The View from Number 80

From the Gutter to the Stars - here's a quick round-up of recent news items that caught 80's rheumy eye. Should the opportunity ever arise 80 would turn down a flight with Nepal Airlines as their maintenance procedures leave a lot to be desired. This BBC News item informs us that "Nepal's state-run airline has confirmed that it sacrificed two goats to appease a Hindu god, following technical problems with one of its aircraft." This was done to placate "..Akash Bhairab, the Hindu god of sky protection, whose symbol is seen on the company's planes." (Just where was the Hindu god of goat protection when he was needed?) Call me old-fashioned but a knowledgeable and competent airplane service crew beats the supernatural method every time - this gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "flying on a wing and a prayer". The second item is also from the BBC and features a clergyman in the south of England who "plans to take to the streets of a Medway town to help young people get home safely after their night out." He wants to mount Christian evening patrols around the area's night spots. Drunks versus biblebashers should add some excitement to an evening out and is certainly following precedent as old JC himself was accused of hanging out with gluttons and winebibbers, although the evangelist Matthew said nothing about chavs. Another vicar has made the news this week but certainly not because of any goods works he may have done. In fact according to this Guardian report Rev Tom Ambrose, vicar of St Mary and St Michael at Trumpington, near Cambridge sounds like a right handfull. The vicar is accused of " bringing his parish "to its knees" (for he) spat at a churchwarden, used the pulpit to settle personal scores and sent vitriolic letters to those who opposed him..." Turning the other cheek never ocurred to this man of gob apparently.

Somewhat happier news is to be had from Belgium where a "..prosecutor yesterday recommended that the Church of Scientology stand trial for fraud and extortion, following a 10-year investigation that concluded the US-based group should be labeled a criminal organization." Naturally the cult is crying out about persecution but even a cursory look at the history of Hubbard's pulp SF "religion" shows a long trail of highly questionable practices. The only surprise about the news is that it came from Belgium rather than Germany, a country which has long been suspicious of the organization as the recent fuss over the tiny but perfectly-formed Tom Cruise's location work there shows. To learn more about Scientology and its methods than they would like you to know see Operation Clambake. And should you chance to meet one of these Scientologists be sure ask them about Lisa McPherson. But it is not just recently invented cults and religions that have the ability to disgust - take the case of the fundamentalist pastor who "..had sex with two of his teenage daughters to educate them on how to be good wives.." This piece of crap told a South Australian court "..the sex was not about fulfilling his desires but about teaching his daughters how to behave for their husbands when they eventually married, as dictated in scripture." Aah yes, scripture - the justification for so many revolting and cruel practices. Unbelievably, despite the abuse happening over a 10-year period, the judge "...gave full credit for the man's guilty pleas, saying he was genuinely remorseful and had a good chance of rehabilitation as his wife and the church remained supportive. The man will be eligible for parole in four years." And the daughters? What about the rest of their lives?

This Aussie judge is obviously from the same school of jurisprudence as Judge Tom Crowther in Bristol, UK. This bewigged idiot showed just how much empathy he felt for Jehovah's Witness Michael Porter's victims when he failed to send him to prison "..despite being convicted of 24 counts of indecent assault and gross indecency on children - one of which was committed on an 18-month-old baby." Porter "..was handed a three-year community rehabilitation order despite having admitted to using his trusted position as a ministerial servant in the movement to indulge his habits as a paedophile." Why was justice miscarried so spectacularly? Although the court was told that Porter abused children in his care over a period of 14 years "..the judge opted not to jail Porter after hearing he had undergone therapy and was a changed man." So disgusted are they the Avon and Somerset police are considering an appeal - meanwhile we are told that Porter's "..current Jehovah's Witness Church has stood by him despite confessing to his crimes, according to his sister. He is thought to be an elder at the Mill Hill Kingdom Hall, in Barnet, north London."

After that catalog of vileness here is something from the world of science that will outlast every temple, pyramid, mosque, cathedral or any other monument to superstition human beings have raised - the Voyager spacecraft. Voyager 1 was launched 30 years ago and having, along with sister craft Voyager 2, shown humans the far-flung realm of the gas giants and their moons is now hurtling out of the Solar System. Voyager 1 is now 10 billion miles distant and its signals now take 14 hours even at the speed of light to reach this pale blue dot. Read Timothy Ferris' The Mix Tape of the Gods (reg rqd) and perhaps experience pride and awe at what human beings can achieve when they look up at the stars and not down at dusty old scriptures. Long after all humankind and its myriad deities, maybe when even the planet itself is gone, these craft will be drifting among the stars. (For more on both Voyagers and their epic journey into interstellar space see here. Here is a page on the "message" they carry)

“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” Oscar Wilde.

A Pale Blue Dot - "The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light." Carl Sagan, excerpted from a commencement address delivered May 11, 1996.

Poll Puzzle - a recent survey found "Nearly half the British think that religion is harmful, according to a poll carried out by YouGov. Yet more than half also believe in God “or something” ". No real surprise about religion being considered harmful - thanks to the rise of violent political Islam followed by the stroppy "me-tooism" of the other faiths the harmful effect is all too obvious. But the puzzle is what does that "or something" mean? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? That a dropped slice of toast always lands butter side down? Dr. Leland Jensen? That this whole wonderful, astounding, gobsmacking, yet barely-explored physical universe is just not enough without having a wishy-washy "something" as well?

Tormented Teresa - here are a couple of interesting pieces by Christopher Hitchens, the first being a brief but, as ever, entertaining journal of his recent book tour to promote God Is Not Great - a tour which was designed from the outset to be confrontational. At least Hitchens can never be accused of preaching to the choir. The second is a surprisingly sympathetic reaction, considering his track record, to the recent revelations regarding Mother Teresa's crisis of faith. Regarding the Vatican's ongoing campaign to beatify Teresa, in which process Hitchens himself participated, he has this to say, "Toward the end of her days, we have been informed by Archbishop D’Souza of Calcutta, her troubled and sleepless condition gave rise to such concern that she was subjected to an exorcism. According to this same clerical authority, the medieval banishment of the demons allowed her a good night’s sleep before her death. One is glad to learn of it, and to know that she found a sort of peace. But since then, she has been posthumously exploited for having worked a medical “miracle” from beyond the grave: an episode which (to put it mildly) no respectable Bengali physician can confirm. I say it as calmly as I can—the Church should have had the elementary decency to let the earth lie lightly on this troubled and miserable lady, and not to invoke her long anguish to recruit the credulous to a blind faith in which she herself had long ceased to believe."

Also writing on Teresa and her doubts is Sam Harris, who notes how easily such a lapse of faith can be reinterpreted by the right twisty kind of thinking. "Her doubts about God’s existence were interpreted by her confessor as a sign that she was sharing Christ’s torment upon the cross; this exaltation of her wavering faith allowed Teresa “to love the darkness” she experienced in God’s apparent absence. Such is the genius of the unfalsifiable. We can see the same principle at work among her fellow Catholics: Teresa’s doubts have only enhanced her stature in the eyes of the Church, having been interpreted as a further evidence of God’s grace. Ask yourself, when even the doubts of experts are thought to confirm a doctrine, what could possibly disconfirm it?" (80 wrote about Teresa in Tainted Saint back in 2003. Also from that year is Hitchens fulminating against the race to beatify the old girl. Finally, what do Jesus and Mo' think?)

Quote - "To believe something in the face of evidence and against reason - to believe something by faith - is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect." A C Grayling, from his book Against All Gods and quoted in this interview.

September 12th 2007

Of God and Unicorns - The success of recent books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and others seems to have triggered quite a vicious reaction from those who just don't get it. Take this piece, This milquetoast consensus is unnerved by radical faith, by Tristram Hunt in which he amply demonstrates his inability to understand what these authors are saying. He quotes Terry Eagleton's silly statement "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." This is utter hogwash. Biology has a real subject - theology doesn't. If you state that you believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence it doesn't matter a damn' what subtle nuances and decorative frills (theology) you weave around your belief it is still merely handwaving.

It is as though Eagleton, and Hunt, believe in the existence of unicorns. Secure in their belief, they can spend many happy hours discussing whether the beast's horn has a left- or right-handed spiral yet they are unable to prove whether the beast is real or not. The same applies to the existence of god. There is no need to enter the world of theological debate if the very subject of that debate cannot be proved to exist. And no, atheists do not have to prove the non-existence of god for it is the theists that have something to prove. They are the ones positing the existence of a magical being. No matter how many times this point is made it completely passes under the theist's radar. This alone renders the rest of Hunt's piece pointless.

