Comments by Barry Pearson

Comment #151610 by Barry Pearson on March 29, 2008 at 4:03 am

nanaj:

Is it meant to be insulting? There is no consensus at YouTube. Some think it is pro-atheist pro-science irony/sarcasm. I suspect the same.

I would love to know what Eugenie Scott would think of her role in it!

302. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151556 by Barry Pearson on March 29, 2008 at 1:21 am

Nearly but not quite off-topic - words can't describe this, it has to be seen. (4 minutes).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw

303. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140601 by Barry Pearson on March 8, 2008 at 1:28 am

How come the UK has an official 'Church of England', but as a nation, is very secular; And yet here in the US we have a constitutional separation of church and state, but we're so much more pious? How did you guys manage that?

Constrast Christianity in the UK with Islam.

The latter (when represented by vocal and politically-minded muslims) often exhibits excesses similar to Christianity in the USA, or more so. Yet, of course, Islam is not the established religion. (Much of the support for the more excessive Islam comes from oversees, especially, I believe, financial support from Saudi Arabia).

Parts of the UK are not very secular. When the Archbishop of Canterbury talked about Sharia Law, he was (rightly) criticised for appearing to advocate it. But when he said aspects of it were inevitable, he was probably reflecting existing reality in some communities.

304. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140597 by Barry Pearson on March 8, 2008 at 1:11 am

If you're an atheist you cannot be blasphemous as you don't believe in any god to begin with. Only religious people can be blasphemous. Or am I missing something?

Some quotes from the debate:

"it is important to point out that the blasphemy offences are offences of strict liability - that is, the intention to commit an act of blasphemy is not required. That contrasts with the incitement to religious hatred offence, where an intention to stir up religious hatred needs to be demonstrated. All that matters for an offence to have been committed under the blasphemy laws is that a person published material that is the subject of prosecution. It follows that a person might commit such an act inadvertently, but it would not be a defence in law to say that there had been no intention to be blasphemous".

"In the High Court, Lord Justice Hughes recited the history of the offence and, following a reference to Lord Scarman's judgment in the Whitehouse v Lennon case, said in paragraph 16 of his judgment that there was common ground on the gist of the offence�"that the material had to be, "so scurrilous and offensive in manner that it undermines society generally, by endangering the peace, depraving public morality, shaking the fabric of society or tending to be a cause of civil strife"."

In effect, it was no longer about "protecting" God or Jesus, but about preventing riots, etc. Recent Acts have focused on trying to prevent intentional incitement to hatred and violence, which is more justifiable if safeguards for free speech are strong enough.

Another quote is interesting:

"The recognition that the offences appear to be moribund was reinforced by the High Court's decision on 5 December 2007 in the case of Stephen Green v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court and others, which was a private prosecution for blasphemous libel. The court's primary judgment was that the Theatres Act 1968 and the Broadcasting Act 1990 now already prevent the prosecution of a theatre, the BBC or another broadcaster for blasphemous libel."

I just skimmed those Acts, and couldn't find anything about blasphemous libel. They permit obscenity (in certain cases). I think the court "stretched" those laws to permit "Jerry Springer - the Opera" when it strictly shouldn't have!

305. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140592 by Barry Pearson on March 8, 2008 at 12:46 am

Don't forget that 26 of the Lords are Lords Spiritual: Church of England clergy. The list contains a few familiar names: I wonder how many of them voted in favour of the change?

I believe 2 Bishops (Durham and Portsmouth) voted for the change and 3 (Chester, Rochester and Nothingham) voted against. No Archbishops voted.

306. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140587 by Barry Pearson on March 8, 2008 at 12:32 am

What irritates me is that 87 of the Lords voted against it. I am so glad that we have an unelected body of rich toffs approving the laws in my country.

I favour a secular democracy. But sometimes the arguments from unelected people can be more sensible. Would people in the USA want Supreme Court judges to be directly elected by citizens? I wonder how well that would work. And who would want scientists to use democracy rather than rational thought? "60% of citizens have voted that Evolution by Natural Selection is wrong, therefore it has been abandoned, and we are seeking alternative explanations for the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria and changes to the nature of Bird Flu, etc"!

