Lennox's non-fairy tale?

Oxford University Professor, John Lennox mumbled some incoherent nonsense (it is reported, e.g. here and here, and much better here) at the 'National Prayer Breakfast'.  Presumably Lennox is quite good at mathematics.  If not, he would not be a professor at Oxford University.  Nevertheless, if the reports of the event are to be believed then he seems to grasp very little of logic.  Isn't that surprising?

Apparently he 'preached' that atheism was a "delusion" and a "fairy tale for those afraid of the light".

Can anyone explain to me how this can be true?  Surely atheism is the lack of all these religious fairy tales, not specifically the Christian fairy-tale that Lennox happens to like.

Perhaps Prof. Lennox has been an outspoken critic of "God Delusion" author Richard Dawkins, but if that is the only thing that makes him famous then perhaps he should be called 'a-famous'. 

As for blaming atheism for the "moral drift" in society, (as is reported), I would just point him to accounts of the activities of Roman Catholic Priests over recent years and indeed Muslim men who have married child brides over many centuries (collectively, at least).  Where is the moral drift now?  Has it been led by religious men, perchance?

Dismissing the common assumption that science and religion are not compatible, he said  "There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between world views, atheism and theism".

If not, why is he picking this particular fight? Moving on, we hear that:

"God is not the same kind of explanation as science is. 

Now . . . on this point we can agree.  One is a delusion and one is not. But then:

God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done."

Lennox might tell us this.  But after all, this is just a fairy story!

Isn't it?

Dr Lennox was addressing over 600 people at the Bible Society-sponsored National Prayer Breakfast at the Houses of Parliament.
As Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, Dr Lennox has frequently spoken out against modern-day atheism, calling Richard Dawkins 'wrong'.
He said that the new atheism is responsible for 'the moral drift' in today's society. And he added that science and religion are not opposed.
'There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between worldviews, atheism and theism,' he said.
'God is not the same kind of explanation as science is,' he added. 'God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done.'
He warned that, 'The playing field is not level since atheism has become so dominant ... and is often regarded as the default position in the media.'
The risk of this is, he said, that society would forget 'the contribution of Christianity to the moral foundations of our society'.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpufvvOxford University Professor John Lennox told over 600 people at the National Prayer Breakfast why he is not convinced by atheism.

The math professor told guests at the Bible Society-sponsored event that atheism was a "delusion" and a "fairy tale for those afraid of the light".

He urged Christians to have "the courage to create public space" for the discussion of "a biblical worldview", as he pointed to the example of Tyndale, who translated the Bible into English 400 years ago and would eventually be executed.

Dr Lennox, who has been an outspoken critic of "God Delusion" author Richard Dawkins, blamed new atheism for the "moral drift" in society.

He also dismissed the common assumption that science and religion are not compatible.

"There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between worldviews, atheism and theism," he said.

"God is not the same kind of explanation as science is. God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done."

Atheism is a 'delusion', a 'fairy tale for those afraid of the light'. That was the message from Prof John Lennox from Oxford University on Tuesday morning (25 June).
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf

Dr Lennox was addressing over 600 people at the Bible Society-sponsored National Prayer Breakfast at the Houses of Parliament.
As Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, Dr Lennox has frequently spoken out against modern-day atheism, calling Richard Dawkins 'wrong'.
He said that the new atheism is responsible for 'the moral drift' in today's society. And he added that science and religion are not opposed.
'There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between worldviews, atheism and theism,' he said.
'God is not the same kind of explanation as science is,' he added. 'God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done.'
He warned that, 'The playing field is not level since atheism has become so dominant ... and is often regarded as the default position in the media.'
The risk of this is, he said, that society would forget 'the contribution of Christianity to the moral foundations of our society'.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf

Atheism is a 'delusion', a 'fairy tale for those afraid of the light'. That was the message from Prof John Lennox from Oxford University on Tuesday morning (25 June).
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf

Atheism is a 'delusion', a 'fairy tale for those afraid of the light'. That was the message from Prof John Lennox from Oxford University on Tuesday morning (25 June).
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf

Atheism is a 'delusion', a 'fairy tale for those afraid of the light'. That was the message from Prof John Lennox from Oxford University on Tuesday morning (25 June).
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf

Eating well in England

I ate very well in England, both last night and this lunch time.  However, the words of W Somerset Maugham come to mind:

"If you want to eat well in England, eat three breakfasts."