His claim that religious belief, or more particularly Protestantism, underpins the Enlightenment is far from clear. To make this work at all Hunt has to step back from the sort of personal, caring god embraced by the various flavors of Protestant Christianity and talk instead of deism. This is very far from the god of the scriptures and much more of a metaphor for the way that the universe operates, for physical law. Deism can even be thought of as a kind of halfway house on the way to atheism. Such deism is a very long way removed from the fundamentalist Christianity currently so prevalent in the USA or the fundamentalist Islam that wants to bomb its way into the caliphate, although it is very close to the beliefs of the genuinely "enlightened" Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson. Far from these new atheist books being, in Hunt's shrill description, "a bravura display of ignorance, arrogance and ceaseless solipsism" it is he and the other faith heads who demonstrate a total inability to step back and see just how poor is the evidence for their belief. When such bitter accusations are flung around it is a sign that not only are they rattled but their bag of tricks is actually empty. Anyway, it is not belief in a god (or gods) that is the real problem for that can (and should) be a private thing - it is when the believers decide to project these beliefs into the lives of others who do not share them by way of the statute book or by threats and violence that things turn nasty. In the struggle against this kind of religious onslaught the likes of Hitchens or Dawkins, "atheist warmongers", are worth a thousand milquetoast deists and religious apologists.

Religion Poisons Everything - is the subtitle of Christopher Hitchens' book God Is Not Great which is reviewed here by Richard Dawkins. One would think that on this subject at least the two of them would be reading from the same hymn sheet, if that expression is allowable in this context, and it turns out to be true. Dawkins is aware of this and consults other, less complimentary reviews in order to find some nits to pick - and even these are tiny. One place where Dawkins doesn't seem to appreciate Hitchens' point is when he fails to understand why Hitchens holds that the Christian New Testament (NT) is worse than that litany of cruelty and murder called the Old Testament (OT). The reason, as Hitchens has also explained elswhere, is that the OT has little or nothing to say about any kind of afterlife whereas the NT introduces the threat of eternal torment in hell for those that reject the "loving" Savior. Agonizing torture in perpetuity has got to be one of the nastiest ideas religion has thrown up in order to to frighten the gullible into toeing the line and is, in 80's view, a very sick idea indeed.

Having read the review do take a look at the comments posted below one of which 80 cannot resist quoting. "Son... this is the honest truth about the universe: The universe was created by an all-powerful all-knowing being who came down to us in the form of a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father who can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree." Thank you, Christopher Buttery, although I doubt very much whether a career awaits you in theology..............

September 25th 2007

Of Bollocks and Cassocks - in contrast to recent reports of disappearing languages around the planet there is one that is definitely on the increase - bollocks. The number of people talking bollocks appears to be growing - a trend 80 associates with the tendency of religions to become more assertive these days, if not downright stroppy. One individual in the news, and a fluent talker of bollocks, is Iran's very own poison dwarf, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This deeply unpleasant little man is visiting the Great Satan for a few days and gave a talk at Columbia University following a damaging introduction from the university's president, Lee Bollinger, in which he described the speaker's Holocaust denial as possibly fooling "the illiterate and ignorant" but that "when you come to a place like this, it makes you quite simply ridiculous." Ahmadinejad showed that he was unmoved by repeating the denial nonsense. This was followed by more bollocks, such as his claim that in Iran women are more respected than men (especially when it comes to stoning) and his crowning statement that "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it." There are homosexuals everywhere in every country, they make up a normal proportion of the population, and this includes Iran. The dwarf and his fanatical pals may have hanged some of them but even this vile little creep cannot eradicate them all. Many objected to Columbia giving Ahmadinejad a platform but it was always a safe bet that he would merely confirm that he is a very nasty piece of work - and a great talker of bollocks. (Transcript available here)

Another person who appears to be fluent in bollocks is David Gray, a schoolteacher from East Ayrshire, Scotland. He has managed to conflate a very real threat to civilization, sectarianism, with an imaginary one, Islamophobia. This genius has managed to wade through the turgid pages of the Quran and return with proof that he did not take in a word of it. He tells us “One thing I try to get across to young people is that terrorists are not truly Islamic,” he says. “The word ‘Islam’ means ‘peace’, and if you read the Qur’an it has a message of peace on almost every page. The idea of murder is utterly against its teachings." Apart from the word Islam very definitely meaning "submission" and not peace, which version of the Quran has "...a message of peace on almost every page"? Gray's heart may be in the right place in that he wishes to teach his pupils that Muslim does not automatically mean Islamist he does his case no good at all by talking bollocks. He also fails to understand that unlike, say Roman Catholicism, Islam has no central authority dictating the interpretation of its holy texts therefore the violent, caliphate-obsessed fundamentalists' view can be as valid as that of other scholars. In fact some pretty intensive "interpreting" is needed to gloss over the violent exhortations and declarations with which the Quran (and the Old Testament for that matter) abounds. To deny that the Quran is what it is does Gray's case no favors. It is a sad fact that if someone talks undeniable bollocks it undermines the (possibly valid) point they are trying to make - it is possible to make a case for tolerance of other's beliefs without turning these ancient texts into something they are not.

A recent plea from a Christian bishop highlights what a nonsense Gray's Quran brimming with peace is. The bishop of Rochester, UK, Michael Nazir-Ali has spoken out against the penalty prescribed and often meted out to those who renounce Islam, namely to be murdered. As this Guardian piece reminds us "Seven of the world's 57 Islamic states - including Iran - impose the death penalty for conversion." which is seven too many. In the other 50 you may or may not be killed by freelancers out to enforce holy scripture but if you are lucky you will only be ostracized. Naturally as a Christian Nazir-Ali seems only interested in the fate of those who forsake Islam for Christianity but the death penalty applies to those who join any other faith and also those who opt out of superstitious beliefs altogether. The article notes that there is no great readiness to condemn such religious killings in the UK, "In 2004, Prince Charles (no mean talker of bollocks himself) asked British Muslim leaders to renounce laws of apostasy and the death sentence for converts in Islamic countries, but no public statement was ever made."

No matter what sort of gloss is used, no matter how tortured the interpretation, no matter how metaphorically they are treated, the scriptures of the abrahamic religions are nasty, cruel, violent, intolerant and often just plain daft. All the while such books form a central part of their faith for "moderate" religionists they are also there for the fundamentalists who can find in their pages justification for unbelievably cruel behavior. It may seem a long way from the verses of the Quran to the beheading of a schoolteacher for the crime of educating girls but the connection is easily made by such as the Taliban. There appears to be a determined move to drag us all back to superstitious barbarism - and not just by the Islamists. An organization that has overlaid the Christian Bible over the last 1800 years or so with its own tapestry of weird beliefs such the Immaculate Conception or Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic church. Now, in a move that harks back to the good old middle ages, you can apply online for "certified shreds" of the late Carol Wojtyla's cassocks. For those keen on such primitive magic "Supplied without charge, the circular dots of cotton, measuring about 4mm in diameter, come pressed into a postcard bearing a photo of John Paul on one side and a prayer on the other." This appears to be part of a effort to speed up the canonization of the old boy as the recipients are asked to "...to write to an address printed on the card if their prayers produce a miracle." As Wojtyla had accumulated many cassocks in his long life it seems the industrious nuns will be snipping away on behalf of the faithful for some time to come. What a load of cassocks, and what a load of bollocks.

Update on the "certified shreds" story above - BBC news says "The Vatican has warned Roman Catholics that buying relics is sacrilege, after reports that pieces of former Pope John Paul II's clothes were for sale online." Ah well, in the great scheme of things some old cassock cuttings are hardly up there with a relic like the Holy Prepuce. Indiana Jones and the Holy Foreskin, anyone?

No Shit, Sherlock - "Whatever their publicised angst over Saddam Hussain's 'weapons of mass destruction', American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbours a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Alan Greenspan, former US Federal Reserve Chairman quoted in the Guardian.

Illogical Cave Dweller - "I tell every young man among the youth of Islam: It is your duty to join the caravan [of martyrs] until the sufficiency is complete and the march to aid the High and Omnipotent continues." So says Islamic bogeyman Osama bin Laden in a recent message. But if a deity is omnipotent what need is there for martyrs? And if the deity needs martyrs then it is not omnipotent....

October 1st 2007

Hobson's Horrors - the Guardian newspaper's Comment Is Free (CIF) is always an area of lively, if at times, repetitive debate. One has the feeling that some items appear purely to rattle the bars of the readers' respective cages. After a sensible and reasonable article on the impending schism over Anglican homophobia by Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney, the Guardian editors must have decided to redress the balance - hence the appearance of Theo Hobson, aka the Ginger Whinger, with the usual intemperate rant. His target this time is Richard Dawkins' campaign for atheists (the Out Campaign) in the US to "come out" and wield some political clout. Dawkins has pointed out elsewhere that the Jewish population in the US has an effect on policy far beyond their actual number and interestingly the number of Jews is roughly on a par with the estimated number of atheists in the country. Dawkins has also previously compared the idea of atheists "coming out" with the actions of the gay community over the last 40 years or so. Naturally (and wilfully?) Hobson misunderstands the intention of making atheism and atheists more acceptable in the US and then elaborates on his own misconception. He claims to know what Dawkins "actually" wants on two levels, one in line with Dawkins' intention, the other in line with his own fantasies. Firstly he makes the gay rights analogy, as has Dawkins, but then starts making things up. He claims that "The truth is that Dawkins does not want equal rights; he wants what he says that the Jewish lobby has: disproportionate influence. If atheists had more political power, "the world would be a better place". He wants the gospel of atheism to spread; he wants it to change the culture." Isn't that exactly what Christians want, to spread their gospel to change the culture? Apart from whether this is truly Dawkins' desire is it such a bad thing? Or is it only a bad thing when atheists are involved?

