Comments by _J_

101. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107871 by _J_ on January 5, 2008 at 2:29 pm

krisking, do you believe the flood happened?
Any reason why not?
Because it would have turned the Earth into a ball of plasma?

And, even laying aside that minor technicality, there is absolutely no sign that it happened. Again it's Sagan's dragon, the FSM and Russell's teapot. You might as well believe in the Global Predatory Nylon Sock Outbreak of 1311 (when Yahweh, again suffering one of his periodic divine tantrums, inflicted a plague of anachronistic footwear on his Creation. You heard it here first).

102. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107868 by _J_ on January 5, 2008 at 2:24 pm

krisking

I think all you are saying here is that you cannot perceive God with the physical senses you possess.

And, if god is not perceptible with our senses, he is imperceptible. Sagan's dragon again: if you can't see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, smell it or observe it in any direct or indirect way, in what sense is it there it all? In no sense. It is not.

(Please note 'observe in any direct or indirect way'. You're not free to declare 'Oh, quantum mechanics is just make believe, then'! )

This is the same point Steve Zara is making when he says:

[...]that there is a fundamental problem with the idea of a supernatural all-powerful God[...] In other words, how do we tell if something is supernatural? How do we tell if a being is all-powerful?

In fact, we can't. Not for certain. The best indication we could get would be if something persistently achieved natural results which are not achievable by any natural processes we can begin to imagine. Even then, this evidence would be susceptible to the Arthur C. Clarke 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indisguishable from magic' point. We'd have to make some sort of judgement based on the nature of the apparent miracles we are witnessing.

Which, given that thousands of people apparently belive that Benny Hinn works miracles, we might not be very good at.

103. Stop House Resolution 888

Comment #107824 by _J_ on January 5, 2008 at 12:39 pm

ADH, JemyM

I guess you're referring there to the Dark Ages and the subsequent rediscovery of classical texts via the Turks, leading to the Renaissance, the birth of science and, essentially, the last five hundred years of history, are you JemyM?

I'm not enough of a historian to be able to comment on exactly how Europe completely forgot centuries' worth of artistic, philosophical and scientific progress for...how long? Hundreds of years? But the fact that it managed to remember to keep going to church and paying its tithes to an organisation that regarded the ancients as damned pagans seems likely to lend some weight to your post...

Anyone who knows about this stuff like to comment?

104. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107820 by _J_ on January 5, 2008 at 12:28 pm

krisking

cannot be falsified

Cannot be shown to be false.

When Russell's teapot idea was coined, it was deliberately an example of an unfalsifiable claim, because it was utterly impossible to go and check whether there really was a teapot out there in the vast realm of space between Earth's and Mars' orbits of Sol. Today it is arguably falsifiable, because you theoretically could check, but in practical terms it's still damn near unfalsifiable.

Alternatives like the invisible, floating, incorporeal, silent, room-temperature, odourless dragon in Carl Sagan's garage, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (who deliberately changes all evidence with His Noodly Appendage so as to disguise His existence) are completely, designedly, unfalsifiable. You just can't show that they are definitely wrong. Most religious people's conception of their god is also unfalsifiable.

The scientific method requires falsifiability because without it, hypotheses are as untestable as Carl Sagan's dragon, the FSM and Yahweh.

Some things are directly falsifiable, eg 'I hypothesise that all dropped objects will rise, like so...oh.'

Others are hard to falsify directly, but can be found more or less likely through indirect evidence, and thereby effectively falsified.

Evolution, for instance, whilst perhaps difficult to falsify directly ('So, we'll leave this population of monkeys in this environment for five million years...') is nevertheless effectively falsifiable. Predictions made on the basis of evolution (eg 'We should find X in the fossil record') can be found to be wrong. The various elements that make up the processes of evolution can be tested and are falsifiable - things like the inheritance of DNA information, or details of natural selection, perhaps. And it would of course be possible to find evidence that totally contradicted the whole theory of evolution (the famous 'rabbits in the Precambrian', for instance), were it out there. However, so much evidence has now turned up that supports evolution (all of which could, were evolution incorrect, have been different, and contradictory to the theory) that it would take something quite impressive to falsify the theory completely.

I'm sure more scientifically knowledgeable people than I can give finer examples. (I'm probably blustering a bit.)

105. Stop House Resolution 888

Comment #107800 by _J_ on January 5, 2008 at 11:49 am

If you Americans are rewriting your history, will you take contributions? I dare say an evening in with a few pints will produce some valuable 'long forgotten' facts.

Did you know that the 'War of Independence' is just a daft story (based loosely on Star Wars and Braveheart) to distract you from the truth, which is that your nation is actually out on loan from Britain, and was due back in 2000? (There's now a substantial overdue charge.) No? Amazing what you learn when you read the history books, eh?

106. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107731 by _J_ on January 5, 2008 at 5:01 am

PlagioClase

I had a quick scan of your Creation On The Web link. It appears to be making selective use of our understanding of genetic heredity and natural selection to join up the dots from a literal account of Genesis to the world as we observe it today.

The problem is that what you have in evolution (even suggested in the fragments of it that appear on that site) is a framework which renders the biblical account of Genesis completely superfluous. It's like spending a fortnight trying to saw through a tree with a plastic ruler, and then buying a chainsaw to deal with the last few inches. The chainsaw does the whole job.

The oft-used, multi-purpose Father Christmas analogy works well to show the problem. Most people start out believing in Father Christmas as a child, but gradually come to realise that the idea presents serious problems to their understanding of reality (size and speed of sleigh, apparent socio-economic prejudices manifest in FC's present-giving, etc). Sooner or later, they are either told, or realise independently, that the presents come from the people they know, and FC was just a nice story.