Right Royal Shame!

In this week's news we hear once again that the Queen is going to get a 5% pay rise next year, while everyone else working for the government has their increase capped at 1%.  This is on top of the 16% that she gained this year, as I mentioned in early April.

The excuse is that the royal estates are bringing in more income than they used to and that there is an agreement that the Queen gets a proportion of the income. Don't forget that she also got a boost to cover the extra costs associated with the jubilee last year, and she has been allowed to retain this year even without a jubilee to pay for.

Isn't it time for the country to put its collective foot down?  Of course that won't happen with our current barely-elected government, even though they must realise how unpopular the news has been.

Naturally royalists tell us what good value for money we get from the royal family, but with the further news that the Duke and Duchess of York's apartment is getting a £1 million makeover, I would ask how that case can possibly be defended.

Bring on the republic!

Taking rice cereusly

Yes that was a deliberate mis-spelling, and yes it was meant to sound like 'seriously'.

Why is it that we are warned not to reheat the leftovers from a Chinese takeaway on the following day?

I had always assumed that it was because of risks associated with the prawns or chicken ingredients, but I was surprised to find out recently that this is not the case.  Some rice is contaminated with a bacteria called Bacillus Cereus, and certain strains of it are harmful to humans.  The bacteria exists in the raw cereal in the form of spores which are activated by moisture during cooking.  If the cooking is not thorough enough, some survive and as the rice cools, they multiply they produce a toxin, cereulide, which gives us food poisoning.  That toxin is not broken down by further cooking.

I must admit that I'm not very keen on rice.  It tends to taste slightly bitter to me, although I do enjoy fried rice with my Chinese dishes.  Little did I know that fried rice is one of the most risky forms.  If the rice has been boiled insufficiently, then not refrigerated quickly but subsequently re-cooked then it is at its most dangerous!

I think I still trust my favourite Chinese takeaway place though.  I always enjoy the food that they cook.

See another interesting an informative article here.

Preaching to the choir

We often hear the accusation that we are preaching to the choir.

On last week's episode of The Pod Delusion (a great British podcast 'about interesting things') I heard an interview with singer Shelley Segal.  She said that she liked to think that she was singing with the choir when she spreads her rationalist messages.  I liked that, but I have a slightly different point of view.

I think that half the choir are probably atheists anyway, so they might appreciate,  from time to time, a different message in the sermons that they have to suffer!

JET - 30 years old, and still state-of-the-art!

Today is the 30th anniversary of the first day of operation of the Joint European Torus, JET, and it is still the most successful fusion device in the world.  That's both a great opportunity to celebrate and a tragedy at the same time

During two days of celebration various eminent speakers told stories of their experiences and shared anecdotes.  Paul-Henri Rebut, the father of the JET project spoke of the friendly rivalry between the JET team and their American competitors in Princeton who built the machine called TFTR.  He explained that there had been a wager relating to a specific milestone in the operation of the two machines.  It was agreed that the team that first achieved a plasma current of one million amps for one second would host the other team for a celebration meal.  The losing team would travel across the Atlantic and bring the wine.  As a Frenchman, Rebut was glad to have won the wager but regretted the consequential need to drink Californian wine!


Other speakers spoke of the fun of operating the JET facility (which is still true) and yet the responsibility for delivering results to compensate for the expenditure (which is also true).   At least twice it was claimed that JET is the oldest operating tokamak in the world, but that is assuredly untrue.  As they could easily discover at www.tokamak.info, this honour probably goes to a machine that is currently called GOLEM, in Prague, having been moved and renamed three times.  It was built in about 1963, under the name TM1 (with the M translating from Russian as "small".)