Coincidentally, the New York Times today has an article (reg rqd) today about how Indian immigrants to the US are seeing the Jews as a "role model for activism". To wit, "Indian-Americans, who now number 2.4 million in this country, are turning to American Jews as role models and partners in areas like establishing community centers, advocating on civil rights issues and lobbying Congress. Indians often say they see a version of themselves and what they hope to be in the experience of Jews in American politics: a small minority that has succeeded in combating prejudice and building political clout.". This does not seem to be very different from Dawkins' plan for atheists to have more sway yet the NYT doesn't think that the Indians are involved in some dark conspiracy. Hobson's problem is that he appears to think that atheists should not be represented, should be mute - he is really frightened that Dawkins "wants the gospel of atheism to spread; he wants it to change the culture." (80 has never been quite sure what this "gospel of atheism" is but Hobson thinks he knows.)

In a world threatened in many ways by a newly assertive and often violent religiosity surely a counterbalance could only be a good thing? But Hobson is now off and running, discussing what are his own personal fears, employing terms such as "an atheist bloc in the US". What, just like those goddamned commies that Joe McCarthy was so worried about? And even worse, these fiends are after our children according to Hobson, who quotes Dawkins with horror, "I would free children of being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community." Is this not amazing? I have seldom read a sentence that has induced such a sharp shiver of revulsion. This man evidently dreams of a state in which it is illegal to take one's children to a place of worship, or to say prayers with them as one puts them to bed." Note the positively loony extrapolation from Dawkins' statement to the vision of atheist thought police stopping our children learning about baby Jesus. Perhaps Hobson would feel differently if it was Scientology or Raelian beliefs and not his own brand of irrationality being spoonfed to the little ones? Once again Hobson uses his uncanny telepathic abilities to warn us of what Dawkins really wants. Like Hobson's religious beliefs there is no shred of evidence to support this supposition - but then what is evidence when you have faith?

Finally in this imaginative, if not actually paranoid piece, Hobson decides to redefine the term atheist to better suit his prejudices, "As I have tried to explain before, atheism is not neutral, nor is it merely negative, an opting out of religious belief. It is the positive belief that the world would be better off without religion, that religion ought to be eliminated. It is intrinsically self-righteous, for its proponents think that they have the key to the radical improvement of the world. The definition of an atheist, as opposed to an agnostic, is someone who has the chilling arrogance to say that the world would be a better place if I ceased to say bedtime prayers with my children." The feeling, Leo, before you get too frightened by your invented bogeymen, is not that religion "ought to be eliminated", surely an impossible aim, but that it should be a private practice and definitely not a deciding factor in political and legislative decision making. Despite your silly fears there will never be an atheist gestapo stopping you from praying with your children. Atheists merely want a voice, not control of whatever nonsense you keep between your ears - you are more than welcome to it. Looking at the sales figures of books by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris a great number of people very much want to hear that voice. (80 has looked at Hobson's outpourings before - see Hobson's Cult and Hobson's Hissy Fit)

Liar, Liar - it is blindingly obvious that creationism (or its ponced-up version, Intelligent Design) does not have a leg to stand on, scientifically speaking. That is why the proponents of this nonsense use other, shadier methods to promote their fantasies. It is all one with the attitude of many religious fanatics that it is fine to deceive people if it is in a good cause, such as winning converts - this kind of thinking goes back at least as far as that misogynist tent-maker otherwise known as St Paul, who thought "pious deceit" was an acceptable practice so long as the credulous could be duped into his Christ cult. (1 Corinthians 9:20) As the case for creationism/ID cannot be made on rational, evidential grounds various subterfuges have been employed, most famously perhaps being the so-called "Wedge" strategy. Another recent example was the attempt to crowbar creationism into science classes via legal action in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (see Lying By Design). In the UK a few years back the Emmanuel Schools Foundation was found to be sneaking religion into history lessons (see Pious Deceit). This kind of lying - for that is what deceit is, lying - is still very much a part of the religionist armory. A very recent and particularly disgusting example is archbishop and liar Francisco Chimoio. This scaremongering churchman claims, without offering any evidence whatsoever, that "some European-made condoms are infected with HIV deliberately." and that "anti-retroviral drugs were also infected "..in order to finish quickly the African people"." This fool is more concerned with his church's objections to birth control than with saving lives in a country that has, according to this BBC report, an infection rate of 500 a day. (for earlier examples of the Catholic hierarchy's lies about condoms see Cardinal Liar and Wicked)

The latest pious deceit to be exposed is that undertaken by the makers of a movie called Expelled. Various atheists, including Richard Dawkins, were duped into appearing in what has turned out to be a film promoting creationist idiocy. Dawkins told the Guardian "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front." What good such chicanery does for the creationists is debatable. Those who may have been fooled into seeing the movie because of the presence of Dawkins and others now know that the thing is a con and the creationist nitwits don't care anyway. Lying to push unsupportable beliefs may convince a few dunces but, as Richard Feynman said, in another context, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled". Likewise for a successful theory. No amount of pious fairy tales and deception are going to alter the way the real world works. Living in a religious cloud-cukoo land may make a believer feel comfortable but advances our knowledge of what 80 has called this "fascinating, beautiful and, let's face it, dangerous ... universe" not one whit. (For more pious deceit see Scrolling Along and for more on the Expelled con see this at Pharyngula. Also see Scientists feel miscast in film on life's origin)

Scrolling Along - for those of you who are following the scandal of the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit at San Diego Natural History Museum and the "scholars" peddling a wilfully inaccurate and out of date view of the scrolls and their provenance the indefatigable Charles Gadda has kept digging and the results of his investigations into a certain David Noel Freedman can be read here. (Once again, thanks Sarah). Meanwhile 80's mention of the original story and the deceit (pious fraud?) involved has stirred reaction elsewhere, see LAVoice. Scrolling down to the comments (which have now oddly disappeared from the site. Happily, here is a copy) 80 learns that he is a "Euro atheist" - which surely must be a compliment, although looking at the rest of the writer's idiotic outburst this could hardly have been her intention. At least "Euro atheist" (should that be hyphenated?) is a step up from the "anti-American commentators" jibe in that it scores higher for accuracy. A timeline for the controversy can be read here at the Museum Ethics blogspot.

Quote - "I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job." Steve Bitterman, a community college instructor at Southwestern Community College, Red Oak, Iowa after being sacked for not teaching the Bible is literally true. As Mark Twain once opined, "You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that WE are the ones that need help?"

October 7th 2007

Unholy Games - a while back Sony incurred the wrath of the Church of England (see Cathedral Shootout) over setting a scene in a violent video game in Manchester Cathedral. Sony eventually apologized but did not withdraw the game from sale. The church has not let matters lie. It seems the game, Resistance: Fall of Man, is up for a Bafta award and Dean of Manchester Cathedral is describing the nomination as a "disgrace". It is a pity he did not direct his spluttering ire toward his idiotic brethren such as the Bishop of Carlisle who said that recent flooding in the North of England was "judgment on society's moral decadence". This superstitious twit went on to say "The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God's judgment, which is intended to call us to repentance." Such bigoted nonsense is far more reprehensible than any video game with one scene set in a cathedral. Across the pond the attitude to violent games is somewhat different, at least on the evidence of this report (reg rqd) from the New York Times about how "...hundreds of ministers and pastors desperate to reach young congregants have drawn concern and criticism through their use of an unusual recruiting tool: the immersive and violent video game Halo." Those are not happy with this transparent ploy to draw young folk into church include James Tonkowich, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a nonprofit group that assesses denominational policies. He told the NYT “If you want to connect with young teenage boys and drag them into church, free alcohol and pornographic movies would do it.” He added “My own take is you can do better than that.” Recalling his own misspent youth, 80 is not so sure... (80 has looked before at violent video games with a very jaundiced eye - see Shoot To Thrill?.)

By The Book - regular readers of these pages know that 80 has little time for so-called "biblical archaeology". Far too often this turns out to be religionists wilfully misinterpreting finds to fit in with their pre-existing beliefs. Which is why 80 was pleased to read this piece, Raiders of the faux ark, by Eric H. Cline. Cline lays out his stall in the first paragraph, "Noah's Ark. The Ark of the Covenant. The Garden of Eden. Sodom and Gomorrah. The Exodus. The Lost Tomb of Jesus. All have been "found" in the last 10 years, including one within the past six months. The discoverers: a former SWAT team member; an investigator of ghosts, telepathy, and parapsychology; a filmmaker who calls himself "The Naked Archeologist"; and others, none of whom has any professional training in archeology." His main concern is how such ridiculous claims go unchallenged by academics, a mistake which yields "...a field of tremendous importance to pseudoscientists, amateur enthusiasts, and irresponsible documentary filmmakers". As he so rightly has it, real archaeologists "...have an obligation to challenge the lies and the hype, to share the real data, so that the public discussion can be an informed one." There are two main reasons offered for not confronting and refuting the nutcases' claims, the first being a form of intellectual snobbery against descending to the level of these Indiana Jones wannabes, and the second, particularly in the US (and India?) is a desire not to attract fire from fundamentalists with political influence and deep pockets. These sort of people do not like having their dogma challenged by inconvenient facts.