The Creation On The Web site is rather like the equivalent of one of those tongue in cheek 'The Science of Christmas' books, but presented as a serious factual argument for Father Christmas. On the one hand, you take our actual, hard-won, observation and experimentation based understanding of science. On the other, you take the notion that Father Christmas delivers all the presents, and simply choose to treat it as a fact. Then, by hook or by crook, you match the two up. So FC's sleigh has to travel at near light speed? Then it has some sort of highly advanced propulsion system, which works by… FC couldn't fit down chimneys? Well, quantum mechanics may allow for certain types of teleportation of certain types of… FC seems to give the best presents to rich kids? No rigorous study has been done to show that FC's gift giving strategy is not based on a highly sensitive Virtuous Behaviour Detection System…

The mistake is obvious. The two starting propositions don't add up. If you're prepared to simply take the notion that FC exists as true, then it's pointless to worry about scientific observation at all, since you've failed to bother with it right from the outset. Or, if you're determined to be consistent with our scientific understanding of reality, then you have embarked on a path that neatly carries you right through the FC myth to the truth that it's actually your friends and family who buy you your Christmas presents. The attempt to marry 'I take this book to be absolutely true' to 'I regard science as a worthwhile and reliable method for discovering truth' just sets you up for a nasty clash. This clash can be solved with a pair of scissors, a la Kurt Wise, through a laborious exercise in selective interpretation, like on the Creation On The Web site, or by not looking at it too closely, like most religious people.

Kurt Wise was indeed more honest than most creationists (though I accept that most creationists are not deliberately dishonest, but misled). When he saw the clash, he acknowledged his allegiance to one of the two incompatible sides. Creation On The Web appears to be dedicated to papering over the incompatibility with a great deal of carefully chosen words.

107. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107569 by _J_ on January 4, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Omegan and Tyler Durdon

My oldest son is a creationist, You can have him for as long as you like. But you gotta feed him.

Sounds like an opportunity for an experiment: 'Right, my lad, here's the deal. You can eat anything in the house BUT NOT THIS CAN OF BEANS, or so help me God you'll be out on your arse. Now, I'm just popping out for a bit so you can entertain my arch enemy Stan, The Famous Troublemaker, Legendary Hypnotist And Peerless Liar With An Evangelical Fervour For Beans.'

108. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107556 by _J_ on January 4, 2008 at 6:23 pm

PlagioClase

Firstly: it's nice to see you here taking part in a discussion with a reasonable tone, giving references to things that influence your opinions (although, more on that in a minute) and apparently listening to and responding to the answers you receive. This behaviour puts you very much towards the top of the pile in terms of argumentative creationists visiting this site.

And the different design of the squid eye compounds the problem for evolution: How such a precision instrument could evolve by random copying mistakes once has never been explained (I know Charles and Richard have tried, but there is a lot of arm waving involved). But how could eyes evolve twice, with two different designs concepts? Actually, there are many more than two designs of eye in the animal world, so the problem for naturalism is enough to raise your eyebrows!

Not sure whether you've read Dawkins on this.

In case not, in The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable he explains, quite painstakingly, how:

1 eyes appear to have evolved independently several times
2 the incremental steps of sophistication in eyes are in fact quite easy to envisage and the evolutionary transitions between them easy to describe; and how eyes of different types, at different degrees of complexity, can be found throughout the animal kingdom
3 mathematical modelling, erring heavily on the side of caution with its assumptions, has shown that eyes can comfortably have evolved along Darwinian principles in far less time that had previously been supposed (and well within the available time)

As usual, the feats of evolution are instinctively difficult to grasp, even to a sympathetic party (like me), and readily prompt unsympathetic parties (like lifetime creationists) to grasp for anything that sounds like an alternative. But, as ever, a little time spent going slowly over the data reveals that it is (unsurprisingly, given our lifespans relative to evolutionary time) our instincts that are awry, and that Darwinian evolution is the only satisfactory explanation for the wonders of life as we behold it.

Thank you for posting links to the bases of your arguments. However, imagine for a second how easy it would be for me to quote religious thinkers who disagree with creationism. Throughout the western world, such thinkers form a majority. Meanwhile, creationists are not only a minority within science, they are actually wholly unrepresented in the field to which their statements apply: ie properly conducted, peer-reviewed, academic discourse on the origins and development of life. Frankly (and with no intention of being insulting) one could equal the legitimacy of your references by countering your brand of creationism with quotes from The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do you see what I mean?

109. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107220 by _J_ on January 4, 2008 at 9:32 am

a creationist who lectures us on Freud

Wow! How much bullshit can one brain take? See if you can get her into cryptozoology as well and watch her brain explode...

tangerinetree How old is she, actually? Some of Dawkins is very accessible - River Out of Eden is short, for instance. Oh, and there's this, of course: http://richarddawkins.net/article,934,Evolution-Booklet,Wellcome-Trust

110. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107070 by _J_ on January 4, 2008 at 3:14 am

quill

Clearly he meant...

Maybe, maybe. But, as well as the usual political equivocation in an attempt to appeal to everyone and offend no one, Huckabee is here talking about an area where, given the disjunction between his religious beliefs and the real world, his opinions might be uncertain and inconsistent even in his own mind. I'd really like to see him pressed to spell his thinking out.

111. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107049 by _J_ on January 4, 2008 at 2:23 am

DNAtheist

Thanks for those quotes! That does seem quite reassuring.

Although, the wording of Huckabee's comments does make me smile. The Hardball comment, for instance, does not necessarily avoid equating someone who is an atheist with someone who is 'filled with hate and venom and anger towards people'. It is possible that the grounds for Huckabee's stated preference is simply their honesty about being an atheist. If Huckabee is truly sold on the Christian contention that all that is good is God, (which, given that he's convinced enough to be a creationist, is quite likely), then it's possible that this really is all there is do it - that an overt fiend is at least better than a covert one. I wonder how much of a concession that actually is!

Hopefully Huckabee meant something a little more generous than this. I'd love to hear him expand on his views in this area.

112. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106884 by _J_ on January 3, 2008 at 4:25 pm

The former governor of Arkansas and Baptist preacher then strapped on a bass guitar to join the Boogie-Woogers in Sweet Home Alabama, Twist and Shout and Blue Suede Shoes.

I hope I still live in a Britain in which a campaigning politician would be savaged for this.