However, nobody could doubt that JET has been the most successful.

The successful life of JET is indeed worthy of celebration, and with good fortune it will run for several years to come.  However, real progress in fusion depends on many challenges in addition to the obvious technical issues.  One of them is the recruitment, training and retention of the next generation of 'fusioneers'.  Given that the 'industry joke' says that fusion is 30 years away and always has been, some might be reluctant to join the field.  (I have blogged about that topic before - with optimism, here and here).

One of the speakers reported that recruitment of brilliant young students is still not difficult but retaining their enthusiasm in a field that moves so slowly can be more challenging.  This is made worse by the lack of that friendly spirit of competition that drove progress in the 1980s.

The tragedy that I mentioned at the beginning is that 30 years ago fusion scientists had big plans to build a machine to take over from JET and push the research forwards.  They designed a bigger and better machine in a project called "NET".  This 'Next European Torus' was a machine big enough to prove the success of fusion technology.  In USA, Russia  and Japan similar large projects were being proposed at the same time, and politicians and bureaucrats managed to resist these ambitions in every case.  How sad. How tragic.

Instead of doing NET we got ITER and lost 20 years. 

Is there any hope of regaining some competition for the international project ITER?  Officially and diplomatically the answer has to be 'no'.

However, China has been training fusions scientist at the rate of 100 per year for at least a decade.  Should we worry about that or should we celebrate the likely source of competition from China?  Certainly they have the ambition to take things forward and they have built an impressive machine called EAST.  One way or another, Europe needs to take fusion much more seriously and face up to the investment.  Instead of spending the equivalent of a pint of milk per European per year, in the spirit of standardising on sensible units of measurement couldn't we at least push that to the equivalent of a litre of beer, if not cognac? After all, by comparison the photo-voltaic power industry last year alone had a turnover of around 100 billion Euros. This is big money and comes from the pockets of the taxpayers too.

Neither technology is the perfect solution but the world needs both (along with the rest of the power portfolio) if an energy crisis is to be avoided.

Action needed on FGM

Today, BBC Radio 4's 'Today' programme briefly mentioned the problem of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).  It interspersed this serious issue of child abuse in the name of Islam with trivial tales of someone high-wire walking across the Grand Canyon (or as it turned out, just across a tributary canyon).

That is shameful behaviour isn't it?

70 women go to the NHS every month for help relating to the medical problems caused by FGM, and this data only comes from the 6 of 15 specialist clinics that actually provided any data.  That might mean that the real figure is closer to 200 per month.

• Is this 'religious practice' illegal in UK?  Yes of course!  It is barbarism dressed up as religion.
• Are the authorities committing to its abolishment?  I suppose so.  They passed a law about it but that's as far as they went.
• Have they prosecuted anyone in the 18 years since the law was last clarified?  Not a single one (in spite of the 70 crimes per month).
• Is this the real face of Islamophobia?  I have no empirical evidence for the case, but it seems rather likely that people are afraid of being branded with this accusation.  Since they do have the data, why are they not acting to prosecute?
• What does this say about how big brother is watching us?  He doesn't have equality foremost in his mind!

Here we begin to see the problem with labels.  Islam, the religion of perpetual offence, has a special power over us and brands us as Islamophobes very easily.  Civil and criminal law is diverted in UK.  It is not that all muslims are in agreement over these matters.  However, the extremists shelter behind the nice people and all of them are fellow muslims first and only after that do they split into their various warring sects.

I say that the law is the law and although I would be reluctant to support lawyers, they must be able to do their work within the framework of clear secular law.

Religious 'law' (whichever religion) must be outlawed!  It is only truly outlawed after legal proceedings have succeeded.



Related links (although I don't seem to find one related to Today's feature):
Female genital mutilation victim was 'aged just seven'
MPs urge more action on female genital mutilation

Stuck on a sandbank!