Good Guys - two web sites in the UK that do take a stance on "biblical archaeology" (and pseudo-archaeology in general) are Bad Archaeology and Doug's Archaeology Site - both highly recommended and permanently linked in the sidebar of this page. 80 also recommends The Bible In History by Thomas L Thompson (ISBN 0-224-03977-6) - the subtitle, How Writers Create A Past, gives a clue where the author stands on many bible claims of historicity. Don't just takes 80's word - here is a review by Jonathan Tubb of the British Museum, "Clearly presented and meticulously argued this analysis of the historical, literary and theological traditions of "biblical" Israel draws on Thompson's considerable skills as an archaeologist and textual historian. The result is illuminating and brilliant" (80 has looked at biblical archaeology and its connection to modern day conflicts in Missing, One Empire, Solomon, Arthur and Dubya and What's In A Name?)

Update - to Liar Liar (see below) more deceit from creationists. A Dutch TV company, Evangelical Broadcasting (EB) has edited commentary by David Attenborough in his documentary series The Life of Mammals in order to fit in with religious fantasies. Attenborough, as you may well imagine, is not happy although apparently EB are within their rights. Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society had this to say on the misrepresentation, “This is yet more evidence that creationists cannot make a convincing case without distorting the evidence. The fact is, they don’t have a case. Creationism is theology and trying to make it cross over into science that requires evidence to support it, means that convoluted and ridiculous explanations have to be invented to give a supernatural spin to perfectly natural events. It’s quite sad, really."

You Tube Fun - do take a look at Pat Condell's latest offerings including the outstanding "Hello Angry Christians", and a superb response to Islamist bogeyman bin Laden. When you have had enough and need to seek a spiritual counterblast check out the videos posted by Pastor Deacon Fred of the Landover Baptist Church, "gimme that ol' time religion"....

October 13th 2007

Oily Quagmire or Going To Plan? - the Washington Post (reg rqd) quotes retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez on the situation in Iraq accusing "...the Bush administration yesterday of going to war with a "catastrophically flawed" plan and said the United States is "living a nightmare with no end in sight."" But what if a quagmire is exactly what was planned in the first place? Paranoid conspiracy theory perhaps, but here in a piece called "It's the Oil" Jim Holt makes the case that an extended "Korea model" of occupation was always on the cards. He notes the huge US bases being built in Iraq, "five self-sufficient ‘super-bases’" no less, or to use the current Washington jargon, "enduring bases". He sees these as part of a strategy to tie up Iraq's oil, a strategy he believes that may have been decided as long ago as Cheney's 2001 energy task force whose deliberations have been kept under wraps. Perhaps much of his piece is purely speculative but one question to go away - why is a country that is supposed to be keen to leave Iraq to the Iragi's (when they are deemed ready to take over security) still building these huge bases? Joseph Gerson thinks he knows "Whether the U.S. retains five or 15 “enduring bases,” its goal is clear: to keep its military hand on the “jugular vein” of global capitalism – as former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Maxwell Taylor described Middle East oil. This requires an intimidating infrastructure of deadly high-tech fortresses and the warriors that go with them."

Scrolls of Dishonor - in an open society dialogue and debate are vital and so when they are stifled a great disservice is done to society as a whole. This is what has been happening at the San Diego Natural History Museum exhibit on the Dead Sea Scrolls. (see Scrolling Along and Scrolls Scandal) where a group that espouses an outdated, inaccurate and partisan view of the scrolls and their origins is busy stifling any mention of the latest research. Why? Because, it would appear, recent evidence based upon palaeographical, textual and archaeological grounds shows the interpretation peddled by the exhibition's organizers to be, at the very least, deeply flawed. Charles Gadda has been investigating the affiliations of those who are promoting the exhibition and finds the principals all have one thing thing in common - a connection with various Christian foundations. Now there is obviously nothing at all wrong with this unless these principals are confusing their own no doubt sincerely held personal beliefs with scientific inquiry and are allowing said beliefs, rather than evidence, to dictate the tone and content of the exhibition. There is little doubt that this is the case. Gadda's latest piece (thanks again, Sarah) looks at the individuals directly involved (and others on the periphery) in using the exhibition to promote a theory of the scrolls and their origin informed by religiously-inspired wishful thinking rather than the findings of science. As he eloquently states after surveying and summarizing the situation, "In sum, we appear to be dealing, at the very least, with an exhibition tainted by intellectual antisemitism, with an obscurantist, seemingly irrational fear of debate, and with biased conduct that is abhorrent to our basic social sentiments and to the principle of freedom of inquiry which lies at the core of our system of values."

Gadda also links to a piece by one of the foremost experts on the scrolls, an academic denigrated by the exhibition group, Norman Golb, Ludwig Rosenberger Professor in Jewish History and Civilization at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Golb represents the view that the scrolls were produced by various groups, most likely in Jerusalem, and were hidden in the caves near Qumran during the Jewish war with Rome. This does not sit at all well with the exhibitors' view that the scrolls were produced by a proto-monastic group (the Essenes) at Qumran where, with the eye of faith, a "scriptorium" complete with inkwells was found. To retroactively insert an anachronistic "monastery" into first century Judaea in the face of the evidence is not science. Neither is the refusal to acknowledge theories that are based upon the evidence. To quote Golb, "The complex history of the Palestinian Jews on the eve of the First Revolt is being pushed aside in favor of a bizarre, Christologically colored thesis". It is interesting to note that Gadda tells us "..it appears that the San Diego chapter of the University of Chicago alumni association, no doubt curious to hear an alternative point of view, has invited Dr. Golb, one of the chief proponents (along with Rachel Elior, Yitzhak Magen, Yuval Peleg, Yizhar Hirschfeld and others) of the "Jewish" theory, to give a lecture on the scrolls." Don't hold your breath waiting for a response from the museum exhibitors - it is not their policy to recognize that others, reputable scholars, do not share their fantasies. That much is quite obvious. If a belief, no matter how sincerely held, is found not to be in accord with the evidence it should be discarded. That is how science works. To stifle comment with accusations of "bigotry" and "playing the religion card" (remarks made about Gadda) or ignoring the theories of those eminently qualified to comment is not scientific - it is, not to put too fine a point on it, dishonest and deceitful.

Founding Fables - Sen. John McCain has found himself in hot water with some religious groups after characterizing America as a "... Christian nation and that he prefers a Christian president to lead the country." In doing so he revealed his less than solid grasp of the county's history, saying "...in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles … personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith.” Along with the numbskull he hopes to replace he apparently has never actually read the Constitution. As this article makes clear the"...nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent." (see McCain's True Colors)

Compare the views of the mainly deist Founding Fathers to the personal savior myth favored by most Christians and you will find little, if any, correspondence, as demonstrated in this piece by Farrel Till. "The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible." Not that McCain, in common with most politicians, is going to let facts muddy the water - he was one of three republican would-be nominees who publicly acknowledged they they did not hold with the theory of evolution, preferring Iron Age myths to evidence-based science. (also see A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation (reg rqd) and So what does the Constitution say about religion?)

October 15th 2007

Going By The Book - two recent news items set off a train of thought about Islam and science and whether the two can be compatible. Firstly there's the announcement of the Nobel Prizes (reg rqd) and secondly, Malaysia has its first cosmonaut orbiting in the International Space Station. On a whim 80 wondered how many Nobels have been won by Muslims and found the answer here - which is not very many at all. Now is this because Islam is inherently anti-science or is it prejudice on behalf of the Nobel committee? The former because of its adherence to the literal word of the Quran which is an early medieval document with a worldview to match or the latter group, all Norwegians, selected by that country's parliament and possibly biased in favor of "western" scientists. There is little to support the prejudiced committee angle, but Islam as anti-science can perhaps be demonstrated. In this essay by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy in Physics Today he shows science in the Islamic world has had a strange history, with moments of brilliance eclipsed by the resurgence of literal belief in the Quran. This can be represented by, to quote the Bad Archaeology site, ".. two different types of human beings: those who seek answers through questions and those who seek answers through authorities. It’s also the difference between science and religion, and between leading and following." To accept an ancient book as divinely authorized and immutable is at the same time to reject rational inquiry. Yet such a book can only be a product of its time and of the culture/s that produced it.

