651. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128937 by Cartomancer on February 18, 2008 at 10:17 am

Aww shucks, I had a fiver on Paula Kirby and wooter tying the knot first...

Oh well, I'll just have to find a more realistic way to make riches beyond my wildest dreams than stupendously high-odds betting.

Congratulations on the impending nuptial frivolities by the way!

652. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127028 by Cartomancer on February 14, 2008 at 5:32 pm

I'm not entirely sure there is anything more than a semantic disagreement here either to be honest.

I suppose I am still trying to come up with a wording that applies to both the casual observer and the scientist. Perhaps "different levels" should be abandoned, rather than abandoning "satisfactory". Perhaps we should talk of "different approaches" instead, since "levels" suggests some kind of easily defined hierarchical relationship. The approach of the scientist is essentially "I will find out whatever there is to be found out, that is my purpose", while the approach of the casual observer would be more along the lines of "I will find out enough to satisfy my idle curiosity" or "I will find out as much as I need to solve my problem in the here and now" or "I will find out as much as I can before I get bored".

Perhaps the former can in some way be seen as a higher "level" of engagement with the problem (the highest level even), but I am not sure these speculations are entirely germane to my original point - which come to think of it probably doesn't apply to scientists qua science anyway.

653. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127019 by Cartomancer on February 14, 2008 at 5:09 pm

But the approach of the research scientist applying himself to a particular problem is itself a different level of explanation to the approach of the inquisitive man in the street to the same problem. Or of that same scientist with regard to tangential phenomena he is not investigating but simply needs a basic working knowledge of.

654. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127013 by Cartomancer on February 14, 2008 at 4:54 pm

"satisfactory" was a carefully chosen word, though perhaps not carefully chosen enough.

I did not mean to suggest by it that the proper way to approach a problem is always to look for the bare minimum "what will do" explanation. I simply tried to convey the idea that there are different levels of explanation appropriate for different circumstances, and we should alight upon the one which we want or need rather than always throwing our hands up in the air and waving the problem away as "much more complicated".

What a scientist considers "satisfactory" in terms of his explanation of the world is very different from what our man in the street would find satisfactory. In fact most scientists are very rarely satisfied with their explanations - "vision" as you put it is just setting the satisfaction bar high enough.

Maybe "appropriate" would have been better. I guess I lost clarity in trying to cover both scientific endeavour and everyday inquisitiveness with my speculations. Isn't peer review a wonderful thing?

655. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127003 by Cartomancer on February 14, 2008 at 4:16 pm

I'm not entirely sure that Ms. Bunting's resort to "but surely there are different kinds of truth" can be reduced to mere evasion or fudging. That would imply that she either really does or really does not believe in the virgin birth, and is trying to conceal the fact. I don't think she honestly knows what she believes in concrete terms.

Among many modern people of an intellectual bent there is a powerful, almost instinctive reaction to bald claims of fact stated in simple terms. I like to call it the "but surely things can't really be that simple?" urge. I suffer from it myself all the time. I think it is picked up during our formative years at school for the most part. We start off in infants school with very simple explanations for the world around us and the phenomena we encounter, and as we grow up we are increasingly shown that those simple explanations are inadequate to really describe the situation.

As the explanations get ever more complex and we become used to having our simple, comfortable world-view challenged time and time again, the sensitive ones among us come to realise that this state of affairs may well carry on indefinitely. We begin to see even the new explanations as potentially flawed, as simplified models, as tentative provisional abstracts. We come to expect that behind every bald statement there lurk countless exceptions, nuances, subtleties and shades of grey. Generally this is a healthy mind-set to develop and proves a fertile breeding ground for an admirable scientific skepticism - it encourages us not to be satisfied with simple answers where we need more complicated ones.

Nevertheless, it can go too far. If the "but surely things can't be that simple" urge becomes the first and foremost reaction to any and all statements, it can supplant skepticism and the urge to find out the details and become a self-serving pseudo-explanation all on its own. People lose sight of the primary aim - to achieve a satisfactory level of explanation - and begin to exalt complexity and intricacy above honest understanding. Suddenly we don't have to rate a claim on its merits, judge it as true or false in the context we receive it and work with it as it is, because the real situation simply has to be much more complicated than that, right? Eventually we get to the ultimate explanatory poverty of the postmodern mind, where nothing is true and everything is so much more complicated than we can ever imagine it to be.

As such, it seems that Ms. Bunting's thought process runs something along the lines of "But surely the true nature of truth can't be that simple? Therefore it isn't. Therefore there must be different kinds of truth". This last equivocation tactic is a classic trick of scholastic thought by the way, and with it you can reconcile even the most contradictory of statements. Now, a philosopher or scientist might take their "but surely it must be more complicated than that" and look for ways in which it could be more complicated. The average journalist or man in the street, however, would probably just leave it at that and refrain from doing the follow-up work.

656. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126663 by Cartomancer on February 13, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Well, the phrase "Utrum Chimera bombinans in vacuo possit comedere secundas intentiones" - is probably best translated as "whether a Chimera making a nuisance of itself in a vacuum is able to consume the indirect objects of thought".

It is, of course, a satirical question sending up the subtleties of late medieval scholastic thought. It comes from the title of one of the scholastic books in the library of the school of St. Victor, which Gargantua and Pantagruel visit in Rabelais' comic works of the same name. In fact the title of the book also tells us that this was considered an extremely subtle question, and that the theologians at the Council of Constance (1414-1418) spent eleven weeks debating its intricacies!

Chimeras were popular fodder for logical questions because they do not exist in reality (in re extra), but only in the mind. As such their ontological status is generally quite unusual. Centaurs and Goat-stags (hircocerva) are often used in the same way.

The vacuum was a tricky problem for medieval physics. Aristotle says that such a thing is impossible - the world is a completely full plenum - but various medieval thinkers suggested that it might be possible after all, if only through god's limitless power. The Paris condemnations of 1277 prohibited the thesis that it was impossible even to god (who could do it through such expedients as immediately moving the entire universe horizontally a bit to the left). Edward Grant's "Much Ado About Nothing - Theories of Space and Vacuum from the Middle Ages to the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, 1981)" is the definitive work on this topic.