Huckabee, who believes in creationism - that the world was created by God in seven days

And that.

"I am not asking to rule but to serve. You are the ruling class."

Hang on...:

quotes from the Book of Isaiah and calls for tonight's caucus-goers to get on their knees to ask for God's wisdom.

So, God's to make all the decisions and the people are to respond to His wisdom. Just what sort of responsibility does Huckabee see for himself in his presidency? Strumming his gee-tarr and cuddling Chuck Norris?

Ah well. It's all entertainment, I suppose. But if he gets in, I'm moving to Gliese 581c .

113. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106796 by _J_ on January 3, 2008 at 1:18 pm

(Somewhat off topic, but, for anyone who likes such things: that digging around for OT quotes revealed the following link. The Rev. Brendan Powell Smith has excelled himself with these verses:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/false_prophets/dt13_01.html )

114. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106787 by _J_ on January 3, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Walmart?

115. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106782 by _J_ on January 3, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Artful_Dodger, 74

There is NOTHING in the Bible that could be remotely construed as providing a mandate or even a pretext for child abuse or any other kind of abuse.

Two quick quotes from the NIV:

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head. --- Leviticus, 20:9

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. --- Deuteronomy, 13:6-11

Then these two, which suggest older offspring than we'd normally think of for child abuse – but bear in mind the much shorter lifespan at the time, and the sort of psychological pressure on growing children that rules like these represent:

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. --- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. --- Leviticus 21:9

Finally, please note that all of this is missing the point. Even if the whole bible was sugar plum fairies and Care Bears, insisting that your young and impressionable children believe it, in spite of the conflicting facts they will learn about the real world, or else lose their immortal life to eternal damnation – that's child abuse with a capital 'CHILD ABUSE'. Why not save the time and effort and instead, every time they talk back to you, just threaten to shoot them?

116. Changing my Mind

Comment #106556 by _J_ on January 3, 2008 at 6:26 am

Off topic

GrumpyMax

Mm, yes. I'll have to reread Hamlet and pay more attention to Polonius.

(I always read his advice to Ophelia as being a sort of over-protective - and over authoritarian - dad. Just too much advice for everyone, really, and not so good at doing what he advises Laertes to and actually paying attention to what's going on around him - including during his final disastrous adventure in espionage.)

And thanks - I've learned something new! For some reason, I'd thought a petard was a kind of bladed weapon. Shows what I know!

117. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106548 by _J_ on January 3, 2008 at 6:02 am

Hello, PlagioClase. Thank you for sharing your views and opening an exchange of opinions.

You say:

I'm sure Richard understands the concept of scientific paradigm. He works within a paradigm and claims he is honest. It's hypocritical to accuse a creationist of lying for doing the same thing he is doing.

It looks like you are accidentally equivocating a bit, between 'paradigm within science' and 'paradigm that is science'.

First, for my own comfort, lets get rid of that word 'paradigm', because I'm slightly jargon intolerant. I'm going to go for 'model' or 'framework'.

Science is itself such a model, or framework. It consists of the scientific method and its working application by scientists. Without going into too much detail, the model that is science includes such characteristics as seeking observable evidence, and regarding repeatability as falsifiability important means of determining factual truth.

The purpose of science is that it is the model of investigation we use to determine factual truths about the nature of reality. It is not the only way in which we think about such matters, of course - many fields of intellectual enquiry are metaphysical - but it is the one we use when we really want to find with a high degree of confidence how things work and what is true. That's we we don't let philosophers design aeroplanes, or professors of English research treatments for cancer.

Science itself contains various models or frameworks, in the form of various laws, theories and hypotheses. These can themselves be challenged, altered and even abandoned without affecting the greater framework of science itself. (Indeed, it is part of the framework of science that these inner models should be challenged, and tested, and abandoned where they prove incorrect.)

Now, creationism is also a model, or framework, as you say. And it is indeed a different one from evolution, or from geology, or from cosmology. All of these fields of science (and more) conflict directly with creationism.

But there's more! Creationism, whilst a framework of thought, is not one that fits within the larger framework of science (like evolution, geology and cosmology do). It doesn't operate by the rules of science in its handling of evidence and its application of reason. Instead, it operates within a framework of religious thinking, which uses very different ways of attempting to determinine truth.

Dawkins is noting in this article that it is dishonest to regard creationism as a scientific theory, or as compatible with science. It isn't. It is contradictory to science not only in its claims, but in its methods. Dawkins recognises Kurt Wise's honesty in acknowledging that whilst his creationist beliefs held him in a powerful grip, these were not scientific beliefs, but were totally contradictory to all of his scientific training and understanding. Recognising this, he took the difficult but honest course of abandoning his commitment to science.

Dawkins notes the sad truth that there are many others who don't do this, but who instead strive to persuade themselves and others that this incompatibility doesn't exist, and that creationism is as valid a theory as evolution.

It isn't. Evolution is a long-standing and increasingly well evidenced theory which is derived entirely within the framework of science. Creationism operates in completely different, unscientific, ways. Anyone who claims the sort of respect given to scientific discoveries for the creationism (for we don't let theologians design aeroplanes, either) is either being dishonest or making a mistake.

118. Changing my Mind

Comment #106532 by _J_ on January 3, 2008 at 5:09 am

The problem with 'Not THAT Gullible' is that, by making the making the comparison, it suggests 'I'm not as gullible as you'. Or, at least, '...as other people'.

As in:

'Are you religious?'
'No, I'm Not THAT Gullible.'
'Oh. I'm a Jainist.'

I fear that this way we're going to lose friends even more quickly...

119. Changing my Mind

Comment #106529 by _J_ on January 3, 2008 at 5:04 am

Hello and welcome, GrumpyMax

--- Literary digression ---

How nice to talk Shakespeare! Not sure I agree with you about your interpretation of Polonius, there:

This above all- to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

The nature of his speech overall is, like his character overall, pedantic but well-intentioned busybodying, as unconsciously ironised by his famous 'brevity is the soul of wit'. Polonius is not overburdened with wit. In this speech, his nuggets of advice aren't all that bad. But he sure goes on a bit.