Well - that was an 'interesting' day.  It started very well indeed but it soon got complicated.  Cruising up the River Thames, on an unusually wide stretch which is notoriously shallow at the edges, there were two rowing 'eights' coming down the river towards me.  There were fishermen on the left bank and with the rowing boats obviously demonstrating that they were 'less than expert', the best option seemed to be to go to the right.

Now, in retrospect, I know that was the wrong decision - and indeed 'less than expert' on my own behalf.  In addition to the above, there was a very strong wind blowing from the left.  It was an inconvenience that was waiting to happen - and caused me a great deal of embarrassment, along with the possibility of a huge bill from a rescue service - e.g. £300! 

I should have held a steady course up the middle of the channel - and certainly I will next time.  Powered boats might have to give way to manually propelled boats but after causing me a massive problem there was not a word of apology from them.  I wish I had sunk them both! 

After 5 hours on the sandbank and two failed attempts at towing, another (more competently crewed) narrowboat named 'Dragonfly' persisted for long enough - at least an hour - to help me, and subsequently and consequently got stuck themselves.  I felt very guilty about that of course.  By then I was getting free, but a third boat came along and pulled the second one out before I had chance to go to their rescue. 

I should mention that there was never any risk of injury, and the boat is unharmed.  Only my pride is injured.

All I had on board to thank my rescuers was a cheap (but cold) bottle of white wine and some cans of beer, but they seemed to accept them quite willingly.  It was the least that I could do in the circumstances.

5 hours on a sandbank and wading in water up to my waist wasn't entirely on the plan for the day!

Protecting children

In UK news recently there has been a lot of fuss about a teacher running away to France with a 15 year old 'student' (or to translate to English, "15 year old student" = schoolchild).

There are several dichotomies here but I will focus on two.

1. Students are students, but 15 year olds are school children and they should be protected to a greater degree.  I think the normal agreed age for adultdhood is 18 and that the teacher behaved inappropriately.   However  . . .
2. In other cases, elderly muslim men marry 7 year old 'brides' and yet there are no prosecutions.

Is justice served well?

Beer, bacon and blasphemy

The Jesus and Mo cartoons vary in quality from good to brilliant.  This week's edition is near the top of the scale. 

Jesus and Mo on Denmark - the land of beer, bacon and blasphemy

Surprisingly rare

As my regular readers will have noticed, Thursday was one of those surprisingly rare days when I didn't get chance to post anything.  The only other time that it happened was due a technical fault, but this time I was simply detained by work until 1 a.m. 

Normal service will be resumed shortly.

Use of social media

This week I received notification of changes to my conditions of employment. It seems that my HR [Human Remains?] department has finally realised that it is working in the 21st century, and 13 years too late they have issued guidance on the use of social media.  Most social media is currently banned by our firewall anyway, so I anticipate that this precedes a change in policy in that respect, but very few employees will have read the notice in any detail anyway, so who cares about that?

In suitably guarded terms they tell me how to be careful not expose the 'company' to public scrutiny.  In the following paragraph they list a few instances of what might be described as 'social media' and then follow that with a disclaimer that it is not an exclusive list.  For reference, I would say that their list was less non-exclusive, and more like negligent and lazy.  That's par for the course.  [And by saying that I probably risk dismissal in spite of my human right to free speech.  Am I an offender or a whistle-blower?  We all know how whistle-blowers get treated!]

Oddly enough, none of that seems surprising to me.  Now you can see why I have blogged pseudonymously for more than 2 years, and studiously avoided mentioning the name of my employer.

Incidentally, the same notice reminded me that I have no right to assume any confidentiality in my use of the internet from work.  Isn't that surprising?  In recent years I had always assumed that everything I type might be recorded in a database somewhere.  I never write blog posts from my work address - unlike many of my colleagues who do so at lunch time.