"Second Intentions" is a very technical part of scholastic psychology. It has nothing to do with purpose or intent as we might expect from our use of the word "intention". Basically "intentions" are the objects of thought, in the same way as physical objects are the objects of sight or another kind of sense perception. The term "intentio" was first used in this way in the latin translation of Avicenna's De Anima (c. 1170 by Avendauth and Gundissalinus), but gets used in various different ways throughout the next two centuries. "Second" intentions appear in Aquinas, Scotus and others much later, and are one stage removed from normal intentions in the hierarchy of accidents.

I must say I am stumped by the little green door and the figures in the glass though. Unless the latter is a "figuras in speculo" reference talking about medieval optics and the former a reference to the 1921 novel by Zoe Meyer?

657. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126597 by Cartomancer on February 13, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Wouldn't the female one be a Tyrannosaurus Regina?

658. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126596 by Cartomancer on February 13, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Raspberry Jam! It simply has to be seedless raspberry jam. And Earl Grey for accompaniment. And if you disagree with this peerless revelation from on high then my sinister cadre of fanatical inquisitors will see to it that you are the one who is toast!

659. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #126594 by Cartomancer on February 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm

God? Are you kidding? He might have designed all the science, but the books he writes about it are appalling!

660. Cal scientist reflects on Darwin's genius

Comment #126263 by Cartomancer on February 12, 2008 at 8:30 pm

The article does seem subtly biased in favour of the religious crowd doesn't it? The first bit on the massive impact of Darwin's ideas is good, but I fear that the "other side" angle was put in purely out of journalistic desire to talk up a conflict and a misguided attempt to give equal time to both sides of the debate. Obviously there is nothing like parity between the arguments of science and the arguments of rabid crackpottery, and any sensible journalist worth his salt ought to recognise that fact and communicate the true situation accordingly.

Actually, I would be willing to let it go if it were just a misrepresentation of the feebleness of the creationist position and an attempt to suggest through omission that evolution by natural selection is on a less firm footing than it is. The paragraph on the "heartless ills of society", however, borders on the deeply irresponsible. Technically it does not state outright that the list of ills actually are ills, merely that they are demonised as being such. Nevertheless there is nothing by way of correction to point out which phenomena are terrible societal afflictions and which ones are the undeserving victims of vile immoral oppression. For my money, any list that lumps together atheism, homosexuality, and stem cell research on the one hand, with Nazism, Communism and the curtailment of freedom on the other, is at best supremely disingenuous and at worst outright discriminatory.

The bottom line is that it is perfectly possible to read the passage as an endorsement of the position of the demonisers - a dangerous and ignorant position that we all have a responsibility to oppose. It is not enough in situations like this that both sides are presented impartially - some issues are so important that failure to condemn a position is simply too much endorsement to give it. In my opinion, this is one of those issues.

661. Why Darwin matters

Comment #125814 by Cartomancer on February 12, 2008 at 5:22 am

Epeeist,

You missed out his DPhil from Oxford, his honorary D.Sc from Durham and his honorary D.Sc from the Vrije Universiteit, Brussels!

662. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #125806 by Cartomancer on February 12, 2008 at 4:53 am

Shh you, it's the principle that counts!

663. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #125801 by Cartomancer on February 12, 2008 at 4:42 am

There should be a special box of chocolates produced to celebrate - Cadbury's Natural Selection or something.

I'm off to celebrate by trying to mate with individuals who display favourable survival characteristics.

Happy Darwin Day!

664. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125543 by Cartomancer on February 11, 2008 at 3:07 pm

I think that steps should be taken to ensure that the leading lights of public anti-faith discourse remain as committed to robust, penetrating and no-holds-barred debate as they are today. To this end, I propose that we all club together and endow a Richard Dawkins Professorship in the Public Promotion of Shrillness and Stridency.

Christopher Hitchens would simply have to be the inaugural incumbent...

665. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125316 by Cartomancer on February 11, 2008 at 8:19 am

Why not take steps to fill the chair in perpetuity by taking samples of Richard's DNA and producing a new clone every twenty years or so. When the last one retires the new one will have had 45 years to achieve eminence in the field. That way even his very presence would stand testament to the public understanding of science!

666. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #125084 by Cartomancer on February 10, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Aww, I go away for a couple of days and come back to find that everybody else has beaten up my theist for me. No fair!

Well, never mind, I was just going to hammer away at the "why are you justified in calling your saccharin-sweet, nicey-nicey interpretation of christianity true but the nasty people are not?" line. It really does amaze me how people can assume that there is even such a thing as a "true" interpretation of the contents of a purely subjective phenomenon.

But then there was the old "case for the historicity of jesus" rubbish, a quite frankly astounding claim that we as atheists do not consider historical evidence as valid evidence (which comes as quite a surprise to someone working on a DPhil in medieval history, let me tell you!), and spades more nonsense about allegedly "true" interpretations of god's word. All seasoned with the most infuriatingly facile understanding of textual scholarship, historical analysis, source criticism and the rules of evidential reasoning. It's enough to make a grown man weep sometimes...

On second thoughts, maybe Styrer has a point about the futility of debating with theists in this case; I certainly got far more procrastinatory value and far less sleep from my dirty weekend away in Holland than I would have done here!

667. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124368 by Cartomancer on February 9, 2008 at 8:38 am

a) Procrastinatory value in the face of impending thesis deadlines.
b) So that they don't think they can get away unchallenged with spouting such drivel in public.
c) A relish for being patronising to people that is entirely unworthy of me.
d) Lack of sleep.

I think that just about has it covered....

668. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124244 by Cartomancer on February 8, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Shrommer, post #111, above -

First of all you misrepresent what was actually said in post #83. The arguments for why all faith is a bad thing were given in the link. The "short answer" for why we need websites and direct action in the here and now to confront faith-based atrocities was that people are dying because of them. You are deliberately assuming that the answer to the second point on practical policy to solve the problem is the answer to the first point on the original causes of the problem. It is not.

Secondly, you confuse the word "faith", which Professor Dawkins and most of us here use in the very specific sense of believing things without or in the face of the evidence, with the element of uncertainty inherent in the everyday application of empirical reasoning. Should you conduct rigorous tests on your chair before you sit in it? No, of course not - but the reason you don't is because you have sat in it and in other chairs like it before. You have a basic understanding of the physics that makes chairs stable which you apply unconsciously every time you see one. That is evidence, that is emipirical reasoning - it is not faith. Now, were you to see a chair which obviously looked rickety and unsafe, but sat in it anyway despite this evidence, that would be an act of faith.