Anyway, this site's useful if you're looking up Shakespeare on the hoof (on the sort of hoof that has an internet connection, that is):

http://www.opensourceshakespeare.com/

Probably the interesting question is: does the original usage of a quote necessarily carry forward to its subsequent uses? If everyone recognises 'To thine own self be true' to mean 'Don't contradict your principles' (or something), does it matter if its first, most famous, usage actually meant something else? (Probably in an essay on intentionality...)

---

Sorry for the continuation of an off-topic subject there, all.

On the current discussion matter of the word 'atheism': I think we're best to live with it, and to play the long game of surprising people's negative expectations by being a generally wonderful bunch of people. It's best not to let yourself be bullied around too much by other people's subjective word associations, for the reasons described above: we'll end up not only shifting names as often as underwear, but also being criticised for it, as though we care more about presentation than substance.

On the other hand, if someone were to propose a really brilliant alternative to 'atheism' that everyone loved, we could take that on and stick with it. But given what a diversity of tastes and opinions we include, I think we'd struggle to find one. We're as well just making a virtue of what we've got.

Which, incidentally, is exactly what the Out Campaign is doing.

120. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #106513 by _J_ on January 3, 2008 at 4:15 am

wooter

Creations cannot be same kind as his creation.

Two problems with this:

1 - It's not true. Consider reproduction by cell division: the new, 'created' cell is the same as the pre-existing, 'creating', cell. (As far as I'm aware. Biologists may correct me, here.)

The logical mistake you are making here is choosing a few examples that seem to support your point ('paintings can't paint', for example) and assuming that they add up to a universal rule.

2 - It doesn't matter! No one is arguing that a creator god must have been created by an identical creator god. We're just pointing out that a creator god must have come from somewhere, and answering this question is at least as troublesome as answering the 'where did the universe come from?' question.

Picking up your 'artists and paintings' example, try this analogy. You and I are out walking in a barren, deserted wasteland where no one lives. We come to a cave and go inside. To our amazement, the walls are lined with incredible paintings. 'Where have these come from?', I wonder. 'Oh, that's easy', you say. 'Someone must have painted them.' 'No doubt', I say. 'But the real mystery is who? And why? No one lives within a hundred miles of here. There's nothing to eat. There's no one to see them. Very mysterious!' 'Oh nonsense', you say. 'That isn't interesting at all. We've explained the paintings. No need to explain the painter. You and your silly questions!'

121. Changing my Mind

Comment #106504 by _J_ on January 3, 2008 at 3:50 am

Steve Zara

"Well, I am really not that sure about anything, and I am bit puzzled about your insistence you know so much based on no reliable evidence. Let me take you aside for a while and explain carefully what 'reliable evidence' means. It may surprise you"

I know this term is weakened by its adjectival use in front of any belief or attitude, but personal I'd be tempted to call what you're describing 'being reasonable'.

122. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106246 by _J_ on January 2, 2008 at 2:46 pm

I liked this article. At the broadest level, its attutide is healthy, and its mistakes at least have the virtue of being hilarious. Certainly, it's annoying that Miller is so keen to draw a 'Blue Corner, Red Corner, Fight, Compromise' story that she fails to recognise that Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens have been making the case for sensible uncertainty from the start. But the mad image of 'wacky' Professor Dawkins, scientist by day and tireless web crusader by night, is one to be treasured.

I'd say it's a testament to the effect that Dawkins's work has had on the public consciousness that his rare and measured appearances on a site that is admirably and transparently managed by Josh can so readily be misinterpreted as fleeting glimpses of the semi-mythical Keyser Soze of atheism, flicking a lighter onto the petrol of latent atheism before vanishing into the shadows from which he puppet-masters the entire movement...

Lunatic nonsense from Ms Miller, but beautiful.

123. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105733 by _J_ on January 1, 2008 at 5:24 pm

EvolvedDNA and Richard Morgan

Your mentions of Aberfan have sobered me somewhat. I've been lucky never to have had personal experience of a comparable horror. I remember learning about Aberfan in a high school geography class and shuddering at the thought of it.

One thing that often comes back to me is seeing a newspaper report on the Beslan school siege a few years ago, which had a photograph of people hanging a sheet out of the window, upon which was written (in English) 'Why?'. And I remember that part of me had been expecting to see that sign, waiting for it to show up. Every horrific catastrophe brings it up.

Some people seem to lose faith. Others stretch to impressive feats of theodicy to integrate their concept of god with what they've witnessed - some, apparently, becoming more religious as a way of 'finding' some sense to frame what they have seen.

I have nothing to say about this at all. But I am interested in it. Partly because, I have no idea at all how I would respond myself.

124. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105732 by _J_ on January 1, 2008 at 5:13 pm

WithGoodReason
Thank you very much indeed for sharing that!

I like the cut of your jib. Please come to Manchester (the one in England) so I can buy you a drink.

I'd just like to stick in a positive word for Protestants. Here in Britain, there are plenty of moderate Anglicans, Methodists and others who quite happily steer clear of biblical literalism whilst clinging to certainty about Jesus. Much like the kind of Catholicism you describe. Proper, foam-mouthed literalistic fire-and-brimstone evangelism is thankfully a minority hobby here.

But there is a full spectrum in terms of where the iron curtain of 'No - this bit's a fact' clangs down. It might be right at the liberal extreme of 'If you behave in a considerate way, Jesus'll accept you'. It might be at monogamy, heterosexuality and pre-marital celibacy. It might be at specifically asking Jesus into your life. It might be anywhere. That's the fun, and the horror, of it. You just don't know where someone's religious certainty might kick in. Once people are prepared to accept such-and-such a massive claim as The Truth, without supporting evidence, there's no telling just where they'll end up.

(By the way - as an English graduate, I appreciated your anecdote. The absurdities of postmodern self-important reality-bending have often made me growl.)

125. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105724 by _J_ on January 1, 2008 at 4:55 pm

AtheistJon

Like Radesq, I disagree with you. I think the thing to bear in mind is Dawkins' closing comment:

Although I was wrong in my scepticism, and I have now changed my mind, I was still right to have been sceptical in the first place!

A politician who, in 2002, based on their knowledge, strongly felt that war was justified, can completely unhypocritically retrospectively feel that war was the wrong choice. All that's needed is for them to subscribe to something like the following:

'I stand by my support of the war in 2002, because based on what I knew then, it made perfect sense. But now, knowing things I didn't know then and having had a lot of arguments on the matter, I, with the benefit of hindsight, think that we'd be better off if we hadn't gone to war. I think that the Prime Minister was privy to knowledge that I was not and which, had I shared it, would have led me to oppose the war.'

That's not hypocritical, surely? That's forming your opinion based on available evidence. Strictly preserving a former opinion in spite of any new data that contradict it is, essentially, what we criticise religions for - putting their conclusions before their research.

Who knows? Tomorrow, God might appear in the sky, apologising for having fallen asleep for a couple of thousand years, and sorting out our translations of the bible for us. In such an event, I wouldn't apologise for having not believed in him, because disbelief made sense based on what I knew. But I would begin to believe in him, because the available information would have shifted radically.

(Incidentally, a person's principles can change over time, too. 'I was once a pacifist, but now I'd like to nuke someone' - that sort of thing. We're not static, us humans. But such a change should be well advertised - especially in a politician, whose principles are of significant public interest.)

I tell you what would be hypocritical. Claiming to be equipped and able for making serious decisions for my country and criticising the decisions of others, but failing to base my decisions on an honest, up-to-date assessment of available information about the state of my country. That would be hypocritical.

(By the way: as part of my ongoing campaign to un-demonise certain words, I'd like to admit that I'm a hypocrite, and to accuse everyone else of being hypocrites, too. Just like we're all liars, to some degree. Some words seem to have gained a pejorative power so overwhelming that it's impossible to use them in a measured, descriptive way any more.)

126. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105710 by _J_ on January 1, 2008 at 3:51 pm

AtheistJon

Nobody commented on my earlier post and I'm actually really curious to hear if anybody agrees with me that what RD wrote about politicians flip-flopping is a fallacious argument.

Worthwhile point. But, as I read it, Dawkins' argument is not fallacious, because that's not quite what (as I understand it) he's criticising.

I absolutely agree that politicians need to stand by their statements of belief and intent. Otherwise, an electorally based democracy is a sham. You can't make a sensible vote if the people you vote for morph into something unanticipated the instant they get your vote.

But look at Dawkins' examples. Blanket statements of inflexibility from Thatcher and Blair. Lib Dems who, years after the matter of whether or not to go to war has passed, still refuse to revise their opinion in face of major changes to the available information on that matter.

Changing one's mind when the available facts have not changed, but when one has gained some sort of benefit from one's previously stated opinions, is likely to be an instance of cynical system-playing. But changing one's mind as a result of new information and better research is straightforwardly learning. That is, is it not, what we all go to school for? And, given that the world doesn't sit still with all possible knowledge laid out for our perusal, we want out politicians to be capable of learning, don't we?

Dawkins is criticising an apparent political culture which equates all mind-changing with equivocation. This is a false, and harmful, equation. Dawkins' point is not fallacious.

127. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105690 by _J_ on January 1, 2008 at 2:48 pm

WithGoodReason

Just want to join the others in saying welcome and expressing some interest in your tale. (Actually, perhaps it's worth an entry in the Converts' Corner bit of the site.)

I'd also like to applaud your stated method. It sounds like you made much more of an effort to read broadly across different religions (and non-religious attitudes) than I (with my personal history of swaying between Protestantism and scepticism) have ever managed. That sounds wholly laudable.

A friend of mine has just completed the first term of a theology degree. It's theology for the ministry - she'll be a vicar at the end. We had a conversation the other day, and I heard how challenging the whole thing was. My friend tells me they've really had the 'break you down to build you up' approach, and she is no longer even certain that she's really an Anglican. But, when pushed more widely on the whole issue of god, she refuses to question it, saying she doesn't think she could handle having that questioned. Debating the details is hard enough; Jesus has to remain as a fact.

I suppose this isn't a surprise for a course that plans to churn out a new Anglican minister (just like the army doesn't train recruits by asking them to question whether they really agree with their nation's foreign policy). She's already decided she wants to be a vicar, after all. But it nevertheless leaves me feeling rather sad and frustrated. This seems to be the biggest challenge to her faith she's ever had, but the fundamental notion of whether or not there is a god at all is left tactfully out. Surely all the effort she's going to over understanding His Word and knowing the details of the church is so much wasted time and angst if she never goes back to that big question?

You sound to have taken the effort to go about that question in a very reasonable, open-minded, enquiring way. I think that's brilliant.

128. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105511 by _J_ on December 31, 2007 at 7:23 pm

God created your science, chemistry, physics, etc.., They don't reign over him. I don't know if you didn't read what I said earlier, I said that I believe he can manipulate them to his will whether we understand how or not.

You know, the Pastafarians believe that 'gravity' is the FSM holding us all down with his noodly appendages...

A man turns up at a police station with a statement (written in his own handwriting) which he claims is a woman who lives down his road's confession to having committed a murder. The police have been all over the crime scene, but there isn't an ounce of evidence that the woman ever went anywhere near it. No finger prints, no DNA - nothing. There's no motive for her to have done it. She has a solid alibi for the date of the crime. There's not even any sign that it was a murder at all - the autopsy clearly indicated cardiac arrest, and the deceased's medical records show a history of heart problems.

But the man with the written statement has convinced his whole community that the woman is guilty. They want to see her locked away for life.

Why would a person commit a murder, carefully sweep away every indication that they have done so (or even that a murder had been committed at all) and then confess to it via a third party who would certainly be seen as a liar? They wouldn't.

For 'man with alleged confession', read 'bible'. For 'murderer', read 'god'. See the point?

