists and atheists. For a long time I thought it was just my limited ability to comprehend, but whenever I read Christian apologists, what they said made no sense to me. Not that it was incomprehensible, because it was in English, and was grammatically correct, but I could never wrap my head around whatever concept they were expounding on." and asks: "Anyone else have this experience?"

Yes, I would go further and say that a lot of philosophy is like that, not just theology. Theology is indeed, as Dawkins claims, a vacuous subject. But a lot of Philosphy is also vacuous, being merely expert word-shuffling.

All good Philosophy eventually becomes Science. Speculation becomes knowledge. Much of ethical philosophy for instance will eventually be superseded by neurologically based psychology.

85. Your Mom Was Wrong: Horseplay Is An Important Part Of Development

Comment #26765 by jeepyjay on March 21, 2007 at 2:39 pm

On the other hand, if you read the biographies of great thinkers, like Einstein or Newton, it seems they did not get involved in play with their contemporaries at school, but kept aloof and went their own way. This doesn't seem to have affected their ability to survive in society.

86. Why Children Love Their Security Blankets

Comment #24958 by jeepyjay on March 9, 2007 at 1:54 pm

I was interested in the piece at the end about the lost 'Mouse', since something very similar happened to me. As a child I had a very small pink knitted bear, to which I gave a name and about which I made up stories. One day, while out shopping with my mother (in Welling, Kent, in case anyone found it and kept it -- I'd still like it back!), it got lost (fell out of my pocket or something). Apparently I was terribly upset because of this loss. An aunt, or someone, knitted me a replacement, but it just wasn't the same. I think this episode was an important experience in 'growing up' -- a sort of bereavement.

The replacement, while of a similar design, didn't have exactly the same expression, or exactly the same shape, or exactly the same flaws, and so on. I don't know about it's having an "essence" whatever that might be. I think it's just that we tend to think of things as if they were like human beings, to atribute 'personality' to them. This is true of other possessions, not just those that take anthropomorphic form, such as bikes, cars, torches, pens, etc, to which one gets attached, and feel 'bereaved' when they are lost or break down.

87. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24574 by jeepyjay on March 7, 2007 at 11:22 am

Having been involved recently in a Christian / Humanist dialogue I agree fully with the author where he says: "... a lot of liberal Christians ... seem to adhere to a form of Christianity that excludes all specifically Christian beliefs"! Its difficult to know what they believe that is any different from what a Humanist believes.

There is a difference between "ought" sentences used by rationalists and those used by religious believers. Religious believers say "You ought to do something fullstop" (because it is right by their list of things that are right). Rationalists say "If you want to achieve one thing you ought to another thing" (because one thing leads to the other in accordance with the laws of nature). Rational ought statements are always of the "if ... then.. " type.

88. Darwin's God

Comment #24185 by jeepyjay on March 5, 2007 at 7:39 am

In response to Yorker's post (No.7) calling for the establishment of a "Rational Party". I'm afraid this betrays a total lack of understanding of what politics is about. Politics deals with matters about which there is NO RATIONAL CONSENSUS.

Economics and Sociology and Psychology are not yet exact sciences. Ask any two economists for an opinion and you will get three conflictimg views. Politicians have to take views on subjects for which there is insufficient evidence to make a rational decision. Yet, some decision has to be made. They have to make a judgment, and this will be based on their own personal experience or gut feelings.

Often they are proved wrong, in course of time, by events or later discoveries. This is why scientists are not generally good politicians. This is why we tend to throw out one party after a while and put in another that will try an alternative aproach. A lot of it is trial and error.

Of course, religion, when used as a basis on which politicians make decisions, complicates the issue, and we should campaign to keep irrational ideas out of public affairs, but total rationality would only lead to inaction.

89. Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots

Comment #23772 by jeepyjay on March 2, 2007 at 3:40 pm

I'm surprised no-one seems to have cited the recent "Brussels Declaration"

http://www.avisionforeurope.org:80/

No it's not abut eating sprouts being good for you! It's about secularism being good for Europe.

90. If God is talking to you, too, Mr Cameron - don't listen

Comment #23475 by jeepyjay on March 1, 2007 at 2:28 am

Portillo writes: "Many fine things are done by people because of their faith. As an MP I sawa number of examples. And as we mark the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade we are reminded that William Wilberforce, who brought it about, was a man driven by religious conviction who eschewed political ambition."

This is buying into the christian propaganda. Wilberforce may not have sought to be Prime Minister, but he was the front-man for the antislavery movement because he was an MP and the Quakers and others who urged him on and did a lot of the spade work were disenfranchised.

He used his influence with the King to promote his evangelical views through the "Society for the Suppression of Vice", which led to persecution of freethinkers like Richard Carlile and the attempted supression of Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man". I've researched this recently:

http://secsoc.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html

He deserves credit for his work on the abolition of the slave trade, but there was also a more negative side to his influence.

91. Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

Comment #22155 by jeepyjay on February 13, 2007 at 4:43 am

Which paradigm will he follow if he encounters a situation in which they conflict and his personal survival is involved? For instance if he encounters bird flu? Does he accept the use of antivirus treatment based on evolutionary theory? Or can he talk himself round this somehow?

Is this ability for doublethink a survival advantage? Should we all be trying to develop it? Does he really know which of the paradigms represents the real truth? This article raises more questions for me than answers.

Edit: 14 Feb: Here's another, older, example of doublethink, cited by a correspondent to the BCSE forum.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/realsnelling.htm

92. Evolution Sunday

Comment #21898 by jeepyjay on February 11, 2007 at 2:13 pm

PZ writes: "I'm sure the participants in Evolution Sunday mean well and are sincere in their wish to reconcile faith with science,"

Yes I think they are and should be encouraged, otherwise more religious believers will be seduced even further away from science and reason, into the camp of the creationists.