Secondly, nobody ever said that you need 100% certainty before taking any action. 100% certainty is pretty much epistemologically impossible anyway. A high or even reasonable possibility is all that is really necessary for decision-making in the real world, correlated with an understanding of the consequences attached to that probability. Again, making a decision based on 90% certainty is not faith but good empirical reasoning. Making a decision based on 0% certainty is faith.

You assert baldly that christian faith results in love. This is simply not the case, and if it were then it is such a woefully inadequate axiom that it would be virtually bereft of the meaning you intend for it. It could result in love of cruelty for instance - that's a kind of love. So why does christian faith necessarily result in love? Love is not an entirely conscious phenomenon - one does not simply decide to love something, on either faith or reason, and then set about loving it. The biochemical processes behind what we call love are far more complicated.

The christian faith of the Westborough baptist church seems to have resulted not in love but in hatred. The christian faith of US creationists seems to have resulted not in love but in willful ignorance. The christian faith of the catholic church in the early thirteenth century resulted in the Albigensian crusade and the mass murder of people whose christian faith resulted in self-mortification and rejection of the flesh. Were someone to conduct a study comparing the incidence of christianity with the incidence of love in this world, there would be no correlation whatsoever - because love is a human universal and christianity is whatever its practitioners want it to be.

Human compassion, fellow-feeling, solidarity, morality and, yes, love, are not limited to religious, much less to christian, people. They are inherent and innate in all human beings and there are very good evolutionary explanations as to why this is so. Religions simply hijack these perfectly natural human desires and then claim to have invented them themselves. This is both mendacious and an overweening arrogance of treasonous proportions.

Take away faith and we're left with the same human drives we've always had to survive, prosper, cooperate, improve our lot and live together in harmony for maximal benefit to all concerned. Leave it in the mix and you keep getting anomalous individuals who override these priorities with made-up nonsense about spreading their message of love and doing blatantly counter-productive things. Often they end up killing those who disagree/

I am particularly aghast at the misrepresentations contained in the following paragraph:

"Faith means that everyone has the freedom to believe what their own conscience dictates, without coercion and authoritarian abuses. Faith means that we examine all the evidence, and reach our own conclusions. Faith means that tomorrow doesn't have to be like today or yesterday. It means that there is a way to have safety and freedom at the same time. It means that there is meaning and sense to feeding the hungry, healing the sick, helping the hurting, defending the helpless."

The first sentence describes not faith, but liberty or freedom of expression. The second describes not faith, but reason. The third describes not faith but consciousness and free will. The fourth and fifth sentences are simply non-sequiturs, and sound suspiciously like white noise to me. As long as one has faith one is not thinking freely, and as long as one does not try to see the world as it is, one cannot take effective measures to improve one's safety. Reason is a far better paladin for freedom and safety than faith ever was. Likewise, why do you need to impose an arbitrary additional meaning on helping people and doing good works? Surely the helpfulness and benefit they provide is meaning enough for anyone?

The reason we say that all faith is dangerous is because it inhibits independent thought and skeptical, analytical reasoning. If faith is treated as a virtue even by the moderates then it primes those who want to take it to extremes to to just that. It takes away the power of the reasonable arguments that could be used to obstruct the stonings and the circumcisions and leaves us defenceless against the fanatics - for if you are allowed your wishy-washy "wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice" god on faith, why aren't they allowed their nasty, vicious, belligerent god on the same basis?

Faith and Fear are not opposites either - that is another bald assertion you just made up yourself. They very often come hand in glove. Fear strengthens faith - fear of change, fear of progress, fear of simply being wrong. Faith flourishes where these fears flourish, and it flounders where people have the confidence of their convictions thanks to reason and evidence.

The main reason why faith is such an evil is demonstrated by your very last statement. Faith makes people believe, or pretend to believe, in risibly silly things like gods with infinite love and their half-human sons. It makes them believe in wishful fantasies like eternal life and simplistic cosmic get-out clauses for the difficult problems of the finite life we do have. There is no evidence for the existence of any of these things - they simply don't exist! Yet thanks to faith people like you believe that they actually do exist, and take life decisions based on that belief.

669. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124183 by Cartomancer on February 8, 2008 at 3:39 pm

I see that "Darwin" and "Dawkins" have now become one and the same person according to krisking here. Maybe in a couple of thousand years' time we'll all be talking about the biological works of the prodigiously long-lived Charles-Richard Darkins, and radical revisionist historians will be shouted down for trying to suggest that he was actually two different people.

670. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124169 by Cartomancer on February 8, 2008 at 3:04 pm

What he said was:

"We who doubt that "theology" is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns, are eagerly hoping to be proved wrong. Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God", a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today's universities."

Having looked at Williams' DPhil thesis, I would say it qualifies for exemption. I don't know quite what he did to deserve his DD though, so I can't comment on that.

671. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124162 by Cartomancer on February 8, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Dr. Williams' academic qualifications are entirely legitimate. Out of curiosity I called up his DPhil thesis at the Bodleian Library today (he did his doctorate at my college, Wadham, Oxford) and it is essentially a study into the historical spread of christianity in twentieth century Russia and the thought of the Russian Theologian Vladimir Lossky - the sort of thing we really don't have a problem with from theologians and which could quite easily have found a home elsewhere in a faculty of Modern History or Oriental Studies.

He also has a higher Doctorate from Oxford - the DD (Doctor Divinitatis) and seven honorary doctorates from various places.

672. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #124096 by Cartomancer on February 8, 2008 at 11:06 am

Pah! This is nothing. Classical Athens had three highly regarded Peripeteia generators throughout the fifth century BC - they were called Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.

(I really should stop making obscure jokes based on the technical terminology in Aristotle's Poetics, but if any of my classics students are out there then this one is for you!)

673. BREAK THE SCIENCE BARRIER - Available Now on DVD

Comment #124090 by Cartomancer on February 8, 2008 at 10:47 am

I do find it a powerfully tragic irony that Douglas Adams is on record here as saying that he feels wonderfully privilleged to have seventy or eighty years ahead of him to apply himself to understanding the universe as best he can...

674. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124089 by Cartomancer on February 8, 2008 at 10:43 am

There hasn't been a test case on the issue yet, and I would dearly love to see one, but if the conduct of marriages is considered to be a service in the eyes of the law then, technically, according to the recently implimented 2007 Provision of Goods and Services (Anti-Discrimination) Regulations, religious organisations are required to extend it toward same-sex couples too. Given that CofE marriages at least are legally binding (with real, contractual obligations in the eyes of the law) I can't see any reason they could claim not to be providing a service.

675. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124087 by Cartomancer on February 8, 2008 at 10:35 am

Baeoz, Comment #1941 -

Actually, and this is me being really pedantic here, Professor Dawkins does not have a PhD. He has an MA, a DPhil. and a DSc. from the University of Oxford, and seven honorary doctorates from various other places.

The DPhil (Doctor Philosophiae) is basically Oxford's version of the PhD - it just uses the traditional notation which has a more natural Latin word order. The Oxford DSc. (Doctor Scientiarum) is an exceptional higher degree awarded to very senior academics with a proven history of outstanding publications in the sciences, and traditionally it is supposed to be even more prestigious than a professorial chair. Hence calling the man "Doctor Dawkins" is, if you are being a tremendous pedant with a taste for antiquarian lore, actually a more respectful form of address than "Professor Dawkins". There are also honorary DSc. degrees awarded, but as far as I can tell the good Doctor's is of the bona fide well-earned variety.

676. BREAK THE SCIENCE BARRIER - Available Now on DVD

Comment #123891 by Cartomancer on February 7, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Professor Dawkins is much better at punting than I am... Is there anything the great man can't do?

677. An Altar Beyond Olympus for a Deity Predating Zeus

Comment #123886 by Cartomancer on February 7, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Epeeist, Comment #17 -

My philological skills are very meagre, but as far as I am aware yahweh or jehovah - the usual vowelised rendering of the Hebrew tetragrammaton - has a completely different root from the dius words the classical Greeks and Romans used. The tetragrammaton is very obscure and it has been debated since antiquity where precisely this magical four letter formula comes from. The smart money seems to be on a nominalised form of an early Aramaic verb, perhaps "to be" or "to become", but several other theories abound.

I have just googled it and, as predicted, the ubiquitous Wikipedia seems to have a fair introduction - though I really cannot vouch for the accuracy of its statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Derivation

Oh, and Baeoz, the venerable Master Wheelock wasn't entirely deceiving you - Iove Pater, or rather Iovis Pater, is simply the Latin rendering of the proto indo-european "Dius Pater". Iovis was the original nominative form, but gradually became replaced by Iuppiter. "Iove" is the vocative or ablative form (the two noun cases are not always entirely distinct), which is used in invocation, hence our "by Jove".

678. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123873 by Cartomancer on February 7, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Actually, while we're on the subject of homosexuality and the downfall of civilization, I think I might as well point out that one particular civilization, to wit the Classical Thebans in the 4th century BC, actually reached the peak of their glory thanks to homosexual love.

Few people today have heard of the Theban Hieros Lochos, or "Sacred Band", despite the fact that it was probably the first recorded professional military regiment ever fielded by a Greek army and the pride of the Theban war machine for many decades. According to Plutarch's Life of Pelopidas the Sacred Band consisted of 150 pairs of male lovers who fought side by side in battle - the theory being that men would fight much harder and be much braver with their lover present to watch them and encourage them than if they were motivated by love of country and pay alone.

Stuff Leonidas and his gruff crew of pumped-up philistines - I wanna be a part of this 300!

Actually, that's not without historical grounding. 109 years after the battle of Thermopylae the Thebans and Spartans fought a decisive battle at Leuctra in Boeotia where, thanks to a well-timed flank attack by the Sacred Band (should have been a rear attack really!), the might of the Spartan army was overcome and the ascendancy of the Spartan state was finally broken for good. Pelopidas and Epaminondas, the leaders of the Band, were lauded as great heroes and superlative generals, and little Thebes achieved the height of its power thanks to the victory at Leuctra.

The Spartans never recovered. Their society fell into sharp decline and, despite an abortive attempt at the end of the third century BC by Kings Agis and Cleomenes to revive Spartan fortunes with a radical, proto-communist constitution, Sparta never really achieved anything of note again.

Like Leonidas' crew the Sacred Band also had their touching, tragic last stand. In 338 BC at Chaeronea an alliance of the free Greek city states was thoroughly defeated by the might of the Macedonian army under Philip II and his son. While most of the Greek army had surrendered or been scattered to the winds, the resolute Sacred Band fought to the last man against overwhelming odds. Apparently Philip was so impressed that he commented on their exceptional bravery in person, and the site of their last stand was commemorated by the Thebans with a monument. Excavations at the end of the 19th century on the site actually turned up most of the skeletons.

Oh, and as an epilogue to the tale, Philip's handsome, blue-eyed bisexual son went on to become perhaps the greatest general the world has ever known. His name was Alexander...

679. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123861 by Cartomancer on February 7, 2008 at 7:05 pm

I think that, taken in the context of his whole pronouncement, Dr. Willams' comments are just what we have come to expect from the man - effusive, vague and somewhat redundant.

What, basically, is he saying? Different laws for different people that you can choose arbitrarily on a whim? A Britain segregated along religious lines? Respect for dogma simply because it is dogma? I don't think anyone with an ounce of common sense would seriously come forward and say such a thing, least of all someone who has made a career out of being so fuzzy, liberal and noncommital that he is in danger of subliming into a wispy, archiepiscopal gas at any given moment.

So what is he saying? Seems to me that his message is "well, as long as it doesn't interfere with the laws of the land, the human rights they protect and the dignity of the people, we should recognise that culturally diverse individuals will settle their disputes in culturally diverse ways." I'm not sure he is even talking about the laws of the land here - seems to me that he is merely commenting on what people do of their own accord without recourse to legal sanctions. People come to their own ad-hoc arrangements, out of court settlements and personal agreements on matters that they could easily take before the courts all the time. The Islamic thing seems to be a spectacularly ill-chosen red herring, probably due to Dr. Williams' lack of familiarity with the extremes of islam. I suspect he is thinking that sharia is essentially akin to one person agreeing to pay for accidentally shunting another person's car without recourse to insurance claims. I have no experience of it, but I guess the jewish arbitration courts are very much in this vein, or we would have condemned them decades ago. Inasmuch as sharia is like this, I have no problem with it either - though I do not for one second believe that to be the case.

