Comments by Barry Pearson
151. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows
Comment #192873 by Barry Pearson on June 14, 2008 at 5:22 am
Cartomancer said: But that aside, Blair has it completely wrong: if we want to draw on the wisdom that religious traditions have to offer then the method we must use to do so is not faith but reason.Of course he has it completely wrong - he is Tony Blair!
If religious people have anything to offer on a topic, it isn't because it is religion per se. It is because they may have relevant expertise that they can support (as you say) with evidence and reason. The president of the flower arranging society shouldn't automatically be given authority in the urban planning department, but may well have a useful contribution to make. This would be because s/he is a motivated citizen who can show that flowers can make a socially useful contribution to urban satisfaction. This may correlate with being the president, but it is the genuine expertise that is important.
According to the World Christian Database, in the contemporary world some ten thousand religions are currently practised. Most of these don't resemble Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. The core beliefs of these religions are incompatible, and with easy global communications it is probably impossible to say or do anything of significance that is not objectionable to members of at least one religion.
How can we really hope "to understand each other's faith" as Blair states? Do the train spotters have to understand the photographers in order to coexist with them? Perhaps it helps when trying to resolve specific conflicts, but the onus has to be on the religious people to accept that they can't expect everyone outside their particular faith to understand them, let alone obey their rules.
Needless to say, Blair appears to ignore one major category of people in the world - people of no faith! We are part of the solution - but Blair, the Pope, and other highly religious people see us as at best irrelevant, or else part of the problem. That is why the "Out Campaign" is important.
152. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows
Comment #192860 by Barry Pearson on June 14, 2008 at 4:52 am
Corylus said: By using the term 'other' he is underlining and supporting the very differences he seeks to overcome. He has to do this, of course, because if religious differences are human, (as opposed to divine) constructions, then his own beliefs have no legitimacy at all. Radical thought: The 'other' is a human invention. Ditch it.I'm trying to address "coexistence" problems at the following page, which I intend to make fit for public consumption by the end of the month:
robaylesbury said: Doesn't each faith make exclusive claims as to who has the truth? How exactly can they coexist with any degree of intellectual honesty when they all, deep down, believe that the other side is wrong?
"Religions are hobbies"
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/hobby.htm
That page doesn't address whether or not gods exist. Instead, it attempts to analyse where the boundaries of religions' roles should be, using existing well-understood examples that successfully allow lots of disparate communities to coexist.
Obviously, religious people who believe that society has to be changed to align with their fundamentals won't accept this view! But religions won't disappear this century, and we need to think realistically about them. I personally believe that "religions are OK when practised by consenting adults in private", but that sounds too strict to be taken seriously. What about "children"? What does "private" really mean? Isn't this confirmation that atheists intend to wipe out religion? (Perhaps - but let's be serious!)
I believe that by using hobbies as examples, we may be able to identify guidelines for religious practices. This doesn't say anything about private beliefs - but since when has the typical atheist been in favour of censorship of thoughts (rather than actions)? We are people who don't believe anything is monitoring our thoughts, and historically atheists were often at risk from "thought police".
153. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech
Comment #192809 by Barry Pearson on June 14, 2008 at 2:09 am
Steven Mading said: What frightens me the most about hate speech laws is that they never even bother addressing the issue of whether the statements are true or not.... The idea that all "hate speech" must be outlawed essentially is an argument in favor of the asinine solipsist idea that reality is subject to our will - that what's true is only true because we wish it to be true and therefore stating something is true is identical to showing approval of it. So long as you're sane enough to realize what hogwash that idea is, you have to accept that there will be cases where telling the truth will be unpleasant, like it or not, because there are some people for which telling the truth about them makes them look bad.Yes, when truth is censored then "evidence-based reasoning" is under threat, along with the rest of the Enlightenment.
I'm sure Australians here can quote the case 2 or 3 years ago where some Christians (I think aid workers or missionaries) told a meeting of their extensive personal experiences in a Muslim country. 2 or 3 Muslims, including recent converts, attended the meeting and then claimed to feel threatened and frightened by what was said. (It was their choice to be there, and no one at the meeting acted towards them personally. I believe there was a consensus that it was a set-up). The Christian organisation lost the case! In my business trips to Australia, I have liked the robust common sense of the people I worked with, but this case was "through the looking glass". I hope it is confined to the lunatic fringe, but that "fringe" has a habit of spreading if allowed to.
As an engineer, I have been involved in techniques such as "error cause removal", where solving a problem needs identification of what really causes it, so the cause can be fixed and the problem won't happen again. It isn't about blame, nor political correctness. It is about being able to say "in some Muslim countries people are hurt for these reasons, so let's address those reasons".
When I see such censorship, and hear about "Islamophobia", I am struck by 2 observations, which distinguish between "attacking the religion" and "attacking the adherents of a religion":
1. Probably Islam hurts (even kills) far more Muslims than non-Muslims over the centuries.
2. Probably most Muslims in the world are, in some way, hurt by Islam. (Many women, plus people put at a disadvantage by antipathy towards science, etc).
Polly Toynbee was the 2004 "Most Islamophobic Media Personality". But had she attacked Muslims en masse? No - whatever you think about her, she wouldn't attack Muslim WOMEN en masse. Her "crime" was to express sympathy for half the Muslims on the planet - the ones who don't set the rules for "Islamophobia".
154. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech
Comment #192798 by Barry Pearson on June 14, 2008 at 1:25 am
I agree with what you say about this law in most cases, as it applies to street demonstrations. But what has happened now is clarification of how it applies when criticising religions, the topic of this thread. Time will tell, but perhaps now the law won't be used in cases where religions and cults are being criticised in the street.
Barry Pearson said: The police officer screwed up, and hopefully the police will get it right next time. It reflects on police training, etc, rather than the law.
hungarianelephant said: I profoundly disagree. This law is drafted vaguely (quite deliberately) and gives the police an express power of arrest. It was intended to allow the police lots of scope to tell people to "move on" or arrest them. Our 15 year old friend was brave enough to tell the police they were wrong. Most people, threatened with arrest, will not. If you wanted to suppress free speech, this is the ideal law to use. It has a chilling effect on free speech.
And, of course, this case WAS about a street demonstration: section 5 says "within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby". It doesn't apply to publications in the media, where the new 29J of the Public Order Act 1986 (from 29J of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006) now operates, and makes it clear that we can be FAR more insulting than this case.
155. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech
Comment #192515 by Barry Pearson on June 13, 2008 at 8:52 am
hungarianelephant said: To the discussion of "inciting religious hatred" in UK law, it's also worth pointing out section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:Let's not forget the consequences of that occasion:
This is the police weapon of choice in dealing with behaviour which they do not personally approved of. You may remember that this was the section used against the young gentleman who was arrested after refusing to take down a placard calling scientology a "dangerous cult".
A teenager who was facing legal action for calling the Church of Scientology a cult has today been told he will not be taken to court. The Crown Prosecution Service ruled the word was neither "abusive or insulting" to the church and no further action would be taken against the boy....Guardian:
A file was passed to the CPS, which today told City of London police it would not be pursuing the boy through the courts. A spokeswoman for the force said: "The CPS review of the case includes advice on what action or behaviour at a demonstration might be considered to be threatening, abusive or insulting. The force's policing of future demonstrations will reflect this advice."
A CPS spokesman said: "In consultation with the City of London police, we were asked whether the sign, which read 'Scientology is not a religion it is a dangerous cult', was abusive or insulting. "Our advice is that it is not abusive or insulting and there is no offensiveness, as opposed to criticism, neither in the idea expressed nor in the mode of expression. No action will be taken against the individual."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/23/religion?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
There were similar reports in many other news sources. For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7416425.stm
The police officer screwed up, and hopefully the police will get it right next time. It reflects on police training, etc, rather than the law. It is important to distinguish between what the law ACTUALLY is, and what people claim it is.