The company also claims that my use of mobile devices is subject to their control.  Perhaps they are pushing the boundaries there.  My use of my mobile devices inside or outside normal working hours is my business alone.  Working hours flex at their demand very freely, so I rather expect some reciprocity.

Failing an acknowledgement of that, all I can say there is 'dream on'.

Quarantine

Sometimes we find that familiar words have surprising backgrounds.  Today was one of those times.

I know the word 'quarantine' in English, and the word 'quarante' (forty) in French.  Somehow I had never made the link.

Apparently the term quarantine comes from an old Venetian dialect word 'quaranta', which obviously comes from the same roots. 

It all started off with trying to avoid the consequences of the plague (or 'Black Death') in the 14th century.  The earliest quarantines were only for 30 days, but later they adopted 40 days as standard.

Hence quarantine!

Teaching the other controversy

People preach about 'teaching the controversy' in the debate about evolution, as if Intelligent Design were science.  Maybe there are questions about evolution by natural selection, but it is certain that Intelligent Design is not an alternative answer.

They like to teach the controversy and claim that the arguments of 'neo-darwinists' don't hold up to scrutiny.

Well does that matter or not?  ID's proponents claim that it is a science but does that hold up to scrutiny?  They claim that they start from the data.  That's nice, but science starts from the hypothesis and uses data from the real world to see whether it supports the science - not the other way round.

And although they deny it, Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer, and we are being impolite if we ask Christians who that designer might have been.

So let's start from the data again - and ask what data shows that God (obviously the pseudonymous intelligent being who designed everything) exists.  Is there any data?  I doubt it.  After all, faith is more powerful than data.

Then we can move on to the real science again.

Dennett's Tools for Thinking

I find it very interesting and informative and in fact generally pleasurable to listen to philosopher, 'horseman of the apocalypse', and grand-fatherly gentleman Daniel C Dennett. 

He has a new book to sell, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking, so we might have the enjoyment of hearing a lot of interviews.  This week I heard a good one, on the podacst Point of Inquiry.

It is a wide ranging discussion with host, Indre Viskontas, (direct link here) they mull over a wide range of interesting topics, including consciousness, the 'intentional stance' (which others call 'theory of mind'), the role of philosophy in today's world, and that old favourite, free-will.  The book gets a few mentions, but not in any sense is the interview a hard-sell.

If you have 45 minutes to spare, or can load it onto your MP3 to enjoy while you are doing something that doesn't need concentration, I recommend it highly.

Will I buy the book?  That is a different question entirely.  I would love to have time to understand Dennett's writings and have read a couple of his earlier books.  However, I have also failed to reach the end of a couple of others due to my own ability to concentrate and my preference for being active.  

Maybe I should wait for the paperback - or maybe that is where I went wrong previously as the writing gets too small.

Born of a woman

One small phrase from the bible has been the source of rumblings among scholars for nearly two milliennia.  Galatians 4:4, which refers to the birth of Jesus, is the problem.

"... born of woman, born under the Law"

Which phrase bothers you most?  Being born under the law doesn't have an immediately obvious meaning.  Apparently it means that Jesus was a Jew, but theologians get into all sorts of tangles about that.  Who can tell what the implications might be - and few of us would care anyway.  Theologians make their living by arguing about these things.

For me the first phrase was the interesting one.  Why would anyone bother to tell us how someone was born?  The involvement of his mother (when her virginity is not the point of interest) could hardly be a subject that anyone would ever wonder about. 

Or could it?

Perhaps this is a sign that some others believed that he had not been born in the usual way.  You might doubt this, but there is a potential culprit available in the person of Marcion.  (See Who was the Marcion that Hitch referred to so often)  Marcion taught that Jesus did not get born like the rest of us but that he was sent down from heaven.  Jesus still became human flesh, but he had nothing to do with the God of the Old Testament.  Given the unbelievability of the rest of the Jesus story I find that a perfectly consistent point of view, for what that is worth.