One effect of such literal belief is dead hand, holding back thought and invention, preventing any "new" discoveries - for to be new is to depart from the god-decreed natural order. Societies that are throughly permeated with such an attitude already have the answer to everything - god did it. Once this point is reached science becomes impossible. If it is the will of god that a certain number will die of, say, malaria why try and stop the disease? Such fatalism is also fatal not only to the infected but also fatal to the spirit of rational inquiry that leads to medical advances. In 19th century Europe there arose something that is still largely missing in the Islamic world - the desire to subject holy writ to textual (and higher) criticism. Under such scrutiny it became fairly clear that the books of the Christian bible are a collection that grew over time and not a miraculous document dictated by the almighty. The narratives being a product of their times are written to meet the needs of those times. Despite cries of blasphemy 80 is not aware of these European bible scholars being threatened with murder unless they cease their impious prying. This was because such scholarship took place in a society where the process of rational inquiry had become accepted.

The same process could not happen for the Quran - not yet at any rate. Any study of this collection of verses and commentaries can only be done on the understanding that the text is not to be questioned, only commented upon. This is not scholarship, or if it is, it is not the kind of scholarship that is going to better anybody's life in the way medical science has done. So here is a book that is not to be questioned (sometimes on pain of death) for it is the incontrovertible word of god, it can neither be added to subtracted from. It defines a world view prevalent in the part of the world in which it was written and at the time it was written - it has an early medieval outlook. It is not possible to have science in a culture permeated by belief in the divine origins of such a book. To quote the Physics Today piece "Scholars of the 19th century, such as the pioneering sociologist Max Weber, claimed that Islam lacks an "idea system" critical for sustaining a scientific culture based on innovation, new experiences, quantification, and empirical verification. Fatalism and an orientation toward the past, they said, makes progress difficult and even undesirable." In the current state of antagonism between the west and the Islamic world many Muslims feel slighted by such an observation but little seems to have changed

Hoodbhoy looks at the state of science in modern Islam using a somewhat more sophisticated method than counting Nobel Prizes. He states "A useful, if imperfect, indicator of scientific output is the number of published scientific research papers, together with the citations to them." Here the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), 56 countries in all, put up a poor showing. And even this method of judging performance does not take into account the actual quality of individual papers. He also points up the lack of investment in science by OIC members saying, "On average, the OIC states spend an estimated 0.3% of their gross national product on research and development, which is far below the global average of 2.4%" but does note that spending is on the rise in some of the richer countries. But increased funding for science is useless without a system of higher education producing would-be scientists in the first place. Sadly he finds "Most universities in Islamic countries have a starkly inferior quality of teaching and learning, a tenuous connection to job skills, and research that is low in both quality and quantity. Poor teaching owes more to inappropriate attitudes than to material resources. Generally, obedience and rote learning are stressed, and the authority of the teacher is rarely challenged. Debate, analysis, and class discussions are infrequent."

The obedience, rote learning and the authority of the teacher are certainly factors inherited from attitudes inculcated by Islam's devotion to the Quran. The fact that "Debate, analysis, and class discussions are infrequent." is an obvious corollary of this. Until the Quran can be studied for what it is, a medieval document with uncertain origins, without those doing such studies receiving death threats, the situation is unlikely to change. This situation leaves many in the Islamic world with, to quote Pat Condell, a chip on their shoulders the size of a mosque. The sort of changes that would improve this situation must come from within to be effective, but an Islamic Enlightenment doesn't look like happening any time soon, despite the optimism shown by some. Meanwhile in the west various groups are trying to drag the education system back to the middle ages, wanting unscientific nonsense such as creationism/Intelligent Design (c/ID) to be introduced to the science curriculum. As there is no reason to include these fairy tales on scientific grounds proponents push the idea of "fairness" and of "examining both sides of the question". Science does not progress on the basis of "fairness" - some things are supported by the evidence and some are not. The proponents of c/ID no doubt are happy to take advantage of modern medicine and communication devices such the ubiquitous cellphone but do not seem to realize if their campaign met with success it would a first step back to the same stifling medieval world view that has blighted the development of science and technology in Islam. When the main worry of a cosmonaut is how to pray according to medieval flat earth rules whilst orbiting the planet experiencing sunrise and sunset every 90 minutes or so it is surely a sign that something is very wrong. (see Criticism of the Qur'an and The relation between Islam and science Definitely well worth a read is What Is the Quran? (pdf) by Toby Lester, published originally by Atlantic Monthly)

Quote - "Muslims do not accept that one can discuss the Koran in depth, because they say it was written by dictation from God," Tauran said. "With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith." Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, in an interview on Friday with the French Catholic daily La Croix.

Quote - “What politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I have found in short supply.” Nobel laureate Al Gore (reg rqd)

October 18th 2007

Sense About Science - instead of accepting the outrageous claims often made for products by the manufacturers, claims often reeking of pseudoscience, a group of young scientists (part of the Voice of Young Science network, VoYS) is challenging firms to back up the advertizing copy with real evidence. A pdf document, There Goes the Science Bit, detailing their findings can be downloaded here and it makes for fascinating reading, covering products as varied as a treatment for "parasites", a yogurt that is "proven to optimise the release of energy", a program for your computer that "modulates the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation, strengthens the immune system and brings the body back to health" and detox patches that remove “harmful toxins including fatty acids, cholesterol".

Suffice it to say that the claims for these marvellous products cannot survive proper scrutiny. In fact the daft explanations offered by the manufacturers would be hilarious if they weren't so mendacious. On reflection that is unfair to some of them perhaps who aren't lying, merely pig ignorant. And we are not talking of fly-by-night dodgy internet outfits, some of these firms are household names. The scientists involved are to be commended for some excellent work, work that will continue. Here is their statement of intent "We are fed up with the way pseudoscientific claims play on the public's fears and spread science myths that deceive and misinform. We think it is wrong that members of the public are misled about products and practices based on unproven and pseudoscientific claims. Why, when our scientific research is held accountable through peer review, are these claims not tested with similar rigour? By demanding answers for questions that typically go unasked, we aim to encourage more scrutiny of pseudoscience, expose misinformation and bring those responsible to account." For more see Sense About Science including this press reaction to the campaign.

Objective: Obfuscate - for those of you who have been following the scandal surrounding the exhibition at the San Diego Natural History Museum of the Dead Sea Scrolls (see Scrolls of Dishonor) here is an example (scroll down to comments) of the quality of the opposition to Charles Gadda's well researched charges of poor scholarship and bias. Or to be more accurate it is an example of how to avoid answering the charges, and a poor example at that. Such obfuscation is a transparently obvious and rather stupid ploy, ignoring the main elements in a debate and concentrating on irrelevant items and then banging on about them ad nauseam. It is certainly the way in which a B Ralph is trying, rather clumsily, to change the subject. Ralph's somewhat frenzied accusations of some kind of collusion between Gadda and prominent scrolls scholar Norman Golb sound like a little paranoia is creeping into the debate - Jewish conspiracy anyone? The contrast with Gadda's measured responses is highly suggestive that Ralph has lost the plot and so has invented a new one - a plot to blacken the reputation of the "scholars" behind the exhibition.

If these people are so certain of the nature of the scrolls and their provenance surely they can only gain by inviting experts from outside their little tent to air their findings - which they can then refute. The fact that they have not done this is tacit acknowledgement of their inability to do so. B Ralph's increasingly irrelevant diatribes only serve to confirm that view. To refer to Gadda's meticulously researched articles as a "deceitful and vicious campaign" and calling the man himself a lying bully shows that Ralph has little of substance to add to the discussion but plenty of spluttering venom. A reasoned refutation of the points that Gadda has made is still missing from this discussion - all we have seen so far is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Quote - "I don’t want to live in a society where I get stoned for committing adultery. I want to live in a society where I get stoned. And then commit adultery." Ibn Warraq speaking in a recent debate. Also see Ibn Warraq on How to Debate a Muslim.

October 24th 2007

Can Women Save the Planet? - after the horrific events of 9/11 Richard Dawkins wrote a memorable piece calling attention to the "elephant in the room" - the elephant being religion and the malign power it can wield over gullible people, such as suicidal hijackers. 80 has devoted a good deal of time to discussing, criticizing and mocking this elephant in its myriad forms, all the while practically unaware of an even bigger, but related elephant. This problematic pachyderm is human overpopulation. A case can be made that the origin of nearly all major conflicts in the world can be traced to the simple fact that there is far too many of us. As the Earth's resources become depleted there will be more wars as competition heats up for what is left, be it oil, coal or water. 80's bête noire, religion, is very definitely part of the problem, in particular the attitude (see here) of the major "abrahamic" religions toward half of the human population, women. This is particularly notable in Islam but Roman Catholicism can be little better.