Of course, the danger is that ad-hoc arrangements can become more concrete, institutionalised and eventually start to clamour for official recognition. That should be strenuously resisted, and perhaps there is some merit in the "slippery slope" argument - especially with regard to such a vehemently uncompromising religion as islam. Nevertheless, it is a fact that many muslims in Britain today DO settle their private disputes using sharia-based ideas, on a personal, independent basis and without involving the laws of the land at all. This is their right and their freedom under our constitution - we could not take it away from them, for that would be infinitely more totalitarian than any of us (save perhaps our resident BNP ghoul DavidJMH) would dare to contemplate.

Of course, our laws can be brought in to set things to rights if the personal arrangements break down or there is unfair practice. If there is criminality then the state has a duty to intervene. If not, then by its nature our civil law is powerless to intervene unless one of the interested parties instigates proceedings. Anything else would be a violation of civil liberties. The problem then arises that vulnerable individuals within minority communities might be persuaded or threatened not to seek the legal restitution available. I am sure this actually happens to many vulnerable women in islamic communities already. That is a matter for our criminal law inasmuch as it can ameliorate the problem and provide safety for the victims, and for education and consciousness-raising on the part of our society so that each individual knows what their rights are and is not afraid to stand up for those rights.

So, to recap - inasmuch as sharia is incompatible with British values, legal protections, fundamental rights and sense of decency it is not to be tolerated. Inasmuch as it is a harmless and useful method of dispute resolution it should be permitted. I think Dr. Williams and I would agree on this statement, as would most people who post here, though the values each of us gives to those "inasmuch"s are radically different to the values Williams gives them, and hence the difference of opinion.

It is therefore our duty to open his eyes to the true nature of sharia law as the muslims want to institute it. Given the massive antler-like protrusions the Archbishop sports on his brow however, which must weigh a considerable amount, I fear that this task might be rather easier said than done...

680. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123259 by Cartomancer on February 6, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Sarah95,

The advertising industry in Britain is largely self-regulated rather than censored by statute, though there are legal sanctions in place for those who consistently refuse to abide by the ASA's guidelines. Usually the adverse publicity an organization will receive is enough to discourage future breaches, but if not:

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/codes/cap_code/ShowCode.htm?clause_section_id=24

681. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #123245 by Cartomancer on February 6, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Post-Christian British Society eh?

Well, how about legalised homosexuality with an equal age of consent, full marriage rights, full adoption rights, anti-discrimination laws in place, thriving gay culture and serious attempts to root out institutionalised prejudice in society?

And having taught in entirely secular British schools for a couple of years I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the students are infinitely cheerier, happier, better rounded, more stable and nicer people than the sickly, unhappy specimens I spent my childhood with.

And if you want to see drunken street violence try medieval Britain on for size. That would be a... yes, I do believe that would be a strongly christian country.

Oh, and becoming more like the secular, socialistic Scandinavians would be an undeniably good thing too. We'll get there...

682. Apologetic billboard replaces atheistic sign

Comment #123235 by Cartomancer on February 6, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Is it just me or does anyone else think that Kegerreis sounds like a wacky new sort of Kedgeree-flavoured ice cream from Germany?

Still, this whole sordid incident shows just how much public perception among advertisers needs to change in the states...

683. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123230 by Cartomancer on February 6, 2008 at 4:37 pm

What, societies like Classical Athens, Sparta and Rome? Like the Egyptian Old, Middle and New Kingdoms? Like Tokugawa Japan and Qing China? Like Renaissance Florence and Venice? Like modern Europe?

I do so hope you are being sarcastic here DavidJMH...

684. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123224 by Cartomancer on February 6, 2008 at 4:29 pm

*minces into thread wearing ludicrously expensive designer outfit and fashionable designer cologne*

I disagree with Peacebeuponme. As far as I can see the religious element is the only thing keeping homophobia on the current agenda, where it should have died a natural death thirty odd years ago. Well, religion and highly conservative social attitudes, which are so deeply intertwined with religion as to be nigh on inseparable from it. The education is available, the information is there. The evidence is stacking up that modern, secular, forward-looking states such as the UK, Holland, France, Denmark, and even catholic Spain are rapidly getting over homophobia in the same way we got over racism (as a general cultural phenomenon, certain thuggish individuals notwithstanding). What other social justifications are there for homophobia anymore, apart from religion?

Though I do agree that many heterosexuals have a profound unease when the subject of gay sex arises. Generally they're fine with most gay people as people, as long as they're not outrageously camp and confrontational, but the mere thought of the sexual element seems to disturb an unusual proportion of my straight friends. My identical twin brother is a case in point - we can talk about pretty much everything, and have a deep bond which goes beyond any other human connection I have ever seen, but gay sex is the one topic he absolutely refuses to discuss with me on principle - there is some kind of visceral horror there which I find rather disturbing. I guess I find the thought of heterosexual sex somewhat repellent myself, so it swings both ways, but at least I know that my slight revulsion is not socially justified and never really bring it up.

I would also like to add that the popular prejudice against homosexual parents is so unbelievably ill-founded it hurts. These people seem to assume that gay parents will have a much higher chance of raising gay children, and use that as their excuse for opposing gay adoption etc. I have heard a surprising number of people say something along the lines of "well I don't mind gay people, and if the child turns out gay on his own then that's fine, but I don't want them influencing him and making it more likely". Apart from the crashingly obvious fact that virtually 100% of gay children have straight parents and the large numbers of studies into possible genetic or social causes, this is a deeply condescending and disingenuous position to take because it implies that there is something lesser, something to be avoided if at all possible about homosexuality. Assume for a minute that we actually can influence children to become gay - why is that such a bad thing? Surely if you're fine with gay people it shouldn't matter one way or the other that there are more of us around? In fact with overpopulation and the large numbers of children in care such important social issues you could well see a case for encouraging it!

(incidentally classical Athenian historians thought that this was precisely why the great King Minos invented homosexuality in the first place - as a means of population control for his native kingdom of Crete!)