If, after all this, you still believe in god, that's fine. But, by the consensual basis upon which our laws and behavioural codes operate, it is thoroughly immoral for you to attempt to propagate your death-glorifying belief. Just thought I should point that out to you.

Goodnight, and best wishes for 2008,

J

129. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105507 by _J_ on December 31, 2007 at 7:11 pm

[I] can only pray for you.(not trying to be condescending).

Hey, that's fine. I don't take that as condescension. I used to have friends who said 'I don't mind religious people, as long as they don't evangelise'. Which is silly. If someone genuinely believes god to be real, I'd be slightly offended if they didn't want me to realise it too!

yes, I would lay my life down for God. What we have here on earth is only temporary, we can have eternity with God after this life, so therefore I am willing to give up this life for the next.

I understand this, as there have been occasions in my life when I genuinely felt that I would give my life for one thing or another. Whilst I was religious, I would probably have given it for my idea of god. This is entirely human.

But this also saddens me. Just as you were not being condescending to me before, please allow that I am not being condescending to you. I think (I am quite confident, actually) that you are caught in the most poisonous (and, sadly, most common) psychological trick of the major religions: that which encourages you to perceive a story as more important than your entire life. The logic of the afterlife is such as will convince you that everything you have ever felt and experienced is subordinate to the Great Hereafter. And yet, you will have never been given a single shred of good evidence that that Hereafter exists. Whilst you spend every moment of every day living in the real, observable, mortal life.

I don't presume to suggest that anyone has wilfully misled you, or that you were unwilling to participate in this belief. It is wholly likely that all involved fully believe it themselves. But I can assure you that, according to the sum total of all human knowledge about life, the universe and everything (New Year is a perfect time to quote Douglas Adams, in my view) the belief is wrong. There is no sign of an afterlife. There is no sign of a god.

Yet, every ounce of joy you have ever felt when thinking of god and heaven was real. Of course it was real. It's an emotion and you felt it. So what does that mean? It means that the power to feel the things that you feel is within your hands, and the hands of other people. It is not associated with the existence of a god at all.

So, you don't require a god in order to live fully and happily at all. And your observable, mortal life is - by definition - all that you know, can know, have ever known. And yet you have been coaxed, prodded and bullied into a willingness to throw all of this away for a story that you have been assured is true.

Does it surprise you that this saddens me?

Last point. Billions of people fervently believe one religion or another. No matter what your faith, you are in a minority, compared to the total of all believers. Therefore, most people who believe strongly in a god do so mistakenly. Imagine that.

Take care,

J

Note - interrupted by New year's festivities, it's taken an age to get round to finishing this post. When I wrote it, 312 was the last post. My apologies.

130. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105488 by _J_ on December 31, 2007 at 6:03 pm

To agree with Diacanu - absolutely right. Surely the existence (or otherwise) of a god and an afterlife is the most important subject imaginable. Surely it's worth investigating thoroughly...?

131. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105485 by _J_ on December 31, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Just caught up on those posts. Okay, urin4it. Thanks for sharing your beliefs.

Of course you believe those things. They're exactly the things that any faith that has your emotional commitment will tell you to keep you on board and stop you asking awkward questions.

Surely the truth - the real truth, the absolute truth - is the thing that won't go away no matter how many awkward questions you ask?

When I was a believer, I believed the same things you've just listed. Here's another (and maybe you believe this too): I was told, by my minister, that 'Evidence doesn't apply to God. God is beyond evidence.' And I swallowed it.

It makes no sense. I am very, very fortunate because, even while I consciously accepted this stuff, part of my mind was of that curious, question-asking type that really, really wanted everything to make sense and all the dots to join up. And so the loose threads - the 'God doesn't need evidence's and the 'Our faith is true but other faiths are wrong's and so on - nagged at me. And I had to pursue them to make sure the whole story really, really made sense. It didn't.

You wouldn't want to believe something that didn't make any sense, would you?

Perhaps you just answered 'Ah, but it makes sense to God'. Ask yourself this: why would God, who created you and gave you your powers of reasoning, present himself in a way that doesn't make any sense to those powers of reasoning? He's God! If he exists, he can make as much sense as he likes!

Perhaps you are thinking 'But it makes sense when my religious leaders describe it.' Ask yourself two questions:

1. Can people be led astray by authority figures? (If you have trouble answering this question, have a look here: Heaven's Gate)

2. Would an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent god only allow itself to appear to exist in accordance with a type of reasoning which completely contradicts the sort of reasoning we use in every other field of our lives, to keep ourselves alive, healthy, happy, legal and so on: ie, paying attention to the evidence of the world around us and correcting ourselves where our assumptions clash with the observable facts? Such a god would be encouraging you to behave as a self-endangering (in fact, generally dangerous) mad person.

EDIT - Link corrected

132. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105476 by _J_ on December 31, 2007 at 5:36 pm

[Barges in idiotically, having read only four posts]

Hello urin4it! Happy 2008!

This 'God works something in your heart' thing. What makes you reckon that your feelings (you are talking about your feelings, right?) amount to a good, reliable basis for establishing truth?

Sure, they're a handy guide. I'm not saying feelings are useless - I am human! But that's just it: I'm human. I've seen other humans believe things that are clearly untrue, and feel things that don;t make sense. I've seen racists and liars and people taken in by racists and liars. I've seen people swear blind that such and such a thing happened right before their eyes, right up until solid evidence that it didn't is presented, at which point they look a bit sheepish and apologise. Feelings are human, and so is getting things wrong.

You, me, lawyers, scientists, and anyone trying to make any reliable decision about anything have all learned that, if you want to avoid making the sorts of mistakes that can cause anything from embarrassment to death, you have to stick closely to the observable facts.

Faith isn't about observable facts. Is it? It's about prefacing the observable facts with a statement along the lines of 'I'm believing X, Y and Z, and I'm all in favour of any facts that back me up, but the rest can just go away, thanks'.

Now. Consider any field of human endeavour other than your own faith (about which you are, naturally, extremely biased) and ask yourself: is this a good strategy? Would we sentence someone to death on it? Would we use it as the basis for testing a new medicine?