This planet's resources are running out or becoming uneconomical or impossible to extract, the biosphere is damaged by pollution and the concomitant global warming, by deforestation and by hunting - this article tells us that we are close to wiping out our nearest relatives the primates, let alone many other, less photogenic and appealing species. All of these problems can be laid at the door of overpopulation and as developing countries aspire to western standards of living things can only get worse. A recent study suggests that to raise the world's living standards to say, that of the UK would need the resources of 2 to 3 planet Earths. While the current excess of greenhouse gases must be addressed immediately in the long term a reduction in the sheer number of human beings is the only answer. This is where the role of religion and the place of women is crucial. At the moment hurtling around the planet every 90 minutes the International Space Station and the space shuttle are both commanded by women - the fact that this is considered remarkable is a poor reflection on even the liberal west's attitude to females and shows how far there is to go. It is far worse for women in the third world living under systems such as sharia that automatically assume they are of less worth than men. The same misogynist attitude is evident in the actions of the cruel old men in the Vatican who use the power of superstition to deny women birth control and abortion, even when necessary to save a women's life, as in Nicaragua. One cannot ignore the evidence that Islam, Roman Catholicism and fundamentalist Christianity see women's god-given role as ignorant, submissive baby machines. The effect of such a callous attitude on the quality of women's lives and overpopulation is obvious.

It has been found that as living standards and education rise in a population so the birthrate falls. Those who, in order to deal with infant mortality and lack of social care have a large number of children as an insurance policy, no longer feel the need. Also better education can lead to less slavish adherence to the teachings of those who fulminate against birth control. It is doubly despicable that those who oppose contraception also oppose abortion. If the former was made more widely available it is obvious there would be less need of the latter. Such simple logic is apparently beyond the comprehension of dogmatic clerics. The fact that many evangelical Christians promote the unworkable idea of abstinence rather than contraception shows how little real empathy exists for ordinary vulnerable people, particularly teenagers experiencing the first rush of hormones through their developing bodies. Pope Ratzinger (was he ever a teenager?) recently made a speech decrying religious violence but the old hypocrite failed to address the mental violence perpetrated by his organization every day. To tell those living in poverty that they must not practice birth control is not only damaging to these people but also to the whole planet, crushed by the weight of human beings as it is. To make family planning universally available is in the circumstances the only moral thing to do. Religionists may say their god forbids birth control - but how does their god feel about driving animals to extinction by loss of habitat and hunting? Surely if they believe their deity created the biosphere what right do we have to trash it? (Some are indeed asking that question.)

Climate change mitigation, pollution control and conservation are all vital but will be ineffective unless the elephant of overpopulation is acknowledged and confronted. What is needed is the education of women, particularly in the Islamic world, and their full emancipation. This has yet to happen properly in the so-called liberal democracies with their glass ceilings and body image propaganda, but even this situation is preferable to the state of affairs for most women across the planet. The fact that religious cultures exist that will kill anyone who educates girls is horrific and shows how religious fundamentalists will keep women subdued, ignorant and oppressed if they can get away with it - and scum like the Taliban are getting away with it right now. In Iraq Bush's pre-emptive invasion has in fact set back the cause of women in that country by centuries. The post invasion chaos that has unleashed the religious loonies has also resulted in Iraqi women being dragged back into the dark ages once more. Such missteps cannot be allowed to happen. The future of human existence, and that of much of the biosphere is tied to the empowerment of women all over the planet. The more women are in control of their lives the more population levels will drop - eventually it is to be hoped this could lead to a sustainable human presence on this planet. Right now the signs are far from good.

Secularist of the Year - the National Secular Society (NSS) has announced the winner is Mina Ahadi, an Iranian dissident and founder of the Committee of Ex-Muslims and also the Committee Against Stoning. In presenting the award Richard Dawkins called attention to how important was the empowerment of women in the Islamic world. Here is an extract from his speech, "I have long felt that the key to solving the worldwide menace of Islamic terrorism and oppression would eventually be the awakening of women, and Mina Ahadi is a charismatic leader working to that end. The brutal suppression of the rights of women in many countries throughout the Islamic world is an obvious outrage. Slightly less obvious, but just as outrageous, is the supine willingness of western liberals to go along with it. It is worse than supine, it is patronising and condescending: "Wife-beating is part of 'their' culture. Who are we to condemn their traditions?" A religion so insecure as to mandate the death penalty for apostasy is not to be trifled with, and ex-Muslims who stand up and fight deserve our huge admiration and gratitude for their courage. Right out in front of this honourable band is Mina Ahadi. I salute her and congratulate her on this well-deserved award as Secularist of the Year." Terry Sanderson, president of the NSS, said, "We are proud to have been able to give Mina this honour – she is a woman of incredible courage and tenacity. The suffering she has endured has not dimmed her determination to improve the lot of women oppressed by Islam and other religious traditions." Also see this piece from Johann Hari on the dangers faced by women such as Mina Ahadi. Next time you hear some vapid celebrity's soap opera problems endlessly recycled in the media (hello Britney) compare such empty-headed pop tarts to the courageous women who face degradation,torture and murder for merely wanting what many in liberal countries take for granted.

Quote - "Theology is nonsense on stilts and yet grown men of high intelligence spend their entire lives running in circles pursuing answers to questions that aren’t even questions. They seek to make excuses for the inexcusable and apologies for the unforgivable." Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society (NSS) commenting in the latest Newsline on the controversy surrounding Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. Also see Turnbull's Bull (Newsline is a free weekly email newsletter from the NSS)

Quote - "Every family has a black sheep." a spokesman for Barack Obama on being told his boss and Dick Cheney are eighth cousins.

October 30th 2007

Archaeology Abused - those of you that have had the misfortune to see "psychic" Derek Acorah going through his spiel on TV will be delighted to learn that his antics have come under the keen gaze of Bad Archaeology. Archaeology? Why yes, the multi-talented Acorah not only talks to the dead through his spirit guardian (see Tony Youens on this) but also indulges in a little "psychic archaeology". LivingTV, the bunch that are partly to blame for inflicting Acorah on the public gush on about his latest show thus "Psychic medium Derek Acorah returns to LIVING with historian Tessa Dunlop in to explore Paranormal Egypt as they attempt to solve some of the World's oldest mysteries. Join Derek and his team of investigators as they investigate some of Egypt's most famous locations, in a bid to contact the spirits of Tutankhamen and Nefertiti to uncover the truth behind the country's darkest secrets.” Such utter nonsense is more than fair game for the Angry Archaeologists and they do not disappoint. Acorah is an outstanding example of a mediocrity doing well by insulting his audience's intelligence - which is quite a trick when you consider the quality of his performance and material. Many will watch him claiming they do so just for a laugh - but his pathetic trivialisation of history and archaeology is itself offensive to anyone that values real knowledge of the past won by careful research, hard work and intellectual effort. Three things that appear to be utterly missing from Acorah's output.

Con or Cock-Up? - for those who have, like 80, been following the scandal of the San Diego Natural History Museum's Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit (see Objective Obfuscate) here is a fascinating document. It is detailed look (in PDF format) at the catalogue of the exhibit by Norman Golb of the University of Chicago, an expert on the scrolls and the latest research. He is scathing not only of the quality of the scholarship displayed but also of the actual production standards of the catalogue itself. On the obviously partisan nature of the exhibit as presented by the museum he has this to say, "While "many scholars" do still believe in the original Qumran-Essene theory, many others do not, and it behooves the responsible parties and, all the more, the appropriate officials of the sponsoring museum and its academic partner, to explain why such a dogmatically one-sided position has been taken in the catalogue presented by them." While reading Golb's criticisms 80 was led to ponder whether this exhibit is the result of conspiracy or cock-up - it would appear to be a both. The number of elementary mistakes in translation revealed by Golb, and the errors in copying even those translations that have been taken from existing works smacks of ineptitude but the consistent plugging of a far from certain interpretation of the scrolls and their provenance seems to be entirely intentional.

The whole catalogue takes the unjustified assumption of the existence of a 1st century BCE mystical "monastic" style community churning out scrolls in their "scriptorium" on the shore of the Dead Sea and treats it as fact. Having read Charles Gadd's investigative pieces on the exhibition 80 was pretty certain that some sort of academic "con" was being perpetrated. In 80's view the catalogue appears to be an attempt to ape the appearance of scholarship but with with no real understanding of its methods in order to legitimize an unsupported partisan view of the origin of these artifacts. Golb's piece would seem to confirm this.

Qualified to Comment - it is a common and tedious reaction of senior churchmen to the likes of Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett to assert that these writers cannot criticize religion without learning about its theological subtleties. They claim the picture of religious faith shown by the "new atheists" is a caricature and does not portray their faith, err, faithfully. 80 has pointed out before that this is bunkum but Edmund Standing does a far better job. In a piece in the excellent Butterflies and Wheels he takes the position espoused by such as Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and shows it to be, to put it mildly, untenable. The fact that Standing has a "BA in Theology & Religious Studies with First Class Honours" ought to satisfy Williams and chums as to his qualifications - which means they shall now have to find another way of attempting to defend their particular brand of claptrap. Mere accusations of theological ignorance are hardly sufficient. (Further to 80's musings on the Quran do read this piece by Adrian Reddy also from Butterfies and Wheels. In fact why not subscribe to the free weekly B and W email update?)

