51. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108067 by IanG on January 6, 2008 at 12:58 am

Referring to Freud sadly undermines the whole piece a bit, by engaging with the very sort of thing it sets out to argue against. However I do think he was an advance on demonic possession.

Would be much better without the Freud clause after the semicolon.

Thank you Richard Morgan for suggested additional reading.

For me the foundation for taking an atheistic view is that it is the obvious default position, based on the reasonable assumption of a natural world with natural causes for natural phenomena.

All borne out by observation, testing and experience. When I trip over, I don't assume that I was actually tripped or pushed by a supernatural being who thinks I'm so important as to pay me that sort of attention.

We don't need to justify being atheists any more than we need to justify eating and drinking, despite the fact that we've been bamboozled into thinking that we do for rather a long time.

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

Comment #105254 by IanG on December 31, 2007 at 2:28 am

Billy Coconut.

Can you please just clarify a matter of fact?

Do you regard Natural Selection as random?

Yes or No?

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

Comment #104810 by IanG on December 29, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Crikey!

Let the debate on the nature of free-will continue!

54. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102295 by IanG on December 22, 2007 at 8:59 am

No publicity is bad publicity.

Most people recognise that all this Winterval rubbish is about patronising white cultural relativists of all stripes feeling other people's presumed but, oddly, never-stated anguish. They seek to use their lofty, self-appointed, self-righteous "tolerance" to ensure that the rest of us have the freedom to be made to believe what they know to be right.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Atheism.

Richard Dawkins is to King Herod as is Albert Einstein to Adolf Hitler.

Rock on, Bish! Spread the Word.

55. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101895 by IanG on December 21, 2007 at 5:25 am

That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.

Christopher Hitchens' lucid and humorous piss-take of this thinking is worth repeating here.

Hitch quotes one of the early and still revered nutters: a bloke called Tertullian. (c. 150-230 AD)

Tertullian said:

"Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est."

Which translates as: "It is to be believed, because it is absurd."

And:

"Certum est, quia impossibile est."

Which means: "It is certain, because it is impossible."

The general view of folks like us is likely to be that it's scary, really, that people pay the greatest homage to such obscurantist rubbish.

However, Hitch observes with gleeful irony that we can take the view that poor Tertullian is being misunderstood and that what he actually meant was that this stuff is so absolutely bloody daft that it has to be true because no-one could make it up.

Can we, in the spirit of Christmas, perform the miracle of making ourselves believe that this was what the Times writer actually intended to convey?

Perhaps I haven't partaken of enough of the seasonal liquid refreshment to get to that point yet.

Oh, well! Back to the bottle then.

56. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100829 by IanG on December 19, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Very nicely put examples of alternative ways of expressing the situation with greater integrity, Dr. Benway.

57. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100807 by IanG on December 19, 2007 at 11:19 am

I think this is good news on two counts.

Firstly, it is possible for a UK politician to say that he or she doesn't believe in God and still be successful with the electorate. I rather think that, if we hadn't had the recent religiosity of Blair in the headlines, Clegg's answer would have been even less remarked upon.

Secondly, it's actually rather good to see that sometimes the realities of life leave people with the option of being utterly logical, rational and consistent, (and cutting of their noses to spite their faces), or having to acknowledge through their choices that getting through life as a decent person spending time with people that you care about, requires a little practical commonsense.

If this upbringing also includes the implicit and explicit approval of individual freedom of enquiry and choice as age and maturity permit, then the Clegg children will probably feel free to make their own decisions when the time comes, without anxiety of parental disapproval and without any interest in what the Church thinks.

I think that extremity of view is sometimes more of an issue than the belief itself, although I know I risk some sharp retorts to that. (Before you pile in guys, yes, I have read our revered texts and I do get the point about giving cover!). If Clegg is an Atheist and his wife is a Catholic and they model through their own behaviour that these beliefs can co-exist in a relationship that is characterised by love not hate, enmity or contempt, this seems pretty good to me.

I'd rather be a child in the Clegg household than one brought up by two parents who were both fundamentalist Christian, Fascist, Communist or Atheist.

I'd be pretty surprised is Mrs. Clegg is the sort of scary fanatic that we see sometimes, because such people tend to have to marry someone similar in order to be able to stand them and their beliefs! If both of them were that entrenched in their views I doubt that they would have got as far as marriage.

I fear that the people who will be most scornful of this arrangement will be the devout Atheists.

I'm not a Lib-Dem, but anyone who espouses Mill gets many plus points from me.

I also concur with the view on Catholic schools in the UK.

58. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100206 by IanG on December 18, 2007 at 11:38 am

OK. I'm obviously having a bad-hair day, (if you could see my ageing cranium you would chuckle at that), but this "we hate, despise and regard as completely ancephalic, anyone who doesn't think what we think, doesn't ask the questions that we think should be asked, doesn't see the sacred light of truth the way we do and defiles our High Priest, rather than treating him with the reverence that is his due," stuff, has just absolutely driven me mad today.

Thank you Steve99 and Bonzai for saying all that needs to be said. God Bless You and Watch Over You!

Also thanks to Jon_Sociologist whose distinctive avatar also confused my remaining lonely neuron for a minute.

I'm going to decorate my Christmas tree, sing carols and pray for our ultimate triumph against all the odds, including those self-imposed.

59. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100108 by IanG on December 18, 2007 at 8:46 am

Indeed, Ian. What would we do without Him.

Sorry for the delayed response. You've got to laugh really: the Christmas tree just arrived and I had to get it into the house and set it up.

60. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100069 by IanG on December 18, 2007 at 7:40 am

Aghhh!

No, Ian, I was supporting your view and just adding to it.

Damn this posting medium. Just isn't like being in the same room!

Thank you for your posts!

Ho, ho, ho!

61. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100059 by IanG on December 18, 2007 at 7:07 am

Lighten up Libby & Co. Christians forced all this on us, so we'll do with it as we wish.

Maybe we should all lighten up.

'Tis the season to be merry.

And not every gibe is a mortal insult.

62. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100054 by IanG on December 18, 2007 at 6:50 am

Serious sense-of-humour-by-pass surgery stuff here.