So: should you hang your life on it? And more: should you recommend others to hang theirs on it, too?

And Diacanu is right. Many of us had religious faith. I had religious faith. It was quite nice and very addictive. But it wasn't correct.

EDIT Seven posts have passed while I was writing that. (Just so you know how behind the pace I am. (God, I'm getting old.))

133. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105466 by _J_ on December 31, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Hey, Corylus (and anyone else who fancies it):

A forum topic in which to paste your fond reflections from a year on the front line of atheism, science and occasional name-slinging now exists in the magical foreign realm of fora, at this address: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32699

Go there and say something amusing. If you want to.

134. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105453 by _J_ on December 31, 2007 at 4:46 pm

...or her ability to raise poultry. (Steve Zara)

Or it could be pickled. Like, increasingly, me. Yay! It's just turned 2008 and I've enjoyed standing on a hill and watching everyone else's fireworks. Gives me an odd and pleasing sense of connection with my local community, plus is cheap.

Lovely lady Corylus: glad you like the idea! As for forum - perhaps I should just log off, troll-flag my own comments and (hopefully) thereby create an Alternative Comment thread. (I can always let the Pinkeye alter-ego post here.)

I also appreciated Dr Benway's cock bragging. I wonder if this is a tool (sorry) to adopt more often with people who reckon their belief in their almighty special friend (sorry sorry) is an automatic argument-winning uber-weapon (sorry sorry sorry).

My personal suggestion for the Review of the Year is - partly because it's something I actually had some involvement in and partly just to beat anyone else who might raise it - The Ballad of Dianelos, circa all of spring and some of summer. What passes for my life vanished entirely whilst he was airing his theory of Special Absolutism.

Racquel Donkins - thank you for starting my 2008 with a fit of giggles. Good luck with the Werd n that.

Generous hugging for anyone who feels inclined,

J

135. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105406 by _J_ on December 31, 2007 at 1:13 pm

...all the wise heads here who've kept me sane this year. No mean feat.

Not with all the challenges to our sanity we've had, certainly!

On which thought, I rather fancy a Dawkins.net Review of The Year - 2007 in News, Views and Abuse at the RD Site's Article Discussion Threads. Any high (or low) points to contribute, anyone?

(I suppose this should really be in the forum. Or an Alternative Comment thread?.)

136. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105401 by _J_ on December 31, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Oh yes, I'll jump on that bandwagon:

Happy New Year, the lot of you.

J

EDIT Steve Zara thank you for that wonderful link. 'Teh Ceiling Cat' is my favourite new name for the big G.

137. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105381 by _J_ on December 31, 2007 at 11:37 am

dysolution

Well, if you don't mind a much slower pace, less contributors and an absence of Catholic bells and whistles, you can always try the Free Church of Scotland forum (search for 'Dawkins' for the usual targets). It's the home of the good David 'Wee Flea' Robertson, former frequent visitor to this site and author of The Dawkins Letters. There are a couple of people there (Richard, Dina, maybe some others) who'll debate with you in a less punchy but similarly inflexible way to your Catholic friends.

But I expect you can find feistier fora for your forays.

Thanks for letting us in on your debate. Sorry I didn't make it in time to take part.

138. Monkey, Business

Comment #105356 by _J_ on December 31, 2007 at 10:24 am

al-rawandi

If condoms are murder, then I am a prolific serial killer.

Show-off.

139. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105347 by _J_ on December 31, 2007 at 9:54 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen and dysolution,

How infuriating. I just spent half an hour writing something to join the discussion at the site you linked, only to belately notice that the comment form is now closed.

How frustrating the good Father's closing post is. I have to admit, this is one thing that makes me quite angry. I have a friend whom I like and respect very much, but who has infuriatingly used the same trick on me in religious discussions: 'Okay, we're not having this discussion any more, and you're not allowed to say anything else, but I'm just going to say...'. I thought I'd left 'Talk to the hand' behind at high school, but clearly the Catholic church still accepts it as solid argumentational form.

Well done to all the 'loons' who chipped in to stop the Magisterium having everything its own way.

140. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105139 by _J_ on December 30, 2007 at 5:03 pm

dysolution, via Dr Benway,

Nothing says death cult quite like "afterlife."

I'd like to second that comment wholeheartedly. Anyone who is part of a group whose beliefs hinge around the claim that their assumptions about eternity outvalue their, your or anyone's mortal (ie observable) life has no business accusing other people of promoting death.

141. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105137 by _J_ on December 30, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Dr Benway and Steve Zara

Just had a Dianelos flashback.

Gnnnh. When I die and my life flashes before my eyes, I'm going to reach the Dianelos episode and think that my brain has stuck.

On kid-torture vs food stealing as thought experiments for discussions about moral absolutism/relativism. The food stealing example is clearer and less a lot less provocative as a moral decision.

sent2null, your example does an excellent job of showing how, as you say, awareness of others in relation to our actions affects our sense of morality. But I think that, in relation to Dr B's nastier alternative, it highlights another level on which absolutism can nevertheless operate.

'Eating the food when no one else is around' is, from an important perspective, a significantly different action than 'eating the food when there are others who may need it'. Like 'walking towards the cutting board holding the kitchen knife in front of me' is a wholly different action if there is someone standing in the way.

You see, torturing a child is torturing a child. Stabbing someone is stabbing someone. And eating a meal is eating a meal. But in one context, 'eating a meal' may also be 'depriving someone of food', whereas in another it can't be. 'Torturing a child' is always 'torturing a child', but the argument is about whether or not there could be a situation in which torturing a child might be morally justifiable.

I suppose the point I'm spiralling towards is that, in response to the 'food stealing' argument, a moral absolutist could argue 'The absolute is "Cause no harm to anyone"' (or even 'Don't steal', where the dead are not attributed ownership rights). Whereas, in the 'child torturing' argument, harm is caused to another human (and a cute innocent one, at that) in both cases. Here, a moral absolutist either asserts that child torture is absolutely wrong, or has a harder time concocting an absolute that could permit child torture. (Meanwhile, the moral relativist may have a similarly difficult time trying to imagine a society that would find child torture an everyday thing.)