PZ continues: "but we'll do far more to promote reason in this country if we withdraw from all participation in the church and let religion wither away from disuse,"

But it is not "we" (atheists) who are involved in the church. We have already withdrawn. Presumably by "we" here he means "we Americans". But getting believers to withdraw from the church is not an easy thing for them to do. It's like withdrawal from a drug dependency. A slow process may be better than going cold turkey all at once.

93. Meet the Relatives. They're Full of Surprises.

Comment #21668 by jeepyjay on February 10, 2007 at 1:08 pm

The museum's website still has the details of its previous brilliant exhibition about Darwin

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/

It gives a comprehensive introduction to evolution in easily understandable form and very well presented.

In response to gimliben-watsit I suspect that the Divine was created in the image of man, rather than the other way round.

94. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21032 by jeepyjay on February 7, 2007 at 10:59 am

This phenomenon of one author hanging on the coat-tails of another is nothing new. I've just been reading Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I am a Rationalist" In it he says:

"We ought not to commit ourselves to dogmatic negations any more than to dogmatic affirmations; we ought merely to say that there are a great many propositions about which men and women feel pretty certain, but, concerning which they have no right to feel certain, and it is our business as Rationalists to try to make them see that those things are not certain. I am told that that is a very wicked position to maintain. I have here a book recently published which I commend to your attention. You may or may not know that some little time ago, under the auspices of the National Secular Society, I delivered a lecture on "Why I am Not a Christian." Now, It appears that I did not know why it is that I am not a Christian; and here is a book which will tell you why I am not -- by Mr. H. G. Wood, who is a somewhat eminent member of the Society of Friends, a body for which I have the greatest respect. His book is called Why Mr. Bertrand Russell is Not a Christian. It seems that the reasons are not those which I thought they were. He says in one sentence: "The main reason why he is not a Christian is that he simply does not know what religion is." One might say that Mr. Wood is not an Agnostic because he does not know what Agnosticism is. After all, I had all the benefits of a Christian education, and he did not have the benefits of an Agnostic education; so that possibly the argument might be considered two-edged. Nevertheless, I commend the book to your attention, and you will then know why it is that I am not a Christian."

Great good humour on his part, you must admit!

95. Durham Council Votes To Continue Saying Lord's Prayer

Comment #19410 by jeepyjay on January 27, 2007 at 1:29 am

I'm glad this is not the "real" Durham (UK)!

Excuse my pedantry, but I was amused by eccles' accidental introduction of the concept of "hypocracy", which means "rule by hype": we see so much of this these days. It only takes a lobby group or the press to blow up a subject out of proportion and the politicians immediately start legislating on it.

96. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19189 by jeepyjay on January 25, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Just a few disconnected thoughts on terminology.

In the UK the name "Godfrey" is most prominently associated with the most elderly member of the Home Guard troop in the "Dad's Army" comedy. Hardly the required image I should think.

Why does everyone compare "Bright" with "Gay" all the time? It is more analogous to the use of "Green" by environmentalists. Bright signifies attachment to the ideas of the Enlightenment and as such makes perfect sense.

While I am an Atheist, I am not an atheist for emotional reasons. I am a Rationalist (under which I include Empiricism as well as Logic) and it is the application of Reason that has led me to my Atheistic views, which are only a small part of my worldview. When Religion and Theism are defeated (some hope!) I will not need the term Atheism, but will still be a Rationalist.

This site is part of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, not the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Atheism.

97. Britons unconvinced on evolution

Comment #18815 by jeepyjay on January 23, 2007 at 4:11 am

This is old news, and it was a badly flawed poll. During 2004-5 I tried to get some views about the evolution / creationism debate from the bishops of the Church of England and it was apparent then that many of them did not understand the issues:

http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/creationism_cofe.htm

It is perfectly possible for religious believers to believe in both evolution and creation (in fact that is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church). So they can call themselves both evolutionists and creationists.

Of course what is now meant by most commentators when referring to "creationism" is not merely belief in a creator, but "young earth creationism" (YEC) that takes Genesis as literal, in some interpretation, including the chronology based on the biblical genealogies back to Adam and Eve, which Bishop Ussher famnously traced back to 4004 BC. However most modern creationists are now extremely vague on the actual date of creation, possibly because they deny the validity of all scientific dating methods, so have no reliable way to decide the issue.

98. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #18806 by jeepyjay on January 23, 2007 at 3:55 am

Where is all this going to stop? How do they decide what counts as "Religious"? Does it merely depend on the strength of the latest lobby group? What about Spiritualism, Scientology, Atlantis, Hollow Earth, Alien Abduction, Gnosticism, Aleister Crowley and the Golden Dawn, Kabbala, etc etc etc. There would be no time to teach anything sensible.

99. Beyond the Believers

Comment #17930 by jeepyjay on January 17, 2007 at 3:31 pm

The cartoon made me laugh, but on second thoughts I think the rationalists should be thought of more as firefighters or fog dispellers than fighting men with guns. The weapon is the enlightenment of science dispelling the darkness of faith from the minds of the god-befogged. Not the killing of believers.

100. Atheist Outreach: Group Coaxes Unbelievers Into the Open

Comment #17845 by jeepyjay on January 17, 2007 at 2:42 am

What does Bronstein mean by saying "I would use reason and faith to guide my life." Faith in what - human potential?

The 100 membership of the NYC Atheists is quite good. It's difficult to get unbelievers to join anything, they're too independent. Leicester Secular Society membership has only just risen to over 100 (though it was more than twice that figure in the past). Membership went down during the mid 20th century when the threat from religion seemed to have reduced. It's going up again now, quite rapidly, because of the clear rise of religious influence in politics.