She's poking a bit of fun, whilst making a point. She's pointing out that we make much of the inconsistencies in the stated views and behaviours of those of faith, and yet RD seems to be stuck with an inconsistency that is no doubt shared by many atheists.

And is borne out by the comments on this thread. I have the same dilemma.

Her main thrust is the issue of consistency versus hypocrisy. I would call that one of the characteristics of the human condition.

Sam Harris points out that the only genuine people of consistent faith are the murderous fundamentalists but that, nevertheless, he doesn't prefer them to the other sort.

I concede, The Reverend Dark, your whine is so much better than I could ever hope to achieve! (I guess you meant "crib" rather than "crèche"? Or do you have lots of little Jesuses to giggle at.)

Merry Christmas!

63. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100000 by IanG on December 18, 2007 at 3:31 am

Libby Purves' comments and observations are an entirely reasonable contribution to the debate and it's concerning that we react rather than respond, when this is exactly what we criticise our opponents for.

We can't expect to give it and then not take it.

Good Heavens! My God! Libby Purves is being SO RUDE!

Doesn't she know that you can't question Atheism like this?!

64. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99959 by IanG on December 18, 2007 at 1:23 am

After a period of free chat, casually award each participant a period of time to focus the discussion............

That's not a bad idea at all, Dr. Benway; it would address the process issue whilst giving the participants an opportunity both to contribute freely and to share responsibility for quality of the overall event.

65. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99733 by IanG on December 17, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Well, JayD, on the basis of experimental observation of many discussions between perfectly sensible, reasonable men, (and women), I'd have to disagree with you, and I'd also have to add that the particular discussion in question, itself affords evidence of at least the possibility of some scope for improvement.

Nevertheless, my disagreement with you doesn't mean that I regard your opinions as either absurd or senseless.

However, it's interesting that you choose to invoke Richard Dawkins' name to add authority to your own words, rather than leaving them to speak for themselves.

If Richard Dawkins doesn't like moderated discussion then it seems unlikely that there will be a moderated discussion. I'm sure he wouldn't agree to anything that he regarded as senseless. This does not of course provide any evidence whatsoever as to whether moderation is worthwhile, senseless or absurd.

As you know this to be his position presumably discussion on the matter is at an end?

66. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99707 by IanG on December 17, 2007 at 11:16 am

Whilst I had no-one in mind when I suggested considering the use of a moderator, a name has just occurred to me.

I think that the discussion that we have just witnessed may well have been truly fantastic if D J Grothe had helped the process.

67. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99668 by IanG on December 17, 2007 at 9:24 am

Thank you! Thank you!

This was a great idea, well-executed.

I deliberately listened to it as the sound-only file.

This was in part because I find it easier to focus on the content without visual distraction, and also because I'm an avid BBC Radio 4 listener and hence used to getting my information this way.

However, there was another reason: I remember when Kennedy and Nixon were contesting the Presidency. There was a key debate which was broadcast both as TV and Radio in the US. Kennedy was, of course, a more attractive-looking person and more skilled and coached in presentational tricks and techniques. I seem to remember that there was a suggestion of some funny business by his aides turning up the studio heat in order to make Nixon sweat, but this may be apocryphal.

The fascinating bottom line was that those who watched the TV broadcast felt Kennedy won the exchange, whilst those who listened by Radio said Nixon was the clear winner.

This was a very enjoyable two hours and I hope we get more.

After listening I'm unconvinced as to the wisdom of running unmoderated in the future. There are many experienced business executives, for example, who choose to get in a moderator or facilitator to assist in important discussions. The fact that there is a veritable legion of self-regarding charlatans out there who couldn't facilitate their way out of a wet paper bag doesn't mean that there aren't some excellent folk who make a difference.

To expect immensely knowledgeable people to track and manage process and content superlatively well whilst they have important and sometimes complex ideas to explore is to ask too much. I want people like Richard, Daniel, Sam and Christopher to be free to devote their whole attention to the content of what they are saying and listening to.

This discussion was a delight and a frustration. Richard, Daniel and Sam sounded as if they were driven by a curiosity to find out if there was a deeper insight or a new thought that could be teased out by the synergy of their various perspectives. Christopher, sadly, sounded too frequently as if he was just waiting each time for an opportunity to bring the attention round to himself, like a showman, and his contributions were, too often, delivered as raconteurish, "down-the-pub", anecdote that masked the specific content. And he was deploying adversarial debating techniques in what I thought was intended to be an expedition to explore ideas. For example, he would repeatedly say something, pause as if finished until one of the others started to speak, and then restart, talking over them. I don't mind this when it's stand-up comedy with Al Sharpton but not in this context, please.

I truly believe that someone skilled in moderating the process would have enhanced greatly what was nevertheless an excellent two hours.

My impressions of what might have been missing were:

1. Given the thoughtful richness and range of "Breaking the Spell", it was almost heartbreaking to hear Daniel say so little. Hearing him being elbowed aside when he did try to speak just made it worse.

2. I would have liked to hear more from Richard generally, but particularly on the implications of his clarifying statement that, for him, the questions of truth, evidence and rationality are almost more interesting than the specific issues of religion, important those these latter are.

3. I heard Sam working to try to uncover the ideas and deeper underlying concepts of the other speakers, to build on them and to see where exploring their ideas might lead. His elegant, articulate delivery was a pleasure. I would have liked more.

4. I heard Christopher with many important things to say, a significant number of which were lost and diluted by the style of delivery, and also crowding the room and limiting the space available to the others to contribute.

A moderator would have addressed these issues in real time and a great event would have become truly outstanding.

Please don't think I'm being grumpy or disappointed.

This was great stuff that I will keep in the car to listen to again.

Outstanding people with outstanding knowledge and outstanding things to say owe it to themselves to ensure that they have an outstanding moderator/facilitator to attend to the nurturing of an environment that has a suitably outstanding ecology.

Alternatively, these four guys need to think about how they will handle the process in future so that it's optimal to their aims.

I'd prefer the former.