Oh well, ultimately I think we can see this story as a sign of progress here in the UK - many of you have commented on my upbeat appraisal of the gay rights situation in this country before, so that should come as no surprise. I wonder if our benighted transatlantic brethren would have found the poster campaign axed by their advertising authorities so quickly?

Right, I'm off to corrupt the young and break up some nuclear families in furtherance of my sinister antisocial agenda...

*flounces theatrically out of thread whistling a medley of ABBA's greatest hits and scanning the horizon for innocent youths who don't know any better*

685. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122546 by Cartomancer on February 5, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Well, I certainly did appreciate the significant offering of bare male flesh that was 300, though beards never really were my thing. Nevertheless, the He-man subtext is far more sophisticated and profound.

It does start obviously enough - with a mild-mannered blond pretty boy who, upon raising a suspiciously phallic symbol in the Sword of Greyskull, becomes a tanned, testosterone-fuelled muscle-bound superhero. Then another layer is added with the whole "secret identity" line, where the only three people who know about Prince Adam's unusual secret lifestyle are the Sorceress - a feather-clad fag hag diva par excellence, Man-at-arms with his ridiculous camp moustache and step daughter (he's the older gay man who has grown out of prancing round at nightclubs and decided to settle down and raise an ersatz family), and finally the timid, frightened Orko who hides his face, never quite fits in and worries all the time about getting in trouble. That was me at fourteen. Skeletor, with his muscular body and skull-like face is, of course, the AIDS warning, and his coterie of baddies look surprisingly like the denizens of any urban gay club past two in the morning. She-Ra is the lesbian version of the same thing.

I need to get out more...

686. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122507 by Cartomancer on February 5, 2008 at 11:12 am

Careful, or I'll break out my "He-man as gay subculture" rant and then you'll all be disappointed...

687. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122503 by Cartomancer on February 5, 2008 at 11:03 am

The question "did the established church in the Middle Ages help or hinder scientific progress" is actually a fairly unhistorical one. In order to answer the question you would have to posit a medieval European society without the established church and, whatever that society might have looked like, it certainly looks nothing like the Middle Ages as we know them. The calculations required to extrapolate the scientific output of such a putative society are completely beyond us at the present time, and will probably always be so. We know far less than we would like about the Middle Ages as they actually were before we even begin to speculate about what they would have been like with such radical changes to the fabric of society.

Nevertheless, the anti-medieval rhetoric of the Renaissance humanists and their enlightenment successors does skew modern perceptions markedly. We do alight on figures such as Galileo and Bruni, and many secularists, rationalists and modern scientists jump too quickly at the caricature of the Middle Ages as backward looking, anti-intellectual and repressive. This is a caricature just as malicious as Mr. Beale's caricature of the Enlightenment, and it speaks volumes about the man and his lack of scholarly acumen that he disdains one childish caricature only to replace it with another. This is a gut-feeling methodological mistake I would expect GCSE history students to make: just because the traditional popular picture is inaccurate that does not mean the opposite of it must be true. I would reiterate here that it is the style, rather than the substance, of Enlightenment thought which occupies the entirety of his concerns, much to the discredit of his abilities.

I shall post links to a couple of my previous discussions of the scientific culture of the Middle Ages, and a couple of books which introduce the subject. Essentially however my position is that science and religious truth were not considered incompatible in the Middle Ages because the state of scientific understanding was such that it did not obviously conflict with the statements of scripture. This was no doubt aided by the fact that the medievals were far more sophisticated and flexible in their interpretation of scripture than most modern christians happen to be.

As such the church had neither the inclination nor the desire to suppress scientific thought generally - back then there was a general belief that science would supplement, support and rationally demonstrate what the bible says. There were occasional tensions, such as the suspicion of mathematics in the eleventh century faced by Gerbet of Aurillac (who did eventually become pope however) and the more general suspicion of medics as godless throughout the central and later middle ages, but ultimately the rift between the real world and scriptural explanations had yet to be recognised.

As the scientific method developed, instruments became more sophisticated and the old Platonic and Aristotelian paradigms for natural philosophy proved unworkable the tensions began to mount. Galileo, Bruni, Copernicus and the rest are very much the products of a very late or post-medieval world where the tensions have at last been recognised - and even in their cases the censure is unusually harsh. The church became hostile to science when science stopped upholding its views and began to present a credible alternative, though even then large numbers of churchmen continued to balance faith and reason precariously and try to work out the theological ramifications of early modern scientific discoveries. Ensoulment in relation to the homunculus theory of child development was one such area of uneasy compromise. The reformation crystallised the opposition somewhat with the anti-rational ideas of Luther and the pressing need for different religious groups to stand up for their own distinctive character, where before the unity of doctrine, knowledge and science was generally assumed. It is also worth pointing out that, with the advent of printing, the proliferation of vernacular literature and the declining hold of the church over the universities, the intellectual community in europe increased massively in size and diversity in the early modern period. Previously intellectual exchanges were conducted face to face or in hand written manuscripts with a tiny circulation among a few Latin-literate scholars. In this new climate conflict was both more likely and more prominent, and especially worrying to those in the old guard who still clung to notions of the easy unity of all human knowledge.

So essentially we have science developing according to its own momentum, with new ideas becoming prominent as they are better understood, better researched and more evidence turns up for them, and hostility emerging on the part of a church which cannot move with the times thanks to its dogmatic commitments to scripture. To say that therefore science and religious thought are compatible is to pretend that science has not disproved the ideas of the Middle Ages.

Science is a method for arriving at truth, religion is a method for pretending you've got there already. The conclusions drawn from each can and once did overlap significantly, but the basis of each is radically different and any overlap today is purely a matter of coincidence.

A few more thoughts:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1861,Can-we-at-least-demand-Secular-Communion,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula,page1#86977

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1739,A-Revelation,Naomi-Schaeffer-Riley,page2#78729

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1739,A-Revelation,Naomi-Schaeffer-Riley,page1#78478

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1739,A-Revelation,Naomi-Schaeffer-Riley,page1#78418

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1499,Arrogance-dogma-and-why-science---not-faith---is-the-new-enemy-of-reason,Melanie-Phillips,page3#comments

and for anyone who wants to:

Lindberg, David C., ed., Science in the Middle Ages (Chicago, 1976), ISBN: 978-0-226-48233-0 (ISBN-10: 0-226-48233-2)

Grant, Edward, God and Reason in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2001), ISBN: 978-0-521-00337-7 (ISBN-10: 0-521-00337-7)

688. An Altar Beyond Olympus for a Deity Predating Zeus

Comment #122468 by Cartomancer on February 5, 2008 at 9:51 am

Actually, "Zeus", "Theos", "Deus" and even Jupiter (Dius-pater) all have the same etymological root - a proto indo-european word simply meaning big sky god.