I believe the most important section (29J) in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, the one that protects freedom of speech, was inserted by the Lords. Many in the House of Lords did not inherit their position, but were "appointed" for public service of some kind. Some spent their lives doing things other than trying to get elected by popular vote. Some retain the ability to think. Here is the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_House_of_Lords

My higher priority would be disestablishment of the Church of England, hence removal of those 26 Bishops. I have written to my MP and his party leader about that. (I'm sure many here have made their views known about this!)
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/letter1.htm

307. Dispatches: Holy Offensive

Comment #135467 by Barry Pearson on February 29, 2008 at 2:20 am

Britain has freedom of speech according to the "Human Rights Act 1998", which in turn simply brought into the jurisdiction of British courts the "European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" which Britain had already signed up to.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_3#sch1-pt1

The relevant articles are:

Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

and

Article 10 Freedom of expression

Note that each right is accompanied by potential limitations, and any conflict would have to be resolved in court or by case law. I haven't looked at case law on this matter, so don't know what restrictions might apply in practice.

308. Dispatches: Holy Offensive

Comment #135460 by Barry Pearson on February 29, 2008 at 2:09 am

Yes, Britain has blasphemy laws. They haven't been used for a decade or two, and may never be used again, (they have been overridden for theatres and broadcasts by permissive laws), but they do need to be removed for symbolic reasons.

It is worth reading the following section of the "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006":

29J - Protection of freedom of expression:

"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

(That came into effect last October). It would be hard to bring a case against someone ridiculing religious beliefs and practices now.

309. Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

Comment #134993 by Barry Pearson on February 28, 2008 at 12:32 pm

It isn't just the Haddith that are wrong.

The Koran is also wrong! Here is a Muslim website that identifies problems with the Koran itself:
http://reformislam.org/

Here are verses in the Koran that are incompatible with the 21st Century:
http://reformislam.org/verses.php

There are a number of groups trying to reform Islam. I suspect that they will have little or no real impact in Islamic states during the next decade or few, if ever.

310. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #133854 by Barry Pearson on February 27, 2008 at 12:41 am

The following briefly discusses "Tree of Life Web Project/Encyclopedia of Life Collaboration":
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/home.pages/toleol.html

311. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131382 by Barry Pearson on February 22, 2008 at 11:33 am

In response to #131368 by jonjermey:

I believe what is also important is "age of conversion".

I left school in 1965 perhaps as a sort-of Christian, but probably not an agnostic. I left university in 1968 as an agnostic. It wasn't until my 30s, during the 1980s, that I did the investigation and analysis to realise that I was an atheist.

Looking at YouTube, etc, young people are making their decisions at an earlier age. They have access to the concepts, are able to see that alternate positions are respectable, and have access to the material to help them come to their conclusions reasonably quickly. Many young people are atheists when they leave school, or at least when they leave college.

Their children will then be brought up in atheist households. I wouldn't call his "indoctrination", (I'm not sure how you could indoctrinate children to be atheists), but at least they won't be indoctrinated in a religion.

This will be a challenge to religions that need "bums on seats". I suspect this will be harder for each generation. But this may be measured in generations.

312. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131351 by Barry Pearson on February 22, 2008 at 10:00 am

In response to #131345 by al-rawandi:

Yes, of course they are ridiculous! (I hope my pages couldn't be interpreted as saying otherwise).

My approach to any topic like this is to gather information and subject it to systematic analysis. I may have prior views that certain views are ridiculous, but my views themselves need to be supported by evidence and analysis. I typically document, perhaps publish, that analysis. Without that, I have no grounds for claiming to have a "better" opinion.

I have published (a simplistic version of) my method for discussing complicated issues at:

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/aeiou/index.htm

313. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131343 by Barry Pearson on February 22, 2008 at 9:30 am

Just for interest: I'm English, my MP is a Liberal Democrat, and his party leader stated that he didn't believe in god.

So I wrote to both of them, stating what I wanted. What I said is at the following, and it may be useful to some other people:

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/letter1.htm

And in response to #131278 by Ygern, I have published a commentary on Islamic attempts at Human Rights declarations at:

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_universal.htm

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm

ps: I am developing a set of relevant pages indexed from:

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/index.htm

314. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123430 by Barry Pearson on February 7, 2008 at 6:29 am

What survey did that "75%" come from? I didn't catch the name.