68. Believe it or not

Comment #97554 by IanG on December 12, 2007 at 10:38 am

I think this is an excellent article.

It is balanced and considered.

I fully endorse its cautionary note about picking the right fights. We should welcome this article as valuable feedback.

Some will know from previous posts that this is a concern of mine.

To me, alienating untold numbers of folk, both religious and non-faith, by behaving as if we think that all people who lack our incredible insight into the truth about the universe are intellectually defective savages who eat babies for breakfast, is hardly the smartest approach.

Two specifics:

1. Yes, it is political and we'd better wise up to that fact rather than affecting a lofty stance above such things;

2. As regards using the term "brights" this guy is RIGHT!!

69. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96102 by IanG on December 10, 2007 at 2:04 am

Of course cutting pieces off the penises of days-old boy babies for ritual purposes is child abuse.

No ifs, buts or maybes.

It's reflective of the continuing power of taboo that religion holds in our society. In the absence of such a taboo this wouldn't even be a subject requiring any discussion.

Although anaesthetising the infant first would lessen the immediate pain, it would not lessen the moral and physical criminality.

Arguments about any possible, recently discovered, incidental health benefits are irrelevant when we are looking at rituals that have nothing to do with health arguments.

And yet, if we say so, it is we who are being outrageous; we who are being provocative; we who are acting inappropriately; we who should stop what we are doing.

Linking this to the Romney thread, would we challenge a Jewish Prime Minister or President to condemn the practice?

Interestingly, this article, which deals with both the medical and ritual motivations, raises some questions even about the medical procedure which is, overall, not risk–free and may have doubtful benefit. Given that, as far as I am aware, boy babies rarely have sex, it seems to me that any adult should be able to make an informed decision for himself when the time comes.

On this basis, even medically-suggested circumcision is probably child abuse unless the medical reason is specific and immediate, (for example, obstruction of urinary flow), rather than based upon some hypothetical future risk.

70. The art of the soluble

Comment #95767 by IanG on December 9, 2007 at 7:12 am

What is science if not a method for transcending subjectivity, for seeing the world from the vantage point of a generic everyman?

Nice. You've made my Sunday with that, Dr.B!

All I need now is for West Ham to win and I will be in Heaven.

(non-ecclesiastically significant Sunday, of course).

71. The art of the soluble

Comment #95752 by IanG on December 9, 2007 at 5:33 am

I quite like Kumbaya.

The Seekers wasn't it?

Great voice, Judith Durham.

72. The art of the soluble

Comment #95749 by IanG on December 9, 2007 at 5:23 am

Sam Harris has this wonderful phrase in "The End of Faith":

....the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish....

Ditto this article.

I really do think sometimes that best thing is just to let this stuff slide past into oblivion.

It's not realistically possible to argue with such gibberish. This whole subject of "faith" has been intentionally put beyond the realms of question and intelligent discourse.

Churchill once said that "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

R-u-s-s-i-a is an alternative spelling of r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n.

The whole gibberish meme process has evolved over the centuries in order to make it as infective as possible to the susceptible population and as resistant as possible to vaccination efforts.

The first thing it does it turn its hosts mad so that, as their health deteriorates, they become increasingly convinced that they have never felt better.

Attempts at treatment through counter-argument simply promote an enhanced sensitivity reaction in the sufferer which has the effect of reinforcing their conviction that they have been right all along and that the nasty doctors are really here to kill them.

73. The God Delusion in Turkey

Comment #95387 by IanG on December 8, 2007 at 8:34 am

It's clear from her writing that, as a secular modern Turk, she's already imagining (wishing) that Turkey is a European country. She references the European Court in Strasbourg, which is applicable since Turkey signed the European Convention on Human Rights.

I agree.

This potential prosecution should be seen in the same light as the kind of nonsense going on the the US (I'm thinking of the career ending email in Texas for providing information about a presentation on evolution).

If you are right, and you seem to have a knowledge of the area, then this is some hopeful news.

At least we can be sure that any efforts in Turkey to raise these cases to the level of the European Court will be decided in favour of modernity

I agree.

If RD is invited to speak in Turkey - he should go. I can't think his security in Turkey would be much worse than in the UK with its sizeable pool of wannabe jihadis,

I agree.

the only way I can see of bringing the Muslim world with us into the 21st century is by showing some basic respect for countries like Turkey and their attempts to build a progressive society.

We should always show respect for other people with whom we are trying to deal. I think it depends upon how we manifest that respect. In Western Europe this respect has been manifested by, in my view, infantilising our Muslim interlocutors: because they make it clear that voicing views that they don't like is an insult that they can't cope with other than by violence or disengagement, we have paid them the "respect" of not treating them like equals. Until we shake off this self-imposed censorship, we are in danger. I feel that it is true of virtually all other groups that if they are brought into things, they begin to adapt and integrate. No doubt also true to some extent of Muslims. However, we simply can't ignore the fact that the evidence is ambiguous. We have even seen Muslim academics warning us that the aim of many Muslim groups in non-Islamic societies is not to integrate. This separation is not all to do with hostility or xenophobia on the part of the indigenous population.

Were Portugal, Spain and Greece so "advanced" when they were admitted? Each of them had only recently emerged from the grips of fascist dictatorships - closely tied to their respective Churches. In the rural areas women went around with headscarves not so different from the hijab. The Church dominated the political arena - with predicable consequences for women's rights, free speech and so on.

I don't agree with the parallel, partly for the reason stated above. Islamic groups seem to behave differently; by remaining separate and repeatedly demonstrating that they care more about getting things their way than we do ours, (up to and including killing and dying), they appear to be able to engineer what in business terms would be called a reverse take-over. It only needs a relatively small determined group to achieve major advances, witness the IRA. In the UK, polls would suggest that, whilst the murderous fanatics may be few, the number of Muslims who cherish a long-term dream and goal of an Islamic UK under Sharia Law is very, very significant.

The emphasis often seems to be on understanding that Muslims in Western society feel under threat and afraid.

So do I.

Bringing into the EU a country like Turkey, where the idea of an Islamic state appears to be suppressed rather than managed, we open the door to a frustrated Islamic population to use western democratic means to throw off the current constraints and move forward.

I believe deeply that wider communities are better in all ways. The problem isn't Turkey; it's us.

Until I see a Western Europe that is prepared to behave in an assertive, adult manner towards Muslims and to expect them to reciprocate, I don't want to see us sleepwalking any further towards this cliff.

74. The God Delusion in Turkey

Comment #95362 by IanG on December 8, 2007 at 6:34 am

I meant thanks to Nick Good for the initial observation about books and BRM for the follow-up.

75. The God Delusion in Turkey

Comment #95361 by IanG on December 8, 2007 at 6:30 am

Thanks, notsobad! Additional info and correction always appreciated. :)

BicycleRepairMan, as regards the books thing, how right you are! There was a series of articles in The Economist a year or two ago on Islam, following a UN Report that was produced by Arab scholars.

Here is a quote from the Economist article, quoting from the UN Report itself:

Another, no less grave, result is the dearth of creativity. The report comments sadly on the severe shortage of new writing, and, for instance, the decline in the film industry. Nor are foreign books much translated: in the 1,000 years since the reign of the Caliph Mamoun, say the authors, the Arabs have translated as many books as Spain translates in one year.

What chance that any of the work of Dawkins or any of the others will be accessible in Arabic in the foreseeable future?

76. The God Delusion in Turkey

Comment #95315 by IanG on December 8, 2007 at 1:30 am

Nice article, but I notice his praise for the book is limited, very limited. His main talking point is the expression of free speach.

Sylvia Tiryaki's praise of the book is succinct but, I feel, unequivocal.

Her main thrust seems to me to be intentionally the issue of freedom of speech.

I don't think she's damning RD with faint praise or grudgingly; she's holding him up as a person of world stature in two fields who has written great popular books on both, which have earned world-wide acclaim.

I think she's saying "Wake up, folks. Turkey is on its way to joining the EU and you need to look at what they do as well as what they say about secularity. Look how they react to Dawkins' work, regardless of the eventual outcome in this particular instance."

To be fair, we can say on the positive side that Turkey is a Muslim country that has been aggressively secularist in the way it has permitted religious presence but flatly banned the more overt demonstrations of faith. You won't see any niqabs in Turkey.

On the negative side, this situation only exists because of military rule. A full EU-type democracy in Turkey could result in a very quick tranformation of the country from military rule to elective theocracy.

The EU would, of course, expect full democratisation as a condition for entry.

77. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #95307 by IanG on December 8, 2007 at 12:38 am

I guess the longevity of this thread tells us all we need to know about what's really important to us when we have to choose our priorities for attention!

:)

78. Holy Nonsense

Comment #95305 by IanG on December 8, 2007 at 12:33 am

This is Hitch doing what he does well: Deadly accurate on the issues of substance, witty and sharp.

The depressing thing for the World is that:

1. In the US, Romney's "faith" makes him a preferable candidate to any hypothetical atheist candidate with an impeccable record on race and gender issues and a track record of outstanding integrity, statesmanship and proven political wisdom.

2. The Mormon Church will bury any theological misgivings it may have about Romney's heresies, in return for a Mormon President.


Imagine it: their options include a first woman president and a first black president and they may choose a hypocritical, fantasist nutter who espouses the words of a snake-oil salesman with a known record of moral degeneracy.

Sadly, if Romney doesn't get in, it probably won't be because of what Hitch has written, although we have to hope that he will have swayed some of the electorate in the right direction!

Isn't it an irony that, according to the statistics on faith in the US, a majority of folk would regard Romney as Hitchens' moral superior.

79. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94701 by IanG on December 6, 2007 at 9:33 am

I spent my first year at school singing at the top of my lungs, "Drown him, drown him, all the little children ...."

I used to think that he was called "Harold".

As in "Our Father, which art in Heaven, Harold be thy name..."

80. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94565 by IanG on December 6, 2007 at 1:49 am

Thanks Bonzai.

If this be the case, then for me the issue remains one of communicating an effective message.

Hitchens has the intellect, the academic pedigree and the eloquence and genuine wit to have made this argument with devastating force if he had chosen to do so.

I really do think it's a shame that he surrenders to his impulses some times.

He was actually on the TV programme that I referred to above.

It is to his credit that he went for Shirley Williams' throat sufficiently emphatically that he finally forced out of her an explicit admission of her own appeasing stance.

However, the whole programme was marred by his manner. He came across as petulant and choleric to the point of almost becoming a caricature of himself. It infuriated me to watch someone who is a major figure on a subject that is important to me messing up so badly. I had to channel significant amounts of my own energy into constantly disabling my own intellectual and emotional immune system programs. I just kept getting the urge to switch off my attention and to switch him off on the TV.

Early on he did his usual thing of responding to a question with something along the lines of, "That's such a stupid question; it isn't even a question, it's a waste of an opportunity. I don't even understand what you are going on about so don't expect an answer from me."

I paraphrase: the above is not an exact quote.

The problem was that he wasn't in his usual one-to-one debate with an attendant audience. He was a member of a panel, the other members of which proceeded to answer the question leaving poor old Hitch having to dig himself out of the hole and say that he hadn't initially understood the point properly and could now answer.

I was annoyed at the likelihood that some viewers could well have thought, "Well, if that's the new rational atheism that's supposed to lead to a better, more harmonious world, count me out!"

81. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94540 by IanG on December 6, 2007 at 12:55 am

Hi Bonzai,

Could you just say a bit more about this possible parallelism? I'm happy to admit that I just don't quite get it at the moment but would be glad to get that additional perspective.

82. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94536 by IanG on December 6, 2007 at 12:25 am

Thank you for the comments, crazy old man.

For me the thing about Hitchens really is about the air of angry contempt and the feeling I get that one of his aims sometimes is to sneer and insult just for the sake of it. Uncivilised behaviour isn't a good thing whomever it comes from.

Dawkins and Harris feel more like they are attacking a particular idea and the effect its colonisation has on the individuals.

They all may cross the line sometimes, but I don't object to that because expecting some sort of saintly perfection is silly and counterproductive, and argument sometimes does get robust and rough. That's all absolutely fine and a normal part of what we are.

I think it would be disastrous for us to feel that too much of the truth is a bad thing.

My posts in this vein are intended to argue the opposite: we should not allow our opponents to use the classic bullying taboo that anything we say that they don't like is bad-mannered insult and that we should learn to shut up. It has to be recognised that, whilst it's a common ploy, Muslims are in the habit of using this approach more frequently and in a more extreme form than other faiths. They get encouragement from some of our politicans who tell us that we need to show a little more sensitivity and understanding towards people who threaten to kill us if we continue to say and do things that they don't like. Shirley Williams of the UK LibDems did exactly this on TV a few months ago.

My argument is that we should stick to speaking the truth and the facts about the current, present day real world as loudly, clearly and persistently as possible. If some people of faith then choose to object to our unacceptable "bad manners", it allows us to challenge the more rational amongst them, who should be our main tactical focus, to say exactly what it is about putting facts and truth in reasonable terms that is unacceptable. Infect them with a meme that they can't shake off easily and leave it to churn over in their minds and give them sleepless nights as they struggle and fail to find a valid reason for our being told to shut up.

My fear is that Hitchens' response to what I have written would be to sneer that there is no such thing as a rational faith-head and that I'm just as pathetic as they are.

83. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94328 by IanG on December 5, 2007 at 10:25 am

Hmmm. Bit of a rant really; a triumph of form over substance.

I posted the other day in, "Atheism's Wrong Turn", on there being, amongst the possible future worlds, one in which there existed a totalitarian, atheistic state, where people had to publicly renounce faith, where they were ghettoed and harassed, where their books would be burned and where children might report their parents to the authorities for praying in private.

When he bangs on like this, Hitch fits the image I have for the leader standing on the balcony and stirring the adoring crowds.

"Hail Hitch!" maybe?

As a vituperative, points-scoring, stand-up comedy act in a nightclub, it might work well, but it does us no credit at all to be associated with this sort of hateful scorn, regardless of the accuracy of any statements about what went on a long time ago. It's an easy rant at an easy target.

How does it move our cause forwards?

Not at all unless we have transposed "forwards" and "backwards" in our vocabulary.

There are better targets than this for our real ire. And this stuff will really piss off lots of folks who might have been thinking that we had a point until now. He's just showing off.

More ammunition for Damon Linker in the "Atheism's Wrong Turn" thread, I think.

To quote from the Hitch himself:

This is childish stuff.

84. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93451 by IanG on December 3, 2007 at 7:11 am

I assume you know how deeply religious Nazi Germany was, so I'm not going over it here.

Yes, black wolf, I do indeed know how religious Nazi Germany was and the degree to which Hitler used religion and Norse/Germanic mythology.

I also agree that religion has shown great resilience in the face of attempts to eradicate it.

None of this refutes my argument that Atheism carries the seeds of tyranny just like any other idea. We should be clear-eyed and courageous in confronting abuses of the human body and spirit (non-religious use), whoever perpetrates them, and we should avoid the zealotry of seeking out every little thoughtcrime committed by someone who chooses to be a non-believer in what we hold dear.

My point was that any powerful idea has the capacity to fire up and ultimately take control of its host.

To invoke Dennett's suggestion that one possibility is that some memes are created by individuals and then escape their creators' control and become epidemic; we should accept the fact that in the possible futures, there may be one in which Atheism has seized the imagination of a critical mass of humankind.

The result may be benign. I would hope that it would be actually beneficial. I'm inclined to think it would be because basing decisions on testing, on facts and evidence seems to be a better way of doing things. Better, in the sense of providing better answers and better new questions.

However, history shows that no amount of ethics committees or indeed anything else, has any real effectiveness when they get in the way of an idea whose time has come.

I believe that we, who participate in these discussions, have a responsiblity to maximise the probability that, when the idea comes, it is as decent and ethical as we can fashion it to be.

Those who attack people of faith indiscriminately are potentially stoking a whole new fire of hate.

Just to be clear, as this medium is not like face-to-face discourse, I am not suggesting that you are one of these latter.

85. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93422 by IanG on December 3, 2007 at 6:07 am

No offence taken, steve 99, I didn't take it as criticism. Feedback and clarification are what make things tick.

It took me a while to figure out how I wanted to contribute on this particular topic. Part of it is that I feel that we should concentrate most of our efforts on the real lunacies and the real lunatics and not alienate a lot of folks who feel so insulted at being lumped in with people whose views they probably loathe as much as we do, that they decide to see us as not worth listening to.

The real issue, however, is that, whilst religion has its particular dangers, it is ideas themselves that colonise our minds, as with Communism, Fascism etc.

I think Linker is trying to touch on this issue. He is trying, amongst other things, to point out that Atheism is an idea that has colonised a significant number of humans, (including me, as it happens).

There is absolutely no reason to see Atheism as a special exception. This means that one possible hypothetical future is a totalitarian atheist state where people who don't publicly renounce faith are hounded, victimised, their books burned, etc. A state where children report their parents for praying in privacy, or for saying "Good God!"

Such a state might look somewhat like Nazi Germany.

86. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93415 by IanG on December 3, 2007 at 5:44 am

My view is that stuff seems to happen and the principles of science seem to be the best way to investigate. If someone came up with evidence of telepathy or fairies, I would want it investigated. Scientifically.

Thank you, steve99, I do agree that the way you put it is a better expression of the underlying issue than were my words. Ditto evidence for the effectiveness of intercessionary prayer.

87. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93410 by IanG on December 3, 2007 at 5:25 am

OK. So we know that we believe in a natural world with natural explanations. We don't believe in supernatural beings, causes or effects. We don't claim to know things that we don't know and we recognise that models of the world that include blind, unquestioning belief and obedience are likely to be more dangerous than those encourage free enquiry and evidence.

We kind of like to think that each and every one of those silly faithheads is at least potentially a prisoner to blind faith: they all have the potential to believe in miracles; to think that condoms are a greater evil than HIV/Aids; and to believe that they can look forward to an End of Days when the rest of us will burn in Hell. Potentially they are all really nasty, dangerous people if someone presses the wrong button and it therefore follows that we are right in seeking an End of Faith for all humans, rather than an End of Days. Because God's kind of on our side isn't he? Because we're the good guys.

If Damon Linker is a believer in freedom of enquiry and in people making up their own minds about his charge that there is an illiberal aspect to some atheist argument and rhetoric, I guess all he has to do is to post the weblink to this thread and to invite his readers to read the full contents and then to decide for themselves whether he may have a point.

88. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92367 by IanG on November 30, 2007 at 10:57 am

Hallelujah!

A Miracle! A Miracle!

Let us raise up our voices and give thanks!

Here is an advance copy of the headline and opening paragraph in tomorrow's Daily Secularist:

"DIVINE INTERVENTION – POPE JOINS FOUR HORSEMEN IN BID TO RAISE PROFILE OF ATHEISM"

"For far too long atheism has languished; ignored and neglected, with its views ill-understood." said the Pontiff, "The time has come to wake people up to the real possibilities offered by this interesting alternative view. I am delighted to join with Richard, Daniel, Sam, Christopher and their colleagues in the drive to raise the profile of them and their ideas!"

"Our prayers have been answered.", said a joyful Richard Dawkins from his Oxford eyrie, "We could never have hoped for such great publicity, so generously given."

89. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90425 by IanG on November 25, 2007 at 5:29 am

The whole point here is that we didn't KNOW how much of a nutter Blair was! By the implication of his own admission, we wouldn't have elected him if we had.

Northern Bright, I would love to agree with you. But I can't. I think we are responsible for the decisions we make, including at the ballot box. And Blair didn't know what he would be faced with when he was elected, so we can't even say he wholly and intentionally misled us. As Macmillan said, realpolitik is all down to "events".

Isn't liberal western democracy our best effort to date at establishing social power processes that have aspects of Darwinian experimental testing and modification, in a similar but messier way than the scientific process?

So we need to have distinctly different choices on offer, for who should rule for a limited period, after which we choose again, in the light of the results of the preceding experiment.

To say that we wouldn't have voted for Blair if we had known what he was going to be like, is a bit like saying that we wouldn't have carried out the experiment if we'd known what the result was going to be.

Ultimately, Blair got voted in because the existing power group was unable to maintain its dominance against competition in the prevailing environment.

I think Blair might well have been voted in regardless of how obvious his quirks were.

On the issue of religious belief specifically, I suspect that we make our minds up in ways that we don't fully understand and then post-rationalise. I think that an atheist Blair would probably have made the same decisions but presented somewhat different justifications.

90. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90410 by IanG on November 25, 2007 at 4:05 am

Many of the leading speakers on atheism depend to a greater or lesser extent upon the argument that all religious people are somehow prisoners to every detail of the dogma written in their various "books", regardless of any protestations that they may make to the contrary. This tends to lump all people of faith together and undoubtedly it sometimes loses us as many potential ears as it gains, which probably isn't ideal given that we are in a political struggle for hearts and minds.

Let's take heart from the fact that the necessity for many of our opponents to be pragmatic leads them into an open hypocrisy that should give us hope. Faced with the choice between declaring unquestioning loyalty to the tenets of their faith, and grappling with the practical realities of a diverse society, they unswervingly choose the latter, (at least in the UK and Europe). This affords the rest of us the chance not only to admire them for having the flexibility of contortionists, but also to have a good giggle at the postures in which they sometimes get stuck.

Tony Blair has made it clear for ages that he intends to become a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church has made it equally clear that he will be welcomed in.

Interesting, given that he has publicly spoken in favour of, and voted in favour of, abortion, which is a mortal sin requiring excommunication if admitted to.

Brings to mind one Blairism in particular, "Y'know, I'm a pretty straight sort of guy."

They deserve one another.

Reminds me of the Catholic priest, who said when told that one of his flock had converted to Protestantism on his deathbed, "Ah, well. It's better that one of them goes rather than one of us!"

91. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87759 by IanG on November 13, 2007 at 3:46 am

Hi Russell,

I think you do have a point and your analysis of the MEC is probably close to the mark. However, I think their status is partly a consequence of the government's chosen behaviour as regards to whom it speaks. It's self-reinforcing in either direction.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Dr. Bari's statements are primitive and outrageous. Any person who spouted such nasty idiocy on behalf of a political party would be ostracised.

In the UK we have a party called the British National Party. They are unashamedly racist and fascist. They command no respect and all mainstream politicians take every opportunity to jump on the bandwagon of condemning them. They are right to do so; the BNP are a truly nasty bunch. The point is that Bari's stuff is every bit as poisonous, yet the response is silence.

If mainstream politics doesn't collaborate with the BNP, it has no justification for engaging with the MCB. The BNP has some pretty clear views on immigration, which is quite an issue here right now, but you don't hear of Gordon Brown meeting with Nick Griffin, (BNP leader), to consult and collaborate with him on addressing the issue. What the hell are we doing talking to a bloke who espouses the stuff Bari has just spouted? It just gives it legitimacy.

We risk getting into the dangerous situation where, on the claimed basis that there isn't another group to talk to, a government does deals with, and lends legitimacy to, a group of people, some of whom might well be in Court if they weren't shielded by the protection of taboo.

As soon as we do this we are meeting a theocracy halfway.

If the Government did start to be a bit more demanding in the quality of the folks it dealt with, then other organisations would appear, or existing ones would grow. The government is turning the market into a monopoly by treating the MCB as the only supplier.

I don't know where you are based, but the UK doesn't have the sort of spread across the spectrum of public debate that exists in, for example, the US. In the US, there are public figures who will speak out unafraid, on issues that most politicians here wouldn't dare to rock the boat on. I know that the result is sometimes some pretty hair-raising stuff, but the essence is that there is the vibrancy of open debate and fewer people feel that that there is no-one who speaks for their particular interest.

Self-censorship is the most dangerous form of censorship and, sadly it is a real problem here in the UK.

92. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87744 by IanG on November 13, 2007 at 2:43 am

I guess that interest in this thread is now coming to an end.

However, I am delighted to say that I have something positive to report.

Whilst all our politicians are still in the bunker waiting for this to be forgotten, Dr. Taj Hargey, Chairman of the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford, has today written to the Telegraph in uncompromising terms in which, inter alia, he charges Dr. Bari with perpetuating a medieval ideology.

Here is the link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/13/nosplit/dt1301.xml

Kirsty Thomas, who writes supporting Dr. Bari, seems to be wearing a niqab on the inside of her head, thus limiting the ability of her brain to perceive the outside world with any degree of clarity: we have a problem with alcohol misuse, therefore fundamentalist Islam is the answer. Does she want to give up driving? Or going out on her own? What happens to women in Saudi Arabia who write to newspapers? I guess it's OK if her husband writes to say he permits her to to this. If she isn't married, I guess that Dr. Bari can choose a husband for her. If she has a partner and isn't married, she'd better watch out.

I have e-mailed the Muslim Education Centre, thanking Dr Hargey for contributing a contrary view in such uncompromising terms.

Interestingly, although the British Government recognises the Dr. Bari's Muslim Council of Great Britain, and talks to it, the face validity of moderation that this tends to confer on the organisation is clearly not shared by everyone.

Why can't the Government say that, henceforward, it prefers to deal with Dr Hargey and his organisation?

93. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87485 by IanG on November 12, 2007 at 8:53 am

Dr. Benway,

This is what you have to do: someone in the British government talks to the leadership of this Muslim organization (not this guy), and says, "You have to renounce the crap in that interview and remove Dr. Bari from his position. Immediately. Otherwise, your organization will no longer enjoy contact with our government."

You are, of course, entirely correct and that is what any sane person amongst us would do. Your support is heartening to us over here.

However, I will make you a prediction: not one British politician will make any statement whatsoever on this issue, because of cowardice and the terror of being labelled a racist.

If I am wrong, and a politician does make a statement, then my second prediction is that it will be one of broad support and helpful explanation of Dr. Bari's views. It will be coupled with firm admonition of anyone who condemns Dr. Bari, on the grounds that such condemnation is "unhelpful", and "inflammatory".

Such admonition will almost certainly include an attempt to switch the issue around and we will be told that our country allows Dr. Bari freedom of speech, which we are attempting to deny him.

Nonsense, of course: we don't want to stop him saying stupid, poisonous things, we just want our elected representatives to say publicly that he's saying stupid, poisonous things that foster false hopes in gullible people and stoke the fires of unrest and alienation.

94. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87419 by IanG on November 12, 2007 at 4:23 am

Titus,

Nothing wrong with a good cathartic rant now and again!

As time ticks by and youth disappears into the mists behind me, I have noticed that, lately, I seem to catch myself shouting at the television quite a lot, even though I know it can't hear me.

(It can't, can it??)

I suppose that what worries me most is the known epidemiology and aetiology of this particular memetic infection: Communities of the faithful, already gathered together in semi-isolated populations, begin to practise Sharia internally without reference to the established legal system. By the time this is sufficiently widespread to get noticed by the host society, it is too late: there is no way that these folk are now going to relinquish the system that they use to manage their community affairs. That's the conclusion of Phase 1; the localised de facto phase.

People like Bari then begin to transmit a new message: "This is a fact that should now be formally recognised. Failure to do this will arouse the righteous anger of millions of people who are already happy with this system and will never relinquish their established right to use it. Formal Sharia should now be legislatively approved for those communities that want it."

That's Phase 2; the localised de jure phase.

Phase 3 is pretty obvious.

95. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87405 by IanG on November 12, 2007 at 3:31 am

Titus,

We have to take him very seriously: he wields much more power and influence than you and I do.

96. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87394 by IanG on November 12, 2007 at 2:45 am

This is just a statement, from someone who sees his cause as reasonable and its prospects of success already close to certainty. We do indeed find it threatening to us.

The message is that there are over a million potential civil activists out there, if we continue to give offence, (he doesn't see them as terrorists - they are victims suffering prejudice). That's an army of pre-emptive size and force - he really does believe that the battle is pretty much over, which is why he is so open about his views. He is encouraged by the absence of any serious firm rejection of these statements by any politician. He genuinely believes that any mobilisation of this army against us will truly be our own fault for leaving them with no option but to stand up for themselves. All of this is our fault, in his eyes.

There has not been one politician of note who has made any comment on Dr. Bari's view of the future for our country. Recently a political working party decided not to enact specific legislation making illegal the practice of coercively transporting British-born ethnically-Asian girls and women to Pakistan, for the purpose of marriage to Pakistani local men, for fear that such legal enactment might do more harm than good.

On one particular issue, you might want to juxtapose two separate parts of his statement.

Look at this:

"Sir Salman Rushdie should never have been knighted", he says. "He caused a huge amount of distress and discordance with his book, it should have been pulped."

Then look at this:

"According to a recent report by the Policy Exchange think-tank, the bookshop at the east London Mosque, which Dr Bari chairs, stocks extremist literature.

"The bookshops are independent businesses," he says. "We can't just go in and tell them what to sell … I will see what books they keep, if they have one book which looks like it is inciting hatred, do they have counter books on the same shelf?"

It is my guess that Dr Bari is reasonably confident that, as regards the UK, it really is just a matter of time now, before there is a progressive shift to widespread de facto Sharia and, ultimately de jure Sharia.

He correctly gauges that, because they are willing to die to put an end to short skirts and dancing and we aren't willing to die to defend those activities, we are now in the end-game.

For those abroad, like Dr Benway, you might be interested to hear that, a little while ago, an Asian youth stabbed another Asian youth; yes, stabbed, as in with a knife.

The families of the two youths put it to the Police that they wished to deal with this as a "family matter" under Sharia custom, rather than through the UK courts. The Police agreed. No charges, no court case.

An incidental consequence of this is, of course, that the knife-wielding assailant has no criminal record.

If he stabs me next week, he is of previously unstained character.

We now have, de facto, two systems of jurisprudence operating in the UK coupled with an assumption on one side that if we don't meet theocracy half way then what ensues will be a consequence of our own unreasonable intransigence.

Things don't look too good.

97. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87251 by IanG on November 11, 2007 at 3:14 pm

Rock on, Bonzai!!

98. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87246 by IanG on November 11, 2007 at 3:07 pm

This really is serious stuff. The gloves are off.

This guy is politically important: he meets with Prime Ministers and their staff, is taken seriously as a moderate voice, and may one day be knighted in the same Tony-Blairish-fawning manner as was the unspeakable Sir Iqbal Sacranie whose answer to the question of the possible over-severity of the fatwah on Salman Rushdie was that, "Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him…"

Basically, Dr. Bari advocates a British society with arranged marriages and the pulping of Salman Rushdie's book; he doesn't rule out stoning if the circumstances are right, and he wishes us to understand that we are the problem - British society is becoming like Nazi Germany. It's not the nutters who fly planes into buildings. We are intolerant. We need a good dose of Islam to put us right.

Homosexuality is unacceptable, as is sex before marriage and, "we should try to go back to the religiously informed style of life that helps society."

Cleverly he picks on the obvious issues: alcohol and growing, general social unruliness, but then there's the usual breathtaking non-sequitur - these are the problems, therefore, Islam and the theocratic state is the answer. God of the Gaps again.

Scary stuff, openly stated in a superficially emollient style, but in worryingly confident and frank terms.

His passion is to integrate Muslim and British cultures – he says integration must go both ways.

This is the logic that says that if I think that killing Jews is hateful, genocidal stupidity and you are a Nazi who thinks that total extermination is the only option, we should settle on only killing half of them.

Salman Rushdie asked us, "Are you willing to die for short skirts and dancing?"

Time to step up folks.

I don't suggest that we get ready to arm ourselves and die just yet, but this is a full-frontal assault on everything that we believe in, couched in well-meaning, (even genuinely well-meaning, that's what's scary), terms.

This sort of thing, confidently articulated in a mainstream broadsheet British newspaper, could presage the beginning of end of the secular society.

Comment and reaction has hardly been seismic. So much for the Enlightenment, and hello to the new Dark Age.

I would just beg that we don't get provoked by his comments about suicide bombers being victims; he's right on that score.

Let's be charitable, believe the best of him and accept that he may truly feel, deeply, that this is the way to go. That he truly believes that the answer to our troubles is a good dose of Islam. That his intentions may be profoundly of good intent.

And then let's remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The implications of this article are absolutely awful, and this sort of stuff has to be stopped in its tracks as best we can.

99. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83843 by IanG on October 31, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Thank you Tyler Durden. Very well put.

100. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83804 by IanG on October 31, 2007 at 10:33 am

I think there are two issues here: firstly the legitimacy of the Pope as an authority on these issues; and secondly, the morality of his opinion.

On the first issue, his legitimacy is in serious question. The Pope is qualified in Theology: an area that many would say is a non-subject. Looking further we discover that his utterances are supposed to carry extra weight, because, rather than in spite of, his claim that he has a direct line to a supernatural being for whose existence there is no evidence or any other good reason to believe in.

So, as regards legitimacy, we can say that the Pope has none because he himself specifically rests his final authority on Superman without presenting convincing argument for the existence of the latter gentleman, (have you noticed, it's always a man!) We can reasonably say that his statements necessarily carry less value than those of the average atheist passenger on the Clapham omnibus. If the Pope wants to opine without recourse to the supernatural, then he's entitled to be listened to, but he needs to join the tail-end of a very long queue of people who have established credentials immeasurably better than his.

On the second issue, we can begin by asserting that actions have consequences and that a consideration of consequences is a reasonable component of any evaluation of the morality of decisions.

As I have written in other threads, the objective evidence of the consequences of the Pope's pronouncements on condoms in Africa alone is that he and his immediate predecessor have been the cause of the avoidable or reducible misery, suffering and death of millions of people.

Leaving the centuries-old stuff and all the other religions on one side, the teachings and influence of the Catholic Church alone have, during the past fifty years alone, caused terrible suffering which was avoidable. This isn't moral, it's utterly immoral.

This man is the head of an organisation that formally classifies fifty percent of the human population on this planet as being ineligible for full equal rights within our species.

The track record is therefore, of numerous, utterly immoral teachings and actions. And I haven't mentioned the "teachings" on homosexuality or the concealment of pandemic, priestly pederasty.

So, as regards making statements on moral issues, an organisation that routinely utters some of the most immoral advice and commits some of the most immoral acts on the planet simply has no credentials.

His expectation that he will be listened to and taken seriously is an indication of an assumption that his utterances are due special respect. Preferential treatment to put it another way. And he chooses to interfere with the way people go about their work.

This intervention is non-trivial: he is getting into issues of law and contract. To the extent that all individuals and institutions are subject to the Rule of Law, he is setting himself above these considerations and instructing others to do the same.

The Pontiff's grounds for uttering this latest poisonous diktat are, not only that a hypothetical, yet-to-be-discovered, supernatural essence inhabits each microscopic blob of cells in a uterus or a Petri dish, but also that it's a sin to prevent the creation of these blobs of cells in the first place, because this prevents the as-yet-unobserved supernatural essence from "becoming".

This sort of nonsense brings to mind the utterances of the early Christian sage, Tertullian (c.150-230AD), who is still revered in certain quarters for such profound wisdoms as:

"Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est."

Which translates as: "It is to be believed, because it is absurd."

And:

"Certum est, quia impossible est."

Which means: "It is certain, because it is impossible."

We should assure Pope Benedict that we agree that his views are absurd and his view of the real world is impossible, but that, in our world, we neither honour ignorance nor respect defiant belief in either the absurd or the impossible.

Me? Well, this all puts me in mind of Alice's White Queen who, you will recall, sometimes believed in as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Which leaves me with the lingering question as to whether the ultimate holy tome is The Bible, or Alice through the Looking Glass.

I know which one is the more believable, the more compassionate and the more human.