Marcionite thinking sheds a lot of light on the text of the bible (see Christianity's Albatross), as early Christians had to spend a lot of effort and time suppressing that particular heresy (along with all the others). 

The world would be very different if they had failed.

Swimming the Thames

Boating on the canals is quite different from boating on the River Thames.

The protocols for the locks are different.  Finding a free mooring on the river is much more difficult.  And the river is much wider and deeper.

But after nearly a week on the Thames the biggest surprise is to find people swimming.  You spot a couple of things bobbing about in the water, not far from the bank and you might wonder whether they are ducks or geese, even though they don't look quite right.

They turn out to be swimmers - and these swimmers are not unusual.  Apparently people swim the whole length of the river as a badge of honour.

People don't swim in the canals.

The sound of one hand clapping

Buddhists (I believe) use the expression 'the sound of one hand clapping' to represent something that is not possible, something transcendent that can be imagined but that cannot be achieved.  They think that it is a sound that is silent.

There is only one problem.

I can do it and it is not silent.  My father could do it, and I always remember when I was a boy, wondering how he could make it happen, when I couldn't do it myself.

When my hands got bigger I somehow realised that I could do it too, and I have gently made fun of my own children in the same way that my father did of me.  At last one of them can do it too - albeit quietly.  With practise he can carry the tradition to the next generation.

The recipe is to keep your fingers quite straight and close all four of them against your palm quite quickly.  Perhaps it helps to have long fingers, and my family seems to have the genes for that.

Try it . . . and refute a Zen Buddhist!

How many pies for £5.6 million?

I see in the news today that Stephen 'too many pies' Hester (see here and here for history) has 'generously' agreed to give up his overpaid job in the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).  Some interesting points arise.

• RBS is/was Scottish - perhaps - and yet the debts are British?  Hmm!
• Hester is a public servant in that over 80% of RBS is owned by the UK Government, and yet he is not subject to the rules that apply to other public servants.  It seems that the government can pay him what they want, whatever his levels of success - or otherwise.
• Hester couldn't bring himself to commit to working for RBS for a few years more, after a potential privatisation and hence . . .
• Hester generously agrees to give up his job, on the basis of a payment (eventually) of £5.6 million.

Given the choice of working for that (undeserved and obscene amount of) cash or accepting it for doing f**k all, what would you choose?

After all, how many pies could a corpulent t**t buy for that much money? 

Furthermore, how can governments create contracts that are so generous and yet trample on ordinary people - and still expect to be re-elected?

Small note:  T**t could stand for 'twit'

What if you are wrong? (Richard Dawkins with cartoon.)

This is a nicely drawn cartoon version of the famous answer that Richard Dawkins gave to someone who asked "What if you are wrong?".

Government-sponsored cruelty to animals

Here is another example of the spinelessness of the UK's barely elected government, and its indifference to animal rights along with human equality rights. 

The government has decided not to take the correct moral decision in this allegedly Christian country.  Instead they pander to the profits of religious minorities . . . for it is profit and commerce that counts for Cameron and his cronies . . . isn't it?  And halal and kosher butchers obviously need to make their profits.

Why is this decision stupid and wrong?  There are many reasons, but the following are obviously candidate reasons.

• Animal rights
• Surely we should avoid cruelty wherever possible
• Lies about these animals not suffering are to be doubted
• Religious rights
• Christians have to follow the law
• Secularists and atheists have to follow the law
• Muslims are exempt and can use their cruel slaughter techniques
• Jews are also exempt and can use their same-but-totally-different, cruel, slaughter techniques
• Human rights
• Why do secular abattoirs have to go to the extra expense of humane slaughter when religious abattoirs are permitted to avoid them?
• Since halal and kosher meat is over-produced and distributed on the open market, why should I have to eat it and not have a right to know what I'm eating?
• Since this meat is not labelled, what Quality Assurance is imposed?  Or are they exempt from QA too?  It wouldn't be a surprise . . . would it?
• Are religious people to be trusted in a secular world anyway?  When did you ever hear of anyone 