Ah, Classical religion was so much less confrontational than what we have today...

689. Blasphemy

Comment #122454 by Cartomancer on February 5, 2008 at 9:30 am

One hopes that important people with real international clout will listen and take heed. Forgive me for being less than optimistic on this score however.

690. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122447 by Cartomancer on February 5, 2008 at 9:26 am

Dibs on Orko! Dibs on Orko!

And I notice with some regret that our PhD-with-three-tokens-from-the-back-of-a-cereal-box theist interlocutor has not yet taken up my challenge. I am rather disappointed...

691. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122210 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Hmm, well, I haven't read the book and nor, quite frankly, do I want to. Sounds from Baeoz and MPhil like the self-generated hype from the vile homophobic narcissist is just so much hot air. I can't say I'm surprised, it is as we expected. Actually, the image of Lucifer trapped in ice and frantically beating his wings from Dante's Divine Comedy springs to mind - the more he flaps the more the cold winds he generates bind him fast to his torments, and all he succeeds in doing is further freezing the hearts of those trapped in his circle.

The Enlightenment is not my speciality, but I know enough to say that Mr. Beale's caricature is woefully inadequate, distorted and narrow. Apart from the frankly astounding genetic fallacy with regard to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror (showing a tremendous lack of familiarity with the complexities of historical causation that would make A-level students blush)
he quite blatantly chooses his evidence with a careful eye to skewing his argument. It seems that in his eyes the Enlightenment was about little more than medieval-bashing - a phenomenon, or rather a conspiracy, sustained solely by conscious opposition to scholastic practices and medieval christian culture.

Now, my usual line of argument on here consists chiefly in pointing out the implict anti-medieval bias in most Renaissance, Enlightenment and Victorian thought, a bias which is still with us today. I do not thank Mr. Beale for lending his odious, bigoted voice to this cause, because it will now make it all the harder for sensible, credible historians to make the case for taking the middle ages on their own terms, rather than the terms of their post-medieval detractors. Or, at least, it would if anyone outside the internet fascist community and the internet atheist community had heard of the slimy little mountebank.

But this little caricature is entirely vacuuous. It can only be sustained by ignoring the substantial content of Renaissance and Enlightenment philosophy, ignoring the very real progress of scientific discovery in the early modern period and focussing narrowly on anti-religious sentiment and anti-medieval self definition among intellectuals. It seems that Mr. Beale's arguments rest on a conflation of religion with historical awareness - he is too ready to cast assertions of modernity and definition as non-medieval in the mould of dogmatic anti-religious fervour. Moreover, he misses the main thrust of WHY medieval thought, or a caricatured version of it, came in for such criticism - the academic world had moved on and outgrown the inductive, aristotelian basis of late medieval learning.

Nobody sat down and said "right, today we're all going to stop being medieval and start being Enlightened. Everyone put the smocks and the manuscript copies of the Glossa Ordinaria down and hand round the Plato - I want three tracts on the benefits of secular government from each of you by lunchtime, and don't spare the atheism". History's weave is infinitely more complex than that. Ideas change organically and have their own momentum. The Renaissance and Enlightenment were not a sudden and consciously maintained sea-change but gradual developments stemming directly from late medieval culture and society and moving, evolving, in a new direction. Intellectual history is not about conspiracy theories.

He should read Francis Bacon more thoroughly. Or Newton. Or Leibniz, or Spinoza, or indeed anyone at all with some care. And it's not just a case of new ways of framing historical awareness - technological change with the advent of printing and cheaper paper, political change with the ascendency of the mediterranean city state, consolidation of the northern European kingdoms, Imperial ambitions of the German princes etc. fuelling political debate, reformation of both the churches and the university system, and of course the productive dynamic of scholarship itself. Map those and a hundred more locally operative factors across a whole continent or more and the best part of four centuries and the scale of the reductionism is staggering indeed. In order to do justice to the very complex web of influences at work in the burgeoning intellectual culture of early modern europe one would need fifty such books as this one and decades of meticulous scholarship. Such narrow, reductionistic drivel is barely worthy of scorn - and one of the reasons I dislike potted histories so much.

I dread to think what his mangling of the medieval period must look like, if he attempts one... I suspect he might be one of those who denies islamic science its due from what I know of the man. It is hardly germane, so I shall leave that one for now and turn my attention back to those who are actually worthy of it.

692. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122113 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Is it just my uptight British sensibilities or does anyone else find it highly irritating when people use "to debate" as a transitive verb with the opponent in said debate as the direct object? Are prepositions in short supply on that side of the pond?

It should be "to debate WITH someone ON THE SUBJECT OF the issue".

Grrr. I'm going off in a huff to underline all the split infinitives in the newspaper...

693. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122053 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Unless there is some good reason to think otherwise it is a sensible policy to assume that pretty much everything I say is delivered with a excessive degree of sarcasm. I'm like that in real life too. Or was when I still had one...

And yes, I personally think that ANY religious group which includes proselytising activities in its agenda would automatically infringe the university's stated policy on actively opposing the beliefs of others. Given the traditional tenets of both islam and christianity on these matters I fail to see how such religious groups could be otherwise.

694. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122040 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Two religions with mutually contradictory doctrines about the nature of the world? Really? Could that happen, what with them all being divinely inspired and all? Well well, such peculiar thoughts we are all having...

LGBT is the usual initials for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual (some people like to add a Q on the end too for "questioning" or some such).

695. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122026 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Do they have a Women's Society that the Islamic Society is, by its very nature, taking an active stance in opposition to? How about an LGBT Society that the Catholic Society are actively opposed to? A military cadet society of some kind which the Jain Society are opposed to?

Oh no, Silly me, I forgot - religious reasons for opposition trump all other kinds of deeply held sentiments don't they?

696. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121658 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 10:36 pm

While we're in melancholy humour...

"To the dead spirit of Cerelia Fortunata, my most precious wife,
with whom for eleven years I lived without a single quarrel.
Do not pass by my epitaph, traveler, but when you have stopped,
hear and learn, then depart.
There is no boat to carry you to Hades,
no ferryman Charon, no judge Aeacus, no dog Cerberus.
All of us below have become bones and ashes.
Truly, I have nothing more to tell you.
So depart, traveler, lest dead though I am
I seem to you to be a teller of vain lies.
Do not favor this monument with sweet smelling oils
or garlands, for it is but a stone.
Do not feed the funeral flames, it is a waste of money.
If you can give, give while I live.
Pouring wine on the ashes will only turn them to mud,
and besides the dead will not drink.
For so I shall be. And you have heaped up earth on these remains,
say that what this was, it will never be again."
[Epitaph of a cynic (Rome, 3rd century C.E. EG 646)]

697. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121638 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 9:32 pm

he2@usa -

I note, first of all, that you have not actually responded to any of our points. I wish I were surprised at this, but sadly I am not. I shall assume, therefore, that you gracefully concede to our arguments in these fields - though feel free to provide a reasoned rebuttal of them if you do not.

Secondly, the reason we spend so much time trying to argue with people who believe the sort of childish nonsense you believe is that we are all painfully aware of how damaging and dangerous it can be both to individuals - your own case proves the point most effectively - and more importantly to the societies in which they live. Given that reasoned discourse and consciousness-raising are the only tools we have with which to do this (for we have no argument to justify easy use of violence against those we disagree with) you will forgive us if we utilise them to the best of our ability.

Well, all right, in my case I also greatly enjoy talking down to credulous homophobic idiots like yourself. Allow me my little pecadillos if you will...

Thirdly, your talk of accountability is entirely premature. A being must exist and have some valid claim on responsibility before talk of accountability can even begin. With no evidence at all on your side in this regard you might as well castigate us for failing to live up to our responsibilities to the Flying Spaghetti Monster because we don't all dress as pirates.

Fourthly, Pascal's Wager is no argument at all. What if, when we die, it turns out that there is a god after all, but instead of your Yahweh it is actually Baal - and the especially nasty version of him that the Maltese Knights Templar were claimed to have worshipped with ritual buggery? If that is the case, and in the total absence of evidence either way it could just as well be, then it looks like I'm going to be in favour come the afterlife, while your miserly little cult is in for some serious unpleasantness. Especially given what your priests said about dear father Baal's followers. For other refutations of this trite little sophistry look to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, common sense et. al.

So I finish with a personal challenge, given that your intellectual capacity falls somewhere below that of a soggy turnip and the clarity of your expression somewhere lower still. Please tell me, in as much detail as you can, citing references to all apposite sources, precisely what I can expect from your wonderful fantasy afterlife given my romantic predilections? Oh, and I'm a practicing sorcerer as well if you take the pseudonym literally - surely that ought to buy me passage out of the burning sands of Dis and into the Stone Theatre of the Malebolge or whatever lurid atrocities your feeble mind can conjure.

And remember, I really do like the anal sex...

698. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121613 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 8:15 pm

hes2@usa - comment #269

Disappointing. So, so disappointing. This one provides hardly any sport at all...

a) We deny that there was a creator to the universe because there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of one. That is the reason why we deny that your stories are true - our moral predilections have nothing to do with it. If you can furnish us with the evidence we seek for your propositions then we would be greatly interested - until you give us one whit, jot, speck or smidgen of evidence to the contrary, we shall assume the negative claim is still valid. Oh, and don't even try Aristotelian first causes with me - I've probably read more pages of Aquinas than you've had deluded thoughts.

b) I consider myself a very moral person indeed. I am kind to people, go out of my way to help those in need, support charities where I can, give money to those around me who need it (such as paying my twin brother's tuition fees of 4000 pounds so he could do his Masters degree and professional translator's qualification), do volunteer work occasionally, look after my parents, try not to deceive people and attempt to enlighten deluded, self-defeating religous folks to the error of their ways whenever I can.

I also like to kiss, hold, caress and have long, passionate sex with men. I really like anal sex with attractive men - it feels very good indeed. One day I hope to marry the man of my dreams and live very happily with him. Having lots of anal sex, naturally.

The fact you think the latter is in any way deleterious to the former indicates just how tainted and skewed your understanding of reality has become. Please come up with one reason I might accept why I am not a thoroughly moral individual.

c) Steve corrected you on your error about circular reasoning in a previous post. I advise you read that before repeating the same defunct criticism again. If you ask nicely he might help you with the long words when you don't understand them. You might also learn from this lesson in elementary dialectics that the one using the circular arguments is you, in the case of your special magic book and the nasty celestial protagonist contained therein.

d) Each species does indeed reproduce "after its own kind". You got that one right. Well done. However, with each reproduction you get tiny variations from genetic mutation, which survive in greater frequency the better suited they make said creature for survival. Thence changes in individuals and eventually from one species into another. If my reading list of ancient and medieval authors is too much for you, might I suggest going and reading a proper book on evolution by a respected scientist. The acclaimed scientific opera of a certain professor Dawkins spring to mind in this capacity, although perhaps something from the children's section might be more suited to your level - the Usborne Book of Dinosaurs perhaps?

e) Please cite the works of a single astronomer or astrophysicist working after, ooh, let's be generous again, 1750 CE, who has produced a mathematical model which suggests our universe is 6000 years old. Enquiries should be directed to Dr. Steve Zara, myself, or anyone else patient enough to listen. Such a shame that old Job fellow was a fictional character eh?

f) If I was ever on the same wagon as you I am most glad to have fallen off it. I suspect it was taking you back to Isengard or Moria or wherever it is you hail from, and I really don't want to go there thank you - we get enough stray trolls anyway without tracing them back to source.

699. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121607 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 7:37 pm

They probably think it means cutting the supplementary sections out from the backs of books, and heartily approve on the grounds that they might contain some heresies that were too complicated for the main text.

700. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #121603 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Just what is so superb about this owl anyway, and why do the religious like it so? Are its eyes bona fide irreducibly complex? Does it eat transitional fossils? Can it fly away to distant climes that science can't reach and come back with evidence for the existence of god?