I wonder if he said "Barna survey"?
http://www.barna.org/

(I left university decades ago calling myself an agnostic, which really meant that I was intellectually too lazy to investigate given the resources available then. I was in my 30s before I read more and concluded that I didn't believe in gods. The benefit of recent books, including their discussion on television, plus the web, plus YouTube, etc, is that it will be much easier for the coming generation to reach a sensible conclusion early, and typically before they start a family).

315. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122218 by Barry Pearson on February 5, 2008 at 12:00 am

dsaltarelli,

I gave my (selective) views of Vox Day's book here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2192,Irrational-Atheist-trounces-God-deniers,Wold-Net-Daily,page34#121875

316. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121875 by Barry Pearson on February 4, 2008 at 9:33 am

Vox Day's book "The Irrational Atheist" is available for free download:
http://irrationalatheist.com/freedl.html

I have only read a few chapters, and skim-read the rest, so I can't give a comprehensive review. Inevitably what I say will be selective, and I risk quoting out of context. But I am certainly not mis-quoting.

For Vox Day, this matter appears to be personal. Given that this book is supposedly primarily about Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, we learn more than we need to about Vox Day's own beliefs. And this is telling: "All I ask, all the vast majority of the billions of people of faith on the planet ask, is to be left alone to believe what we choose to believe and live how we decide to live. But the Unholy Trinity have no intention of leaving me alone".

Yet the "Unholy Trinity" are using WORDS! Whereas many intolerant religious people attempt to restrict atheists using law or violence. ("Sunday is special to ME - therefore YOU must conform". "I object to "Jerry Springer - the Opera" - therefore YOU mustn't see it". "As a Muslim, I musn't show images of Mohamed, therefore neither can YOU, and if necessary you will be killed").

He claims "... in attacking the arguments, assertions, and conclusions of the New Atheists, my only weapons are the purely secular ones of reason, logic, and historically documented, independently verifiable fact". But does that REALLY describe his statements such as the following?

"Christopher Hitchens is drunk, and he's wrong". "Hitchens .... (He's just a journalist after all�quot;he’s not expected to make sense.)" "it's clear that Richard Dawkins is well past his scientific expiry, and his latest book, The God Delusion, offers copious evidence that Dawkins has become as careless as he is crotchety in his old age". "It is most unfortunate for Dawkins, then, that it is not at all difficult to demonstrate his logical incompetence with empirical evidence". "The Unholy Trinity are deeply and profoundly afraid". (I would have classified those as ad hominem attacks, which I have typically found to be the last resort of people without better arguments).

Vox Day also gets personal with atheists is general, hence even with me! "But even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics". Gosh! So I, with my own ethical principles that I have developed over decades, (because I feel that religious codes, such as those in the 10 Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, are inadequate and potentially wrong), am a moral parasite!

Vox Day, like many religious people arguing against atheists, appears to see "atheism" as an opposition to his own own religion. He criticises denial of the Christian God, apparently unaware that, to many atheists, (including me), Christianity is just one of many contradictory religions, (in fact a whole set of contradictory sub-religions), and the Christian God is just one of a set of gods that can be discussed and denied. He appears to do this from a USA perspective of "One nation under the Christian God because we know what that means and I like it".

I am new to this "public atheism" activity - becoming an atheist was a purely personal matter 25 to 20 years ago, and I rarely talk about it. I am finding the arguments being used against atheism fascinating, especially in their lack of rationality and substance. I am finding that none of them is a serious challenge to my beliefs about the universe. But I do detect that I am moving from a degree of open-mindedness, through scepticism, towards cynicism about the motives and intellectual capabilities of such people.

317. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #118082 by Barry Pearson on January 30, 2008 at 10:05 am

Just for information. Yes, the UK has an obsolescent Blasphemy law, (applying to Christianity), which should be removed.

But last October parts of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 came into operation. Section 25J now operates:

29J - Protection of freedom of expression:

"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

When we get rid of the Blasphemy law, the above section should apply to ALL religions (and to Atheism itself!)