Fascist Fashion - here is a piece by Christopher Hitchens defending the use of the term Islamofascism. 80 doesn't want to seem facetious in the face of Hitchen's erudite and persuasive arguments but picture if you will the Taliban, Osama bin Laden or those guys calling for beheadings in a London street protest. They are all indeed deeply unpleasant, violent people whose views are to be despised, and whose actions opposed at every opportunity - but they are not fascists. Say what you like about fascists but they always have a very good line in immaculate uniforms and shiny boots, buckles and buttons. Sartorial elegance is the last thing that springs to mind when confronted by the turbans and whispy beards of the Islamists. To be a proper fascist you must at least have a smart uniform. These people are indeed like fascists in that they are despicable, but they can only earn the name if they get a grip on their wardrobe. Perhaps they should take a tip from the Burmese generals - at least these revolting little throwbacks look like proper fascists...

Wheels Coming Off the Wagon? - here is a fascinating (and hefty, at 10 pages) article by David D. Kirkpatrick, writing in the New York Times, called The Evangelical Crackup (reg rqd). This is a detailed look at how a younger generation of evangelicals has grown tired of the strident conservative politicking on the same old subjects of abortion and gay marriage. Not that they are in favor of these things you understand but they realize there are more pressing things in this world to worry about - unsurprisingly global warming and the war in Iraq are two issues that are frequently mentioned. If the views expressed in Kirkpatrick's piece translate into action (or inaction) at the ballot box then any of the current ragbag of Republican candidates that assume automatic support from Christian conservatives will be making a big mistake. Quite one of the most optimistic articles 80 has read in a while. Not that the Democratic contenders will have an easy time of it, going by the attitude of a "values voter" quoted in the Times piece, “Obama sounds too much like Osama. When he says his name, I am like, ‘I am not voting for a Muslim!’ ” Dumber than dirt doesn't really cover it. (Susie Bright takes issue with Kirkpatrick's analysis here - believing any change is only superficial)

Quote - "The first day or so we all pointed to our countries. The third or fourth day we were pointing to our continents. By the fifth day, we were aware of only one Earth." Saudi astronaut Sultan bin Salman Al-Saud.

Quote - “The birth rate is about six per second, and the death rate three per second. United Nations figures foresee numbers levelling out when we have between 8 and 10 billion humans by 2050 – roughly a 50% increase on today’s figure.” Chris Rapley, Director of the British Antarctic Survey. For more see here.

November 11th 2007

What's In A Name? - this item reports that "Research into the views of 1,000 adults in the UK has shown 42% said they pray to God with about one in six praying every day and one in four praying at least once a week". Apparently "After praying, 38% reported feeling "peaceful and content", 30% said they were strengthened, 22% said they felt close to God, 21% said they felt reassured and safe and 19% said they felt happy and joyful." More amazingly "A total of 57% of those who pray said they believed that prayer changed what happened in their life and 32% said they had seen the effect of prayer on their lives." As you can well imagine this survey has been welcomed in certain quarters - well in one anyway - Tearfund, the Christian aid charity that commissioned the survey. We are told "Top prayer topics in order of popularity were family and friends, thanking God, guidance, healing and worldwide problems such as poverty, wars and disaster." Looking around at the sorry state of things on planet Earth 80 doubts the efficacy of all this pleading to the almighty.

Calling it prayer somehow makes the whole exercise seem more deserving of respect than if it was given a more accurate description, such as wishful thinking, which is all it really is. The wishful thinking tag certainly makes more sense of this bizarre finding, "Prayer was so popular that even those with no religion were participating - with one in eight, or 12%, of this group praying sometimes". Let's try that one again, "Wishful thinking was so popular that even those with no religion were participating - with one in eight, or 12%, of this group thinking wishfully sometimes." Even if we do allow that prayer has some kind of magic power why should it even be necessary? Why would an omniscient deity have to be asked for things - if there is a real need wouldn't he/she/it know already? Another problem with prayer is that for every person who prays for all things bright and beautiful there is another one praying that the first one burns forever in hell. Whose prayers are best, Dubya's or bin Laden's? Perhaps because of this god gave up listening to our incessant whining a long time ago and that is why we have war, famine, torture (including waterboarding), disease and all the rest. Update - Theo Hobson writing in the Guardian on the subject of prayer vitiates any point (or points) he is trying to make by claiming to know what atheists think. Poor Theo has only a very limited number of toys in his playbox and today he is, yet again, playing with his straw man, who is beginning to look a bit tatty. (80 has looked at Hobson's output before and was less than impressed. See Hobson's Cult, Hobson's Hissy Fit and Hobson's Horrors.)

Quote - Lady Claire Gurney: "How do you know you're God?"
Jack Arnold Alexander Tancred Gurney, 14th Earl of Gurney: "Simple. When I pray to Him, I find I am talking to myself." from the excellent movie The Ruling Class (1972)

Grab Randi's Dough - here is a good piece from Wired on how to win James Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge by following ten simple tips. The writer, Rob Beschizza, has obviously been following the various claimants that have surfaced over the years, especially those who accept the challenge and then come up with cockamamie reasons for chickening out, just like that ghoulish harridan Sylvia Browne. The only one of the tips that appears to present any real difficulty for the would-be claimant is number 10, "Do have paranormal powers". Mmm, tricky... (As is often the case, it is well worth scrolling down to the comments below)

Good Riddance - but not quite yet. BBC news has the welcome report that Gilbert "Miracle Babies" Deya is to be deported to Kenya to face "five counts of child stealing between 1999 and 2004." But don't expect this alleged child trafficker to go straight away - there is an appeals process which "could continue in British courts for months". For the whole story see About Time below.

Today's Sermon - is called President Jonah, Meet Oliver Cromwell! and is delivered by Gore Vidal in fine pulpit-pounding fashion. Read it or better still, listen to the man himself. "Today, as I sit, like so many Californians, at the heart of what seems to be a vast burning bush, I realize that Jehovah’s jinx of the weirdest American president is as operative in this lowering pre-Halloween season as it was last February when, guided by Scripture, I posted here on the Internet the bad news that our nominal president was seriously jinxed by an unrelenting deity who, from his throne of fire, now blows fiercely upon the west coast of the United States, spreading from San Diego to Malibu to Lake Arrowhead."

About Time - finally extradition proceedings have started in the case of "archbishop", wonderworker and author Gilbert "Miracle Babies" Deya. The Kenyan authorities are keen to talk to him regarding charges of baby-trafficking over a number of years. He claimed to make barren and post-menopausal women pregnant by prayer - obviously much more believable than baby-trafficking. 80 has been watching the slow process of returning Deya to Kenya since August 2004 and quite a show it has been. Here is what 80 wrote last year - follow the link for the history of this extraordinary case. "...click here for the ongoing story of self-styled archbishop Gilbert Deya, his millionaire lifestyle and miracle babies, police investigations, arrest warrants, extraordinary rants and curses, and more. Latest from Gideon Kibunja of Nairobi CID "Gilbert Deya has shamed all Kenyans and we wish the UK would kick him out." Mr Kibunja, there are plenty in the UK that share your sentiment." Update - "A woman desperate to have a child was "assaulted" in order to make her believe she had conceived a "miracle baby", a court heard" See the rest of the story here. A judgement on Deya's extradition is due November 8th.

Theology Defined - by that bastion of rationality and commonsense, Jesus and Mo's barmaid.

What's Good About Religion? - click here and the estimable Pat Condell will tell you. Amazingly he finds enough to fill 6 minutes and 22 seconds. And, to commemorate the state visit to Britain of the man Peter Tatchell calls the "killer king", here is Pat's earlier video Why are we friends with Saudi Arabia?

November 13th 2007

Scientologists Anonymous - households in the south of England are currently finding leaflets on the doormat from an outfit called Narconon, asking the question, "Do you have a loved one on drugs?" and telling the reader that "There is hope!" and offering a toll-free (0800) phone number and a web site, www.drugrehab.co.uk. That is all there is - no other information at all - not even the useful tip that Narconon is a Scientologist front organization steeped in pseudoscience. This is the same Narconon that fell foul of the San Francisco's school system back in 2005. "State Superintendent Jack O'Connell urged all California schools to drop the Narconon antidrug education program after a new state evaluation concluded that its curriculum offers inaccurate and unscientific information. "We'll get a letter out to every school district today, saying this program is filled with inaccuracies and does not reflect widespread medical and factual evidence," O'Connell said of Narconon Drug Prevention & Education, a free program with ties to the Church of Scientology. If you do have a loved one on drugs do you really want a vulnerable person to fall under the sway of this clownish yet sinister cult? For more information about Narconon see Narconon Exposed and The Narconon Scam. 80 has looked at Narconon before, see Hubbard's Minions and Narconon is Scientology. For more about the cult itself than they would ever like you to know check out Operation Clambake. Should you ever have the misfortune to meet any Scientologists be sure to ask them about Lisa McPherson. Oh, for those that really want to know, here is L Ron Hubbard's "religion" accurately and briefly summarized.