Comment #192452 by Barry Pearson on June 13, 2008 at 5:07 am
I think it would be useful for the original date to be identified in all articles here, before the quote itself. (After all, people may read only the quote, and not the original material).
People responding here may miss the fact that the original article was published on October 4, 2001.
157. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech
Comment #192443 by Barry Pearson on June 13, 2008 at 4:33 am
AllanW said: They are not only unworkable (just how do you prove intent to be hurtful? How is 'hurtful' interpreted by anyone other than the victim? How do you prove 'full knowledge'? etc) but have so many holes in them that unscrupulous people use them to stifle speech and writing. Just read about the use that some people are putting the UK laws to in the publishing industry to stifle comment they don't like....Distinguish between "what is hurtful" and "intent to stir up hatred against groups". That is what UK law tries to do. Furthermore, recent experience suggests that extremist Muslims are the ones most likely to fall foul of the latter. I agree that "what is hurtful" is in the eye of the beholder, and it is up to people take control of their own emotional state instead of throwing tantrums.
The only defense against hate speech is to point out it's fallacies, incorrectness in fact and its objective. Nothing more need be done
Once again, here are quotes from recent UK law as it now is. I am not aware of any cases brought under this law. (Many people believe that it was unnecessary, and previous laws catered adequately for incitement to hatred and violence). But 29J really is one of the clearest sentences I have ever seen in UK law!
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2708,Unlike-Others-US-Defends-Freedom-to-Offend-in-Speech,NY-Times,page2#192192
158. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech
Comment #192440 by Barry Pearson on June 13, 2008 at 4:20 am
7Fred7 said: I've been out of the UK for many years. When I left there was a lot of hoo-haa about something called political correctness. I'm told that has now decended to unprecedented extremes. By all means let societies be bound by law, but never gagged. Freedom of speech, by definition, MUST include the right to offend. Destructive behaviour cannot be tolerated, but the free expression of opinions and ideas is essential.Did you read my post above?
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2708,Unlike-Others-US-Defends-Freedom-to-Offend-in-Speech,NY-Times,page2#192192
The law in the UK is:
29J Protection of freedom of expression:Is this OK? Or not?
"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system".
Fanusi Khiyal said: Barry Pearson I think you've got that wrong. This law specifically was introduced to prevent criticism of Islam. You see, they hauled Nick Griffin of the BNP up before one of these tribunals on 'race hate' charges, and he made the point that Islam isn't a race. So they pushed this monstrosity through.I accurately quoted the law that received the Royal Assent in 2006, and since October 2007 has been in operation in the UK.
The law was INTENDED by the government to do what you said. The government failed, by one vote, to overturn an amendment that thwarted their plan. This was a result of massive public objection, (with Rowan Atkinson at his best), and a rebellion by people in the Commons and the Lords (unusually) doing their job of representing the people and keeping the government under control. (It happened to be Tony Blair's vote! He was badly advised by the Chief Whip that the vote had inevitably gone against the government, so he didn't vote - as usual for him. His vote would have made the difference).
As I said, the devil is in the detail - what I quoted REALLY IS the law that emerged from Parliament. (It is only a small Act, and takes only a few minutes to read). Furthermore, Parliament recently voted to repeal the blasphemy laws, helping to make different religions more consistent by removing that sort of protection from all of them!
159. Report: Troubling texts at Va. Islamic school
Comment #192209 by Barry Pearson on June 12, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Dinah said: Once we get State-funded Islamic schools here in the UK there is a very real danger they will be teaching similar things. We are told 'Oh no, the schools will be regularly inspected, will have to adhere to the National Curriculum, and extremism will not be allowed,' but I am not convinced.Neither am I.
If you want to write a letter to your MP, you can use my letter as a starter-kit if it helps:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/letter1.htm
160. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech
Comment #192192 by Barry Pearson on June 12, 2008 at 2:31 pm
The devil (ha!) is in the detail. Here is the (recent) law in the UK.
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060001_en_1
(incorporating section 29 into The Public Order Act 1986, from October 2007):
Summary:
29A Meaning of "religious hatred":This is all about "intent to stir up religious hatred".
"In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief".
29B Use of words or behaviour or display of written material:
"A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."
29C Publishing or distributing written material:
"A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred".
29D Public performance of play:
"If a public performance of a play is given which involves the use of threatening words or behaviour, any person who presents or directs the performance is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred".
29E Distributing, showing or playing a recording:
"A person who distributes, or shows or plays, a recording of visual images or sounds which are threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred".
29F Broadcasting or including programme in programme service:
"If a programme involving threatening visual images or sounds is included in a programme service, each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred".
29G Possession of inflammatory material:
"A person who has in his possession written material which is threatening, or a recording of visual images or sounds which are threatening .... is guilty of an offence if he intends religious hatred to be stirred up thereby".
Now for free speech:
29J Protection of freedom of expression:I love that sentence!
"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system".
In other words, you can be as abusive as you like about Islam, (or Christianity, or atheism), or the practices of such people, as long as you don't stir up hatred of adherents of these en masse. You can say "Islam is total garbage and promotes beating of wives and praying 5 times a day is stupid", but you can't say "you must hate all Muslims" (or "you must hate all atheists"). It isn't against the law to upset or offend religious people.
Has the UK got the balance right? How does this compare with Canada?
161. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby
Comment #191876 by Barry Pearson on June 12, 2008 at 3:29 am
Richard Dawkins said: Paula's letter in today's Independent (see above) will doubtless provoke lots of fatuous bleats of "Oh but Islam is a peaceful religion."Without opposing either of you, it is worth identifying why (other than political or apologetic reasons) some people DO claim it is a "religion of peace". They are not always lying, and can support some of what they say.
Fanusi Khiyal said: The thing is, Professor Dawkins and others, is that in order to be able to spout the 'Islam means peace' nonsense (for the record, Islam actually means submission ) you have to not just be ignorant but to actively work against knowledge.... The entire contents of the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira, and fourteen centuries of history, not to mention the nightly news headlines, show that it's not a religion of peace.
I have covered some of the ground at:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam.htm#natureofislam
Headings and a few extracts:
Is Islam a "Religion of Peace"?Lots more at:
What do you want it to be? That can be arranged!
Islam is a combination of a religion and a political manifesto
Islam is complicated, incomplete, contradictory, and ambiguous
Islam has no "central authority"
Islam is dependent on culture and environment
Islam has reform movements, typically subject to death-threats
Cherry-picking Islam
Given the contradictions, it is impossible to conform to 100% of the Koran and the haddith. It is typically possible to identify material to support any viewpoint from "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance" to "Islam is a movement for jihad that can only be satisfied with a global Islamic state".
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam.htm
Summary
My view is that Islam "in its natural state" is currently at best medieval, (for example, its typical attitude towards science), and at worst intolerant and barbaric, (for example, various aspects of Sharia Law including attitude towards women, intolerance towards other religions, and immature and exaggerated reactions to criticism).
This isn't a "Clash of Civilisations" - Islam "in its natural state" isn't yet civilised. This is a "Clash of Eras" - the 1st millennium CE (Islam) versus the 3rd millennium CE ("the West").
Individual muslims may be far more enlightened than Islam itself, of course! This is especially true where they are intergrated minorities in non-Islamic states.
162. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby
Comment #191741 by Barry Pearson on June 11, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Paula Kirby said: He literally said that the facts discovered by science mean nothing unless placed in the context of God as ultimate creator, and that someone who became a Christian yesterday had more real knowledge than the most brilliant professor in Oxford. I wrote this down verbatim.Thanks for that. (I don't think you said, but I guess this was Rev Professor Andrew McGowan?)
I have been looking into "Transcendental Arguments" (for the existence of God). They are "Presuppositional Apologetics" (in which theologians argue "from" the existence of God rather than "to" the existence of God). But this is taken to extremes. I have seen documents in which they argue that science, logic, and morality literally have NO meaning except in the context of Christianity - talking about science except in that context is just a matter of vibrating the air without meaning. Transcendental Arguments can use a form of pseudo-logic where you can't possibly refute the existence of God until you have accepted God, so ALL atheists actually believe in God but then contradict themselves.
He certainly appears to be a Presuppositional Apologetic, and may be tending towards the Transcendental Argument extreme. I just can't think of a polite way of expressing my views (and sympathy for you)!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
PDF file:
http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/joh_frame/Frame.Apologetics2004.TranscendentalArguments.pdf
(I have seen another philosopher counter with a "Transcendental Argument for the non-existence of God". And I'm sure we here could come up with a "Transcendental Argument for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster"!)
163. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby
Comment #191516 by Barry Pearson on June 11, 2008 at 5:32 am
Paula Kirby said: He went on to lament the present day tendency to tolerate anything except lack of tolerance - the insistence on openness and relativism.Are you saying that he objects to the concept of "be tolerant towards people with other views, but if those people display intolerance, be intolerant specifically to their intolerance until they cease being intolerant"?
It appears to me that in a world with vast numbers of conflicting views plus global communications, this is actually likely to be one of few "Socially Stable Strategies". (A bit like the "Tit for Tat" evolutionary strategy which appears to have considerable merits).
He didn't appear to give a hint about how social conflict could be tackled. I suppose the Pope tackles this by praying for world peace every Easter, so perhaps that is the generic answer from theologians. (Or else totalitarianism?)
We have a reasonable model for how communities with different views can coexist. Hobbies. If we treat religious practices as hobbies, (can it be said they are NOT hobbies?), then we have some guidelines for getting along together. Fights between flower arrangers and train spotters are probably quite rare. We also have a model for how far children could be involved. It appears to be OK to take your child fishing with you, but not to try to force that child to be committed to fishing for ever.
Paula Kirby said: So I went home and unwound with a large glass of Remy Martin instead.V.S.O.P? Aaaahh!
164. Hints of structure beyond the visible universe
Comment #191212 by Barry Pearson on June 10, 2008 at 11:48 am
mordacious1 said: I like the caveat, that this is only the "framework of a theory". This area of cosmology is getting a lot of interesting info lately, but it's going to be awhile before solid theories can be put forth.
Last week's New Scientist had an article about problems with "Inflation". The complete article isn't available free online:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19826591.500-inflation-deflated-the-big-bangs-toughest-test.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.1148
Evidence one way or another will be arriving over the next year or two!
165. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound
Comment #190973 by Barry Pearson on June 10, 2008 at 3:02 am
Healyhatman said: I do like that they take INCREDIBLY vague passages like "nothing new under the sun" and say "lookit, first law of thermodynamics!". That, to me, is the best part about these biblical literalist types. Like the muslims going on about how their holy book has scientific facts in it....For interest, here is the proof that the Koran predicts the speed of light:
http://www.islamicity.com/Science/960703A.SHTML
The core verse in the Koran is 32:5:
http://www.universalunity.net/quran4/032.qmt.html
YUSUFALI: He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning.There are also some others verses that have to be fed into the equation.
PICKTHAL: He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon.
SHAKIR: He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count.
KHALIFA: All matters are controlled by Him from the heaven to the earth. To Him, the day is equivalent to one thousand of your years.
We don't need science, do we? Except to give us the results that religious people can THEN reveal by post-hoc rationalisation of their texts.
166. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound
Comment #190969 by Barry Pearson on June 10, 2008 at 2:37 am
Goldy said: If I may give a counter argument to this religious tract...Isn't it ironic that the Ahmadiyah sect being banned is the sect that Dr Abdus Salam, one of only 2 Muslim Nobel Science Prize winners I know of, belonged to? He was unable to do his work in Pakistan, for various reasons including this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/world/asia/10indo.html?ref=world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Abdus_Salam
In 1974, when the Pakistan National Assembly declared Ahmadiyyas to be non-Muslims, he left Pakistan for London in protest.
167. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound
Comment #190963 by Barry Pearson on June 10, 2008 at 2:16 am
Steve Zara said: It is my view that most believers don't have faith. They think they have evidence.... The ones who really have to have faith are the theologists, who know what fragile assumptions their beliefs are based on.I agree with the first part. I don't fully agree with the second part. Here is what I said at:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2665,The-Challenge-of-the-New-Creationism,Jerry-Coyne,page1#187919
Furthermore, even the word "evidence" can cause problems. For example, in 2004 I attended a talk given by Alister McGrath at Birmingham University (UK) called "The Twilight of Atheism". It was clear from his tone and body language that he thought he had telling evidence against atheism and was demolishing the case for it. I was still waiting for him to begin supplying evidence when he clearly felt he had delivered it. I assume that the reverse would apply, and "evidence" in support of (say) evolution would not be treated as such by creationists; indeed, they would probably treat it as indicative failure to supply "real evidence". I'm not convinced that Michael Behe left the Dover courtroom accepting that he had been shown "real evidence" for evolution by natural selection.Theologians can have evidence - but conforming to a different standard of evidence from what we might accept.
I am currently writing a web page "How to convert an atheist". (It is really "How to convert Barry Pearson", but I am confident that many of the things on the page will apply to some other atheists, and some of the things on the page will apply to many atheists). This is my current statement about the standard of evidence I would need:
Rather than identify specialist standards, I am willing to consider the sort of evidence that would be accepted in scientific journals. Or if that is too esoteric, the sort of evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law in the UK. To cause me to spend lots of time and money practising a religion, the evidence must at least be good enough to send a person to prison for a month or fine a person £100!The page will appear at the following address. It is currently less than half written:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert.htm
168. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound
Comment #190940 by Barry Pearson on June 10, 2008 at 1:07 am
A problem with living in the UK is that I didn't see this until others have picked the bones off it!
I was half way through that article before I realised it wasn't a brilliant spoof!
But, according to WikiPedia, he is the "real thing":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomin_Postelnik
I like this bit:
One cannot conclude a column like this without mentioning philosophical and logical proofs of the Divinity of the Bible, the Torah. To begin with, the Bible is the only book in the history of mankind to make the claim that part of it was given by the Creator in front of an entire nation (of 600,000 families, totaling a few million people).... Simply put, a book that claims to have been Divinely given to millions cannot take hold on a widespread level if it is not true.Quite - so we should all be Muslims! The Koran is a recital (by the Angel Gabriel) of a book held in heaven. It is the last ever word of God, and perfect in every respect.
He needs to bring himself up to date. Yes, the Old Testament and New Testament were inspired by God. But the devil corrupted them, so they are not to be believed in their current form. The Koran contains the corrections necessary.
He is hardly worth wasting time over. But his "through the looking glass" logic has more sophisticated versions in academic circles. It is amazing what you can "learn" about the nature of the universe by pure "logic", if you pre-suppose your end-point:
"Presuppositional apologetics":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics
"Transcendental argument for the existence of God":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
169. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters
Comment #190416 by Barry Pearson on June 9, 2008 at 4:04 am
Heretic said: My 'mental image' of a muslim is anyonbe who thinks that a book written 1400 years ago was the word of god and want's me dead, and to impose Sharia Law on my country.Then this may worry you!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/2096385/Labour-Hazel-Blears-says-sidelining-of-Christianity-is-'common-sense'.html
However Malaysia's Prime Minister warned yesterday that Muslim extremism in Britain will grow unless the Government and society learn to understand Islam.