I'm not sure whether I've possibly just edged stupidly onto a false slippery slope upon which moral absolutism essentially collides with moral relativism and the whole distinction stops making sense. My apologies, if so. (I am very tired.)

142. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104837 by _J_ on December 29, 2007 at 3:58 pm

It's very good to see Dennet patiently and accessibly illuminating the subtlety and power of Darwinian evolution. So many discussions with anti-Darwinians founder on their clunky conception of what Darwinian evolution is, and their certainty that it cannot apply to phenomena that it in fact handles beautifully. It is invaluable to have well-written pieces like this to refer to, quite apart from the pleasure of digesting such fascinating material in the first place.

143. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104328 by _J_ on December 28, 2007 at 10:35 am

I'm growing quite proud of, and impressed by, our Archbishops.

144. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104327 by _J_ on December 28, 2007 at 10:33 am

Please show this in the UK.

Please.

Please.

145. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104002 by _J_ on December 27, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Well done, Steve Zara. Where you find your patience, I do not know.

146. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103990 by _J_ on December 27, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Hello, scooternyc,

Thanks for explaining your position a bit. I see where you're coming from, but I'm not quite as individualistically inclined as you are.

Whilst I agree that people ought not to shirk taking responsibility for themselves or their actions, and should encouraged to take such responsibility, I would be very uncomfortable making so apparently absolute a rule of this as you seem to.

After all, if everybody's feelings, beliefs and actions are wholly their own responsibility and not significantly affected by those of other people, then the argument that people ought to take responsibility for their feelings, beliefs and actions loses much of its force, because the consequences of failure to do so are thereby so diminished. Why give a damn about what you do in a society if your impact on others is purely something for them to shut up and deal with?

I rather think we're all a good deal more porous and malleable than that. Perhaps you're not. Fair enough. For better or for worse, I am. Given this range of variety even in a sample of two, I'd feel very uncomfortable making sweeping generalisations about exactly how independent every person should be. No man being an island, and all.

But, by the way of glib generalisations, I will offer this. If I found myself in a situation where I heard a brief account of a wholly unnecessary death, and my immediate response was scorn rather than pity, I'd want to take a moment to think over the current state of my beliefs. Because they would not be making me the sort of person I would like to be.

I'm not the sort of person I'd like to be anyway, by the way! And I dare say a bit more fierce individualism might be good for me. But, at the cost of losing sympathy with other people in their misfortunes, when I've an absolute minimum of information by which to judge them? No. I'll muddle along being a failure, if that's the cost.

I suppose this means I agree to disagree. Toodeloo.

147. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103761 by _J_ on December 26, 2007 at 6:10 pm

If it's childish to feel sorry for a person who threw their life away in the grip of a sincere but woefully misguided faith, then I'm a child, too.

This doesn't mean that I'm not outraged that beliefs such as this are still passed down and spread around in the equally misguided belief that they are correct, harmless and worthwhile. I am outraged. But to lose sympathy with the victims is to lose any sense of why the persistence of malignant faiths is tragic at all. Caring about what people believe must surely begin with caring about people. Otherwise it's no more than nosiness, bossiness and vanity (at best).

And one can feel sorry for suicides and the starving all at once. I have not yet run out of coins for the sympathy meter. I hope I'm not about to.

148. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103165 by _J_ on December 24, 2007 at 11:34 am

Poor man.

From a purely argumentative perspective, this is a very vivid and useful example of the extremes of belief that people can reach on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Like the Heaven's Gate cultists before him, here's another person so certain of his faith he has laid aside his very life in accordance with his religious logic. And this logic - that the demands of the (assumed) eternal life outweigh those of the (evident) mortal one - lurks in all the major faiths. But, for the faiths that discourage suicide, it's less easy to tell when a believer is as committed as this man and the Heaven's Gaters were. It is hard to tell whether your everyday religious person prizes their heaven over your life.

So, this is a useful example to bring up when your local stubborn apologist once again asserts that they just know their faith is justified.

But it's so very, very, very sad that a man has died for this.

I haven't read through the above comments, but I expect someone will have commented on the instructive irony of this piece of news. At a time when millions of people are celebrating a story in which a man sacrifices his life in order to be resurrected, thereby cementing a new religion, it is apt (and sobering) to be reminded of just how precious and non-renewable life is. Those who celebrate the imaginary cycle of death into a 'new life' have entirely the wrong end of the stick. Let's celebrate life itself, shall we?

And while I'm here: a merry Christmas, one and all.

149. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102774 by _J_ on December 23, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Dr B
Perhaps 'wonderful' in the sense of 'full of wonder', 'to be wondered at', 'I wonder how he ended up in charge'.

I'm pretty sure my reaction after your last election was something along the lines of 'What, Bush again? Oh, that's just wonderful'.

*Digressive anecdote alert*
I like America more than I did a few weeks ago, for wholly subjective and unscientific reasons. I was queueing for return tickets for Macbeth on the West End. About five minutes before the show, my sister and I had reached the front of the queue and two tickets became available - at £55 each. This was a touch beyond our budget, so we passed them on to the people behind us, the first of whom was a very pleasant American (possibly Canadian, I can't be certain, but I'm guessing USA) whom I'd been chatting with earlier. He took the ticket and, as he left, he shook my hand warmly and advised me to get a drink for me and my sister. I don't know whether it was because he'd overheard me describing on the phone how a job interview that day had gone really badly, or because we couldn't afford the insane ticket price, or because he was just really pleased to see the show, but as he did so, he slipped something into my hand which he would absolutely not let me get away without taking. It was a £5 note. I didn't need this money and felt a bit embarrassed to be given it, but I was very touched indeed. What a lovely man.

You may have an arsehole in charge of your foreign policy (indeed, all your policies), but in so far as America is 250M Americans, I currently feel that your "tradition of fair play toward those less fortunate" is still alive.