Godless Wrath - It seems not a day goes by without the media reporting on religionists who are offended this or angered by that, sensitive souls that they are. Now, it is hardly possible for an atheist to redress the balance by reason of numbers alone, but Greta Christina, writing in her blog has had a damn' good go. You will need a moment as the list is long, but as far as 80 can see, completely justified. But then I would say that, wouldn't I? 80 has been known to indulge in a cathartic rant himself now and again but Greta Christina's offering is far more comprehensive. Highly Recommended.

It Is Not A Question To Be Asked - in a BBC news article concerning the row over plans to drive a ship canal through a "bridge", between India and Sri Lanka, we are given an insight into the blinkered and repressed world view of the religiously devout which should give anyone interested in free speech cause for concern. The "bridge" is actually a series of shoals and islands, although those protesting at the plan claim the features were actually built by the Hindu god Ram and his monkey army and therefore any canal across it would be sacrilegious. There are objections to the project on environmental grounds but it was a comment from part of the religious lobby that caught 80's eye, especially at a time when religious groups around the world are trying to put rational examination of their beliefs beyond question by legislation, such as the various "religious hatred" laws being proposed. Murli Manohar Joshi, a senior member of the Hindu nationalist party, made these chilling comments, "Just like one cannot ask whether Christ was born to a virgin, it is a matter of faith. So you cannot ask whether this Sethu (bridge) was built by Ram. It is not a question to be asked." Those last eight words show just what could happen to free inquiry if religionists have their way and is totally against the kind of free rational inquiry essential for an enlightened society.

The placing of religious claims beyond question would be very welcome not just to Hindus but also to their Christian and Muslim counterparts for it would do away with them having to answer criticism. All they would have to do when faced with difficult questions would be to say, "It is not a question to be asked". In fact suppression of information over the "bridge" row has already ocurred. In September the Beeb reported "The Indian government has withdrawn a controversial report submitted in court earlier this week which questioned the existence of the Hindu god Ram." In the report the Archaeological Survey of India pointed out grounds for believing the bridge was not a natural feature were "..solely based on the Hindu mythological epic Ramayana.They said there was no scientific evidence to prove that the events described in Ramayana ever took place or that the characters depicted in the epic were real." This attack on Lord Ram (and his horde of simian contractors - did he pay them in peanuts?) so incensed the faithful that the craven government withdrew the report. Querying the veracity of a supernatural fairy tale is obviously "not a question to be asked". (For a good overview of the unhealthy entwining of politics, religion and archaeology in the Ram's bridge contoversy see Bad Archaeology.) Update - by happy coincidence that odd couple, Jesus and Mo' have something to say on those questions that are not to be asked.

November 16th 2007

Homeopathy Exchange - earlier this week Jeanette Winterson wrote In defence of homeopathy. The article, published in the Guardian was little more than a rehash of the same old pseudoscience and anecdotery, and deserved a strong response. For some years now it has been obvious that homeopathy is nonsense with no scientific rationale behind the gobbledegook - any properly designed study shows this - for example here. The requisite response came from Ben Goldacre in his latest Bad Science column (also in the Guardian). As the subheading accurately indicates "Ben Goldacre follows a trail of fudged statistics, bogus surveys and widespread self-deception." Will this change any minds in the homeopathic camp? No, because insisting on the efficacy of this 19th century quackery is purely a faith position and has nothing to do with the standards of evidence required for scientific validation. In fact the adherents of Hahnemann's hocus-pocus are less inclined to respond rationally to criticism than to throw a hissy fit. As Goldacre puts it, and he should know having been on the sharp end of the homeopaths' wrath, "When I'm feeling generous, I think: homeopathy could have value as placebo, on the NHS even, although there are ethical considerations, and these serious cultural side-effects to be addressed. But when they're suing people instead of arguing with them, telling people not to take their medical treatments, killing patients, running conferences on HIV fantasies, undermining the public's understanding of evidence and, crucially, showing absolutely no sign of ever being able to engage in a sensible conversation about the perfectly simple ethical and cultural problems that their practice faces, I think: these people are just morons." (also see Faith-Based Medicine)

Update - to the above. In answer to the old "where's the harm?" comeback from homeopathists read this "Once we laughed at primitive superstitions. Now we teach them in TAFE colleges. You’d laugh, if children like nine-month-old Gloria Thomas weren’t paying for our retreat from reason in this Ylang-Ylang Age. A coroner in Sydney this month held an inquest into Gloria’s agonising death from severe bacterial infections. The child had been so riddled with eczema that her skin was paper dry and split in many places. The court was told Gloria’s parents, of Indian background, had preferred to treat her not with drugs tested under the Western scientific method that has made us so healthy and long-lived, but with homeopathic cures." Taken from an op-ed piece by Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun.

Wahabism - is a particularly austere form of Islam practised and promoted by the Saudi royal family. Well, maybe not all of them. How's this for a shopping list? "...two top-of-the-range Chevrolet 4x4s, a thermal night vision kit for his Hummer H2, dozens of designer watches and jewels, a selection of handguns and two Arab karaoke machines. One takeaway meal came to almost $800 (£391). And then there is the $2,500 item on a trip to a hotel in Casablanca that reads: "Girls: party night 5". And that's only part of it, the Guardian reveals in a story about Prince Mohammed bin Nawwaf bin Abdul Aziz, a nephew of King Abdullah, who has been told by a London court to settle his bills, bills in the region of £3m. This is obviously some obscure meaning of austere that hitherto had escaped 80's attention. One wonders if the prince is held up as an example to students in the many Saudi-funded madrassas around the world? One rule for the rich and one rule for the poor - 'twas ever thus.

Jihad and the Petrodollar - listen out for Middle East analyst Roger Hardy on the BBC World Service on Friday November 16th. Hardy has spent the last two months investigating Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia's austere brand of Islam and in a"two part program he looks at the fierce debate over whether Wahhabism and Saudi petrodollars have fomented extremism." (Debate? What debate, doesn't everyone know already? And have done for years? And no, nothing much has been done about addressing the problem.)

Quote - "What they are saying is that religion has far too large a slice of the public pie, and far too great an influence (especially in proportion to the numbers of their active votaries) on public policy (churches are self-constituted civil society organisations like trades unions, and are entitled to have their say, but no more than any other such institution); that people can believe what they like, but please do it in private; that they should pay for their own schools and are not entitled to our public tax money for them; and, in general, that they can think and do what they like so long as they do not insist on stuffing it into other peoples' faces - or in the extreme, killing them for believing or behaving differently." A C Grayling, writing in the Guardian on what the "new atheists" are saying as opposed to what affronted religionists think they are saying.

One Man's UFO - a while back some people were bemoaning the fact that UFO sightings don't seem to be as frequent as they were and this may well be the case but it doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of true believers out there. At a recent meeting in Washington of former pilots who had seen UFOs was a retired US Air Force flier, one James Penniston, who reminisced about an incident in the UK near Woodbridge when he was stationed there in the 1980s. We are told "Nothing in my training prepared me for what we were witnessing. He said he saw an inexplicable triangular craft in a clearing in the woods with "blue and yellow lights swirling around the exterior." The UFO was "warm to the touch and felt like metal," Penniston said. One side of the craft had pictorial symbols and "the largest symbol was a triangle, which was centered in the middle of the others," he said. Then after 45 minutes the light from the object "began to intensify" and it then "shot off at an unbelievable speed" before 80 Air Force personnel, he said. "In my logbook, I wrote 'speed: impossible.'" Impossible would seem to be the right word - perhaps Penniston would like to read of the incident from another point of view. One man's UFO is another man's something else entirely. As with most UFO incidents given proper scrutiny this one does not hold up at all well. Ian Ridpath is a British science writer and broadcaster who has written a comprehensive debunking of what became known as the Rendlesham Incident - read his account and see if you can find find any points of congruence with Penniston's story.

It would appear that not only distance but also the passage of years can lend enchantment to the view. As for the testimony of other participants at the Washington meeting one word covers the lot - anecdotal. These folk may be former pilots but that does not make their testimony any more reliable. See this quote from Ridpath's UFO skeptic pages, "A cornerstone of the UFO believers’ case is that UFOs are reported by trained observers such as pilots whose eye witness testimony would readily be accepted in a court of law. However, J. Allen Hynek, the pro-UFO astronomer who coined the famous term Close Encounters of the Third Kind, wrote in his book The Hynek UFO Report (p.271 of the paperback edition) that “commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses”. As it turned out, Hynek found that the majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects, just as they are for other UFO witnesses." And that presumably includes would-be presidential candidates.....

November 19th 2007

Princely Pedophile Protector - defends fatherhood. The head of the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor has condemned plans that, among other things, will make it easier for lesbian couples to have access to IVF treatments. It is great to see him so upset over the chance that such couples can have a family, claiming it will undermine "fatherhood" - it is a crying bloody shame that he didn't show as much concern for the victims of the pedophile priest, Michael Hill, who he protected back in 1985. Protected him and effectively enabled him to molest more children. How can O'Connor sleep at night? The idea that such a hypocrite can make pronouncements on "morality" is enough to turn 80's stomach.