Abdullah Badawi claimed that the legacy of Britain's imperial past has hampered its ability to appreciate its Islamic population.
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the [Malaysia] prime minister urged Gordon Brown to allow the country's Muslims to live under Islamic law, but also said that they must prove their worth to society.
170. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters
Comment #190367 by Barry Pearson on June 9, 2008 at 1:22 am
RamziD said: To get back to my original criticism, I do see some xenophobic undertones in the statments some people make on this site. It makes me think what else is behind it. That is all.One of the reasons why your comments attract criticism may be that many of us are aware of various techniques used elsewhere to stifle criticism of Islam and of the practices of some Muslims.
someonefree said: I hate to say it but I think some comments here are xenophobic. Criticism of Islam seems fair as well as the criticism of genital mutilation but please read through the comments, some people are going way past that and saying things such as Muslims can't integrate and other nonsense.
One quite common "stifle" technique is to conflate race and religion. (Another, of course, is to use the word "Islamaphobia"). In the UK, it nearly became illegal in 2006 to make statements that caused offense to people identified by religion. (Defence would have been difficult because the original boundaries were vague). Fortunately, enough people in Parliament rebelled and defeated the more extreme version of the law by one vote. We need to be alert to future attempts.
I am personally worried when immigrants to the UK choose not to integrate. Communities that trade with one-another or inter-marry often manage to avoid too much conflict, because it isn't in their self-interest. (Every time a mixed-race baby is born, a racist dies of apoplexy!) Some Muslim communities in the UK don't appear to do either.
171. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president
Comment #190359 by Barry Pearson on June 9, 2008 at 12:50 am
phil rimmer said: Toad, Barry,I've just sent this to the "articles" email address. I assume that is right? (I didn't send the other Obama video - I'll leave that to whoever identified it).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg8lCLumByw
Josh needs to put this up for its own discussion. Barry, will you do the honours?
(I'm in the UK - hence the delay!)
172. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president
Comment #190278 by Barry Pearson on June 8, 2008 at 5:10 pm
mordacious1 said: Don't read Darwin either, he's dead, can't offer advice, so why bother...I'm currently reading an undergraduate textbook on Evolution by Mark Ridley. There are perhaps 700 or more references to other papers and books, by 100s different authors. 3 of those references are to Darwin. They are there because there is a brief history of Evolution. Most references are to material dated within the last 30 years or so.
Maybeline said: Whereas Darwin is indeed the starting point for evolutionary theory he is not the end. As far as I know, other scientists have improved upon his research.
lostpoet said: Exactly!! Darwin is dead. He can't offer any advice. And thus, we should not treat him as a living deity -- invoking his name as if he were still alive.
It can sometimes be useful to mention Darwin. For example, it identifies why the last 150 years are different from everything before that, including the times when religious texts were being written. The word "Darwinism", when it isn't being misused as a claim for an ideology, distinguishes "evolution by natural selection" from other types of evolution. (It is a sort of shorthand). And "On the origin of species" is a good read, showing how a polite and gentle man can still systematically and relentlessly make a case.
173. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president
Comment #190169 by Barry Pearson on June 8, 2008 at 1:32 pm
ThoughtsonCommonToad said: Here is Obama on the same topicHe also said this, from the sources below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPBxl53ZNxQ
Refreshing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg8lCLumByw
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2668,Character-Attacks-How-to-Properly-Apply-the-Ad-Hominem,Scientific-American,page2#188648
174. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters
Comment #190140 by Barry Pearson on June 8, 2008 at 12:46 pm
epeeist said: In addition the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the introduction of Sharia and a theocratic regime were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society.Thanks for that, it was new to me. (I've added it to some of my pages).
My simplistic view of the Council of Europe is that it was set up soon after World War 2 to prevent a breakdown in human rights and democracy in Europe leading to World War 3. I'm sure you know, but I know many people don't, that all member states of the European Union (a separate body) are members of the Council of Europe.
I like the sentence:
The Court considered that a political party might campaign for a change in the law or the legal and constitutional structures of the State on two conditions: firstly, the means used to that end must be legal and democratic in every respect; secondly, the change proposed must itself be compatible with fundamental democratic principles.I suspect that will be useful in future as the Muslim population increases in Europe. In effect, you can't campaign to abolish democracy even via democratic means!
175. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters
Comment #190109 by Barry Pearson on June 8, 2008 at 11:46 am
RamziD said: For instance, when people say things like "Islam is not compatible with a modern liberal Western democracy" .... Islam can be compatible with western society. Currently, the way it is being practiced by a majority of the people in the world, it isn't. But if and when people choose to ignore the literal scripture (a BIG if and when, i'm aware), like the way people do with the old and new testament, then islam will be able to become westernized like christianity and judaism have.I think you started to get closer towards the end.
Islam in full is not compatible with a modern liberal Western democracy. For example, Islam is technically incompatible with Universal Human Rights. (See later).
Individual Muslims can be more enlightened than Islam itself, if their community allows them to be. Just as Christians can be more enlightened than Christianity, if allowed to be. Unfortunately, many Islamic communities, even whole Islamic states, don't make it easy. Islamic reform groups exist - it would be wrong to say that all Muslims favour traditional or fundamentalist Islam. But such groups have to be very careful, and sometimes get death threats. For example, here is a website that identifies the "bad bits" of the Koran, such as "beat your wife" (4:34) and "slay the pagans" (9:5), and publishes a Koran with just the "good bits":
http://reformislam.org/
http://reformislam.org/verses.php
Islam doesn't have an agreed authority to say what degree of enlightenment is permitted while still being a Muslim. (It doesn't have the equivalent of the Papacy). There is no way of globally and/or permanently resolving arguments about whether Islam is a religion of peace, or resolving whether it is just a religion or also a political manifesto:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam.htm#natureofislam
When the UN published its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Saudi Arabia didn't sign it. I don't know if they have done so yet. Some Muslims have regretted than ANY Islamic states signed it. In 2000, the Organization of the Islamic Conference officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, the 2nd attempt to define a watered-down version of human rights:
"Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm
176. Prayer to feed the hungry
Comment #190055 by Barry Pearson on June 8, 2008 at 9:35 am
Those prayers will surely work.
After all, every Easter, the Pope leads all Catholics in a prayer for peace on Earth, and immediately after every Easter world peace breaks out.
So prayer must work.
177. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters
Comment #190051 by Barry Pearson on June 8, 2008 at 9:29 am
Dinah said: FGM has been illegal in the UK for some yearsAnd it remains illegal even if the woman consents to it. This is a sensible recognition of the social pressures that women in such communities can sucumb to.
(If only these pressures were acknowledged in other cases, such as postal voting where women easily become disenfranchised).
Dinah said: Unbelievably, when the vogue of multi-culturalism was at its height, some so-called liberals even defended the practice, arguing that it was a matter of culture, and we in the west were being 'cultural imperialists' or some such rubbish, in condemning it.I remember that. (Ditto for forced marriages, etc). This is a mind-boggling lack of empathy towards such women.
In order to argue like that, those "liberals" must either place "community rights" above "human rights", or else treat those particular women as somehow "less than human" and so not having full human rights.
178. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief
Comment #189993 by Barry Pearson on June 8, 2008 at 4:57 am
huzonfurst said: Who says atheists don't want to eradicate religion? Of course we do, just not by mass murder or other coercive means. Removing tax advantages for churches is one, non-coercive step that is long overdue (and after that, perhaps the imposition of an "ignorance tax" to compensate society for the effects of religious "education" and indoctrination).For interest, do you have a timeframe in mind?
robotaholic said: I want religion to be ERASED devastatingly and completely
Can you envisage a sequence of plausible steps which would realistically eradicate religion before the end of the century? I suspect no one here could devise such a programme without relying on a form of totalitarianism that would make Stalinism look benign in comparison, and even then it would be hard to achieve that totalitarianism.
If religion is ever eradicated, none of us here will be around to see that state. It will be a role of future generations to complete the task. Surely what we should be doing is giving future generations the conditions and tools they will need, and leave them to use those as they see fit. We must accept that they may not share the objective of eradicating religion.
I believe that, instead of making things harder by identifying such a threatening target, we (the current generation) should be trying to succeed at two things:
1. (Tactical) firefighting, for example opposing bad laws and bad school policies, trying to achieve each result in months.
2. Establishing the best conditions for the next generation to exploit, for example good science education, minimising indoctrination, keeping public the position that there are respectable alternatives to religions, and building resources to be used in future. (An example of the latter might be the resources left at the end of "Darwin's Year" - 2009).
We might dream of a future without religion, but being vocal about it to the people we have to work with while tackling "1" and "2" may make those more difficult.
Comment #189906 by Barry Pearson on June 7, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I wonder whether it is possible to introduce a meme "religions are hobbies" into the meme-pool?
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2682,A-word-for-nonbelievers,David-OReilly-Philadelpha-Inquirer,page1#189733
I'll have a go; there is a (tiny) comment from me in the Times today. (You'll have to search for it!):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4083979.ece
Religious practices are hobbies. They should have special privileges to the same extent that other hobbies have them.EDIT: I've tried the same in The Telegraph:
Should we have a minister for train spotting? Should we automatically give seats in the House of Lords to senior members of flower arranging and photography societies?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/2088612/Is-Christianity-being-discriminated-against.html
Religious practices are hobbies. They should have special privileges to the same extent that other hobbies have them. It is when people of specific religions try to claim more privileges than other hobbies have that atheists and people of other religions tend to object.
Should we have a minister for train spotting? Should we automatically give seats in the House of Lords to senior members of flower arranging and photography societies? Should the media always consult gardeners on moral issues? Given that 1000s of gods are worshipped in the world, and 1000s of religions are practised, how far can they all be catered for?
They can't all be catered for, and there is no justification for treating any one of them as more "true" than any other. (While the UK has historically been Christian, that is not a reason for saying that Christianity is true! Many of us believe that none of them are). So religions need to be private matters. That includes Islam, which must not be allowed to bypass the law of the land, nor impose rules on the rest of us.
Comment #189840 by Barry Pearson on June 7, 2008 at 10:55 am
clearthinker asked: I must be missing something. Is it not the oft repeated mantra that atheists do not have a creed; that atheism is just simply the lack of belief in God; that atheists come from many different backgrounds and have many different beliefs so that the only thing that unites you is the lack of belief?Correct - the only safe generalisation about atheists is that we don't believe in gods.
And there are logical consequences of that generalisation which also hold, such as: we never justify what we do with "I thought I was doing God's will". We never excuse our errors with "Satan (or the devil) made me do it".
AfraidToDie said: Wrong! There is a small group of us that associate because we are free (rational) thinkers (aka atheists) that believe our minority group is the most obvious sane group. People who believe in the supernatural (the vast majority) are delusional in varying degrees. We don't band together because of lack of belief, it's because we think rational people are more trustworthy, interesting, and in general, more intelligent and well rounded. After I wrote this, I noticed several posts said it much "better" (especially 189747 SPS).clearthinker was talking about atheists in general, and for that scope the part of his statement that you quoted was correct.
You appear to be talking about a subset of atheists, and while you are presumably correct for that subset, you haven't refuted clearthinker's subset statement.
clearthinker asked: And what is this something - that all atheists have and others do not have? And why feel the need to organise, evangelise and behave like a religion? And why set up a website espousing atheist beliefs if there are no atheist beliefs? Surely if the only belief is the negative one of there being no God - it must get pretty boring? Unless of course - atheism is actually a religious/philosophical belief system - with its own need for support groups, self congratulatory sychophants and demonisation of oppenants. Well thankfully RD net will never go down the route of exploiting peoples fears by selling t-shirts, books and marketing slogans!As you said yourself, the only safe generalisation about atheists is that we don't believe in gods.
Within that group are good people and bad people. Left wing and right wing people. People who want to organise and those who are content to stay apart from organisation. People who go to church each Sunday (sometimes as a vicar or other preacher) and people who dislike organised religion. People who openly self-identify as atheists, and people who hide it from everyone, especially their parents.
Donald said: Atheists do not have a creed, that's true. But it's not true that the only thing that unites them is lack of religious belief. Atheists share with each other and all other humans a typical innate sense of justice, fairness, and a desire to live in a society of constructive, cooperating indviduals. Atheists also share with each other a resistance to power wielded by the religious deluded, and a resistance to laws and morality contaminated by beliefs about what imaginary sky fairies supposedly reward and punish humans for, in a non-existent afterlife.That first sentence IS the only thing that unites atheists. The rest may apply to many, perhaps even a majority, but it would be wishful thinking, not supported by evidence, that ALL atheists share what you claim.
I wish both atheists and non-atheists would stop making generalisations about atheists that they can't supply logic or evidence for. "Atheist" is simply the word in the English language that is a useful label for people who don't believe in gods. Just as "bald" is the simply the word in the English language that is a useful label for people with little or no hair on their heads. Beyond that, atheists can fall into various (overlapping) subsets.
181. The day of judgment
Comment #189813 by Barry Pearson on June 7, 2008 at 10:16 am
kev_s said: According to McEwen's web site this article was previously published in The Portable Atheist, ed. by Christopher Hitchens.I can confirm that - section 41 "End of the World Blues".
The whole book is worth dipping into. But "portable"? It is big! The paperback version is nearly 500 pages.
182. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief
Comment #189803 by Barry Pearson on June 7, 2008 at 9:58 am
I have long believed that most of the benefit from "The God Delusion" (etc) will be on the next generation rather than older people. For example:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2294,Over-half-of-Britons-claim-no-religion,Times-Online,page1#131382
This article suggests that is happening. Every day, I have a look at YouTube to see what has just been published there about Richard Dawkins and atheism.
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=atheism&search_sort=video_date_uploaded
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins&search_sort=video_date_uploaded
While most of the material comprises extracts from longer broadcasts, and some is from religious people attacking atheism, many of the "original to YouTube" videos are by young people, confidently talking about their atheism and their criticism of religions. These people will probably grow up to be thorns in the flesh of religious people for the rest of their lives. They understand the topics, they are have their views of the sorts of soceities they want, and they see no reason for respect for religion or inhibition about discussing it frankly.
Religious people can't make the public debate go away. Massive changes will take generations, but they WILL happen. If they worry about today's "new atheists" - they ain't seen nothing yet!
Comment #189733 by Barry Pearson on June 7, 2008 at 5:31 am
I propose an alternative way of thinking about this. Religious practices are hobbies. (Can anyone here identify in what way they are not hobbies? Other than they are not in the typical list of hobbies). And, in fact, it is when religious people try to claim more privileges than other hobbies have that we tend to object.
Simply being an atheist isn't a hobby. (Just as believing in god isn't a hobby, and thinking about stamps isn't a hobby). It is the practise that is a hobby.
I think that it would be acceptable to say that PRACTISING atheism (whatever that means) is a hobby. (But NOT that it is a religion; all religious practices are hobbies, but not all hobbies are religious practices). What does practising atheism entail? Perhaps some or all of: joining a society; meeting other people (physically or online) and swapping ideas; spending some time and some money doing these things?
What does that say about all of us here?
184. Blogger spreads the gospel of science
Comment #189558 by Barry Pearson on June 6, 2008 at 1:38 pm
eclampusvitus said: I'm fairly certain there is no Los Angeles, England.No, but there are at least two Hollywoods.
http://www.multimap.com/maps/?hloc=GB|hollywood
185. Darwin still causing waves after 150 years
Comment #189060 by Barry Pearson on June 5, 2008 at 10:01 am
There is no ideal book. It IS a big subject, and different people want/need to pursue their own paths, which may be different from anyone else's. (I would tend to ask "do you want to understand the basic mechanisms, or do you want to know where we came from, or something else?" Then I would suggest different books accordingly, such as "The Selfish Gene" or "The Ancestor's Tale", or whatever).
Here is a thought for a "game". You download it onto your PC, and you play with it. You can explore the evolutionary tree, focus on graphics showing the core algorithm of natural selection, study fossils, view fast-motion graphics of morphological changes in different parts of the evolutionary tree, and lots more.
You can navigate from one view to another. For example when you have seen the graphics for the evolution of Aves, you can get back to the evolutionary tree, navigate to Arthropoda and watch crabs evolve.
I'm influenced by the diagrams in Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish". He shows the evolution of limbs according to a common plan, or jaw bones, or how small(ish) differences at the development stage between sharks and humans can be magnified into large differences in the adults. This revealed to me, with much greater clarity than other books, images of the steady morphological changes down (up?) the evolutionary tree. Imagine a split screen where travel along the tree is accompanied by gradual changes of images of jaw bones or limbs. (Or DNA!)
Problems with hyper-documents like that tend to be that they are not generalised. Some evolutions might be shown graphically, but not in a generalisable way. You might see limbs evolve in parts of the tree but not others. Each part of the "game" may have to be specially created. The bits and pieces might tend to be added ad hoc.
What would make this "game" generalisable would be a comprehensive schema accommodating all of these aspects, with different parts of the whole supported by metadata compatible with the schema. Then the "game" could be updated as new material was developed, and suddenly new paths would become available. "Anyone" could develop new material conforming to the schema and accompanied by the metadata.
Perhaps this all exists? Perhaps only an on-line, rather than a down-loadable, could be achieved? Perhaps it would cost too much?
Imagine a multi-dimensional Wiki, with a published schema and specified metadata, in which experts in various topics could contribute their bits of the whole. Some would provide the graphics engines. Some would extend the tree. Some would provide the DNA sequences.
The science of biology, including evolution, is building this picture in the form of scientific papers, articles, books, models, etc. It has been doing so for a VERY long time. The standards concerned are relevant to scientists working in the field, who are prepared to do the work of searching for papers, and spending a significant part of their lives trying to build their own personal comprehensive "games" of how this all fits together. But this is only accessible 2nd or 3rd hand (or worse) to the rest of us.
Why can't I say to some service "build me the evolutionary tree for Aves, showing limb development and corresponding DNA changes along the tree"? Part of the answer is "because we don't yet have all the information". But even where we do, I still can't say that to any service, because the service doesn't exist.
If science is only for a minority, it doesn't matter. If science is for all of us, we need such services.
186. Darwin still causing waves after 150 years
Comment #188966 by Barry Pearson on June 5, 2008 at 4:14 am
Calilasseia said: Eggplantbren, I can tell you what the problem with using the word "believe" with respect to evolution is. It allows the creationists and other purveyors of supernaturally inspired nonsense to continue peddling the myth that evidence based science is on the same level as their fairy tales.I don't accept the truth of your statement. I don't accept that use of the word "believe" typically has the effect you claim for it. It doesn't in conversations I have.
Calilasseia said: Conclusions supported by evidence don't require "belief" by definition, because "belief" implies uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions.I don't accept the truth of the last part of your statement. If you had made that claim about the word "faith", I would accept it. But, in everyday English, there isn't a consensus that this is what "belief" means. In fact, my reading of dictionaries is that "belief" and "believe" are fairly neutral about the degree of evidence available - they are really describing a state-of-mind, which may have arisen from overwhelming evidence, or from little or none.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/believe
Conclusions supported by evidence still typically need people believe them to act upon them. (Because action needs a suitable state-of-mind). If you draw a conclusion supported by evidence, it may still be a wrong conclusion, and future evidence, or different ways of interpreting the same evidence, may lead to different conclusions in future. Science is like that.
And PLEASE don't respond by trying to convince me of the amount of evidence for evolution by natural selection. I've believed for well over 20 years that it (alone) accounts for adaptation in living things around us. And because I believe that, I have been prepared to act upon it, for example by following the instructions carefully when using antibiotics to reduce the risk of helping the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. (Or by not demanding antibiotics unnecessarily).
Calilasseia said: That's why it is important to be precise here, in order to nail every canard erected by the propagandists for reality-denial doctrines.Yes, and precision will not be achieved via a single word. In fact, "accept" appears to have a variety of meanings, some of which are unsuitable for current purposes.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accept
You go on to give examples of misleading and indeed malicious distortions of words, such as "Darwinists", "evolutionists", etc. But you didn't justify your criticism of "belief" or "believe" in that. I simply don't accept your statement that "belief" and "believe" are the wrong words, and even dangerous words, to use in this situation. You would have to provide more evidence than you have to cause me to believe you, or to accept your statements.
I stand by what I said elsewhere:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2665,The-Challenge-of-the-New-Creationism,Jerry-Coyne#187919
187. The Great Evangelical Decline
Comment #188774 by Barry Pearson on June 4, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Christine Wicker has written a book: "The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church."
It is worth reading the reviews of it at Amazon.com. They reveal some more information behind what she is saying:
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Evangelical-Nation-Surprising-Crisis/dp/0061117161/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212607393
One of the reviews says:
I think she left out one interesting aspect of the problem of the church. Education. The evangelical church of today now prides itself that its leaders are not overly educated. They have a life of experience that has prepared them to pastor not a seminary education. While the workforce is getting more specialized and more educated, the local church is not lifting up education as essential to be on staff.
In fact, a lack of education is more helpful in growing a church at times.
Continuing as we face a flat world more educated world... Evangelical Christianity will lack the ability to communicate with it. All of those students who learn creationism will now have to compete in classrooms with folks who learned evolution. The test is on evolution not creationism.
I think the impact of evangelicals on education is also an element that is part of the disconnect with the world that people in the evangelical world feel and is leading to the decline.
188. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
Comment #188677 by Barry Pearson on June 4, 2008 at 11:26 am
BarelyEvolved said: It's a shame that politics is mostly debated (especially in the UK) by ad hominem arguments, and the actual details never truly presented to the people. I've tried looking at number10.gov.uk, labour.org.uk, et cetera for presentation and analysis of the costs, benefits, challenges and so on of proposals such as ID cards, but in the end I had to resort to being against a proposal by a paranoid, power-hungry party.I once had the experience of being involved in some UK government legislation from end-to-end. I have recorded my experiences on the web. I may be able to offer insights into this!
The topic was Child Support. (I'm childfree! I was a business analyst in a consortium bidding to replace much of the UK's benefits/welfare computer systems. I became something of a world-expert on the topic of child support systems). My website that says more than you ever want to know about this topic is below. I think it may have been the world's biggest private website dedicated to any single topic of government policy.
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/
UK legislation goes through many stages. Below are the key stages for this legislation. I was involved throughout, and in fact I got involved before this. (I helped at the Green Paper and White Paper stages, and gave evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee (oversight committee) responsible, so I am in Hansard. I also appeared as a studio guest on BBC TV, and an interview with me was broadcast on the Today programme on Radio 4). I corresponded a lot with ministers and senior civil servants and the media throughout.
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/reform/reformed_scheme_where_to_read.htm
Note that I started this website in August 2001, to help the UK prepare for what would be needed AFTER the failure of the new legislation. This was long BEFORE the new legislation was put into operation - it was THAT obvious that it would eventually be a failure! And, of course, it DID fail - even faster than I had expected. Some of my ideas appear to have found their way into the replacement version, but I don't know whether this was because of what I did, or simply because much of what I said was something that any reasonably analytical person with enough time would eventually see. When all else fails, do proper analysis!
The legislation was a triumph of wishful thinking over realistic expectations, of dogma over evidence-based reasoning. The basics of the legislation had been fixed (and leaked!) well before the earliest consultation stage. I THINK something I said made a bit of difference, but the resultant modification was so bizarre that I would be embarrassed to own up to it!
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/reform/reformed_scheme_overview_programme.htm
Another problem, common to ID cards, is that European and GATT rules (as they were then) tie the UK government's hands when making procurements. They have to go with low bids to avoid accusations of favouritism, and some companies are brilliant at playing this game. (You rely on the government to fail to have a useful specification for the procurement, you bid low to get the bid, then you ramp up the price massively to make even the smallest necessary change. And you typically already have the costs for those changes worked out before the government realises they are necessary! They can't eject you at this stage without setting back the whole project by several years. Your consultants have become part of the government's decision-making process).
I think "wishful thinking" and "dogma", ably assisted by "cronies in companies that will benefit", is more descriptive than "power-hungry". They had power already - they could have done something sensible with it.
I'm willing to discuss this further - I've been bottling this up for a long time!
189. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
Comment #188648 by Barry Pearson on June 4, 2008 at 10:27 am
irate_atheist said: Comment #188346 by Barry Pearson - Fascinating. A most interesting find. I commend it to the house.I have no private sources of information about this. But, following a URL quoted in the video, I have now come to:
hungarianelephant said: It seems to have been fairly heavily cut. Does anyone have a source which shows that it's not misleading?
http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/377#BarackObamaOnReligion
It is the same video, but mentions a date: 6/28/06. (2006-06-28 in proper terminology!) I've used that to track it down, and here are different sources of the same transcript:
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628-call_to_renewal_1/
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=C&NewsID=5454
The video starts well after half-way through the talk.
190. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
Comment #188346 by Barry Pearson on June 4, 2008 at 1:46 am
scooternyc said: I find it curious that through the past few months that, unless mistaken, not one story has appeared about the Barack Obama fiasco and the loud noise regarding religion, it's implications and judgement of his nomination.I'm speaking from a country where it would be bad campaigning to say much about god, so I don't understand the nuances in the US.
But here is a 5 minute video of Barack Obama that made me question my pre-conceptions about US politicians. I was so surprised that I made it one of my YouTube favourites. I recommend it to all here; I won't give the game away:
"Barack Obama on Religion"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jg8lCLumByw
191. The Challenge of the New Creationism
Comment #188340 by Barry Pearson on June 4, 2008 at 1:12 am
Ascaphus said: I dislike the false avatars. I like to know that I'm in a discussion with a real person. Anonymity seems to be one aspect of these forums that leads to false statements, flaming, disingenuous arguments, and the like.Perhaps I had better confess! My avatar is NOT a picture of me.
It is called "Fire and Brimstone", and a print of it was selected for the Southampton International Exhibition of Photography 2008. I combined images of a statue outside Birmingham Cathedral (UK) and a sunset, using Photoshop.
Ascaphus said: Haven't you encountered the notion that, since both scientists and religious folks 'believe' something, that they are therefore equivalent? .... To continue the use of it simply assures that this will continue to distract folks from the fact that science and superstition are not equivalent interpretations of anything.Of all the problems I've met, use of "believe" hasn't been significant. (I wonder if that is because I live in the UK? Or perhaps it is because I try to avoid "debates", where the aim is often to score points rather than share information and develop ideas).
The single most problematic word is surely "Theory", and few if any suggest avoiding that word. I personally try to avoid it in contexts where it might be misconstrued, and try to say "Science of Evolution" or similar. (And people on both sides use "proof" in ways that I wouldn't). But ... perhaps we can agree that, where possible, using longer phrases rather than overloading single words makes it easier to convey the message accurately.
I have explained my uses of "proof", "know", and "believe" at:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/me.htm#words
192. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
Comment #187948 by Barry Pearson on June 3, 2008 at 4:34 am
epeeist said: I can recommend Douglas Walton's "Informal Logic" which gives lots of good advice for argumentation.I haven't read the whole of his "Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach", but I have read an excerpt here:
Skutter responded: No it doesn't.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521713803/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link
This does something very useful: it identifies types of dialogue and argument, with different goals. "Personal quarrel"; "(forensic) debate"; "persuasion dialogue" / "critical discussion"; "inquiry"; and "negotiation dialogue". Without knowing the goals and the type of dialogue, it is difficult to judge what is valid (or useful) and what is not.
I have often said "I am in the solution business not the debating business". I probably meant "I normally take part in inquiries rather than dialogues or debates". But sometimes I have to use persuasion, and I then exploit "mere personal authority" if I have to, therefore (probably validly) getting exposed to ad hominem attacks. One of my mottos is "Learn the rules then play to win". Sometimes it REALLY is important to win.
193. The Challenge of the New Creationism
Comment #187919 by Barry Pearson on June 3, 2008 at 3:47 am
BeyondBelief said: 1. "Do not say you "believe" in Evolution, as then it is equivalent to religion." Say you accept evolution as the best explanation based on evidence.Am I the only one who doesn't see a valid objection to using "believe"? (I DO recognise a difference between "believe" and "believe in").
I often use the word "believe", for example: "I believe the meeting is next Tuesday". That means "I have a high degree of confidence in the proposition that the meeting is next Tuesday", but it is much shorter!
Surely it is typically the word "faith" that religious people use for "belief without evidence"? And I would not use "faith" in the context of evolution. Using "accept" sounds artificial, and also somewhat passive (and perhaps dismissive). It is often followed later by "but ...".
I think the solution here is to avoid overloading any single word in any context where more precision is needed. For example: "I have a very high degree of confidence that natural selection is the mechanism that explains adaptation; I have considerable confidence in the overall structure of the evolutionary tree; but I have lower confidence in the details of the evolutionary tree, especially in the Cambrian period".
Furthermore, even the word "evidence" can cause problems. For example, in 2004 I attended a talk given by Alister McGrath at Birmingham University (UK) called "The Twilight of Atheism". It was clear from his tone and body language that he thought he had telling evidence against atheism and was demolishing the case for it. I was still waiting for him to begin supplying evidence when he clearly felt he had delivered it. I assume that the reverse would apply, and "evidence" in support of (say) evolution would not be treated as such by creationists; indeed, they would probably treat it as indicative failure to supply "real evidence". I'm not convinced that Michael Behe left the Dover courtroom accepting that he had been shown "real evidence" for evolution by natural selection.
194. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
Comment #187782 by Barry Pearson on June 2, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Machinus said: This doesn't change any of the rules of logic. It's still wrong to consider the argumenter when thinking about an argument.How many interesting and/or useful arguments are purely logical arguments? Very few, I believe.
Typical arguments are more like trying to draw conclusions from imperfect evidence of which each party has only a subset. This is more like a court of law, or a scientific arena, rather than some exercise in reasoning from agreed premises.
Knowledge (or guesswork!) about the people providing the evidence is often a factor. It may be taken too far, for example by drawing attention to facts that don't relate to the topic. But trying to judge whether this person would lie, or be sloppy with the evidence, or be accurate but selective, can be very important when it isn't possible to develop a comprehensive baseline of agreed information beforehand.
Some types of fallacy are still wrong to use even in this more complicated sort of argument. There is a still a difference between is / ought, and between correlation / cause. But information about the person's motives and past history can be relevant.
195. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
Comment #187641 by Barry Pearson on June 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm
BeyondBelief said: I wish the author would have given practical, concrete examples of an acceptable ad hominem attack in response to an argument.I am frequently subjected to ad hominem attacks. I publish information about a technical matter to do with digital photography, and attampts are made to undermine my statements by claiming that I paid by Adobe to say what I do:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/
If I were paid by Adobe, (I'm not), and couldn't support my statements, those would probably be acceptable ad hominem attacks. What is mainly important is not whether I am paid by Adobe but whether I can provide evidence to support my position. But even if I can, then the question of payment might still be relevant if it speaks to bias (rather than inaccuracy).
If you are relying on someone else, you not only want to evaluate whether they are making inaccurate statements, but also whether they are making accurate statements that are highly selective.
(I tend to be influenced by whether people provide references to support their statements, and by whether they post under their own name).
AmericanGodless said: The doctor says lose weight and the patient is concerned that doctor is herself overweight. The author says this is unfair personal criticism. But when a neighbor advises on lawn care, the author says it is relevant whether the neighbor's lawn is healthy. What's the difference? Why would "tu quoque" be fair in the latter case but not in the former?The fact that the doctor is overweight doesn't disprove the statement that it is unhealthy to be overweight, although it does say something about how easy it is to follow the doctor's advice. (It would be interesting to get the doctor's views on her own state of health).
The state of the neighbor's lawn provides support for the neighbor's views on lawn-care.
196. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'
Comment #187588 by Barry Pearson on June 2, 2008 at 10:33 am
danielrendall asked: Do we have an organisation equivalent to the NCSE in the US to counter the propaganda of the fundamentalists?The nearest we have appears to be the British Centre for Science Education (BCSE). It is not in the same league as the NCSE:
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/
They link to other initiatives at:
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/Links
Frankly, UK groups are under-resourced, and probably need lots of help. I wonder how we can help?
EDIT:
I have just made a donation to BCSE and applied for membership.
197. The Challenge of the New Creationism
Comment #187353 by Barry Pearson on June 2, 2008 at 3:08 am
mordacious1 said: So why would Eugenie Scott be opposed to getting rid of religion, or "the war is between religion and rationalism"? She is an atheist, is she not? Or does she feel we have to appease the religionists?I've watched everything I can find with Eugenie Scott, (I think she is super!), I have received an information-pack from NCSE, and I can see her point here.
righton said: I think Eugenie Scott prefers the NOMA type strategy? Correct me if I am wrong.
mordacious1 said: I checked the Wiki about Dr. Scott. She's a secular humanist and a "nontheist". Her organization though, the NCSE, is religious neutral and has many religious members. So I guess she has to walk the fence a little. That's OK, she does great work and is a nice person from what I've seen.
NCSE often has to help religious parents get a good scientific eductation for their children, and if necessary support those parents in a court with a religious judge. The Dover trial was a classic. She (and NCSE) has to present this "battle" as Creationism/ID non-science versus a scientific view of the universe, the latter being one that neither those parents nor the judge would feel threatened or insulted by.
Meanwhile the Creationism/ID proponents try to link science, especially evolution, with atheism, to suggest to the parents and the judge that evolution will undermine their religious beliefs. NCSE would not want Richard Dawkins to give evidence in such a trial, and he probably accepts that. Ken Miller is a better witness, someone those parents and the judge will feel comfortable with.
Whatever her private views, NCSE's clear mission is to secure good science education, especially about evolution. It isn't to fight the god/no-god battle, and it would be totally improper to spend resources on that, and dangerous even to be thought to be doing so.
198. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'
Comment #187123 by Barry Pearson on June 1, 2008 at 10:15 am
Did anyone else see this? Is it a joke that only I have fallen for?
"Church to offer prayers for recovery" (3/4 down page):
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/consumer_affairs/article4039969.ece
With the economy moving in a mysterious way, the Church of England has abandoned faith in the earthly powers of Downing Street. It is instead urging vicars to ask God to ease the effects of the credit crunch, writes Marie Woolf.
Priests have been asked to offer special prayers of support for parishioners struggling to pay rising food, energy and transport costs while having to cope with their mortgages.
A church committee will meet this week to draw up an official set of prayers calling for divine assistance for those worried by debt, as well as plans to offer more practical help at parish level....
The Church of England has traditionally offered special prayers in its regular services to remember the suffering of others. It is even offering prayers at the moment for people who are taking exams.
As a stop-gap measure while the credit crunch prayers are being written, an adapted version of an earlier offering is recommended to congregations: "We ask your guidance as we work out a household budget. Help us to learn to let no debt remain outstanding, except the debt to love one another."
This week, a meeting of the church's National Worship Development office will discuss the writing of new prayers addressing rising fuel and petrol bills and mortgage payments.
199. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'
Comment #187007 by Barry Pearson on June 1, 2008 at 4:24 am
Second-year dental student Emily Mackie said the university's decision to call its inaugural Dundee Christmas Lecture "Why Evolution is Right ... and Creationism is Wrong" is badly timed and insensitive to Christians.This is an example of the trick that creationists are playing systematically.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2007/11/24/newsstory10599041t0.asp
Creationists are at the lunatic fringe of religious people - often not mainstream and certainly not representative. There are plenty of religious people, religious organisations, and religious scientists, who will stand up and be counted as accepting evolution.
It suits creationists to have this seen as a battle between religion and evolution, because it makes them appear to be mainstream and may generate extra support. It suits them to be able to claim necessary links between atheism and evolution. Some atheists aid and abet them.
I have spent a lot of my life analysing problems and requirements so that they can be tackled in achievable steps. It is important to separate out the different the conflicts: "gods or not"; "for or against religion"; "evolution, right or wrong". Then each of these can be handled separately, probably at different tmes, and probably by different people. It may irritate athiests to admit it, but sometimes the best people to tackle the last of these conflicts may be religious people.
The university's decision was NOT insensitive to Christians as a whole. It MAY have been insensitive to the lunatic fringe of Christians, but so what? And was that difference made apparent?
200. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'
Comment #186961 by Barry Pearson on June 1, 2008 at 1:10 am
somersetsimon said: I can accept that 40% of british people believe in god and feel that god had some role in how life turned out on this planet.We DO need to see the questions asked, don't we? (And I would like to know the breakdown by religion - I have seen a UK TV programme where half the muslims in the audience denied Evolution).
It wouldn't be hard to phrase a question that indicates that these people support ID/creationism rather than purely scientific evolution with no supernatural involvement.
Cartomancer said: But if Steve Jones is experiencing problems with his students then clearly there must be something wrong. Where are all these massed hordes of drooling creationist morons?I wonder if what we are seeing is greater polarisation; fewer "don't knows" and fewer "don't cares"?
I think it is getting easier to import such views into the UK then propogate them, from the USA in the case of Christian variants, and from Saudi Arabia, and perhaps Turkey, in the Islamic case. It is the opposite side of the coin from so-called "new atheism" - the message isn't new, but the audience and the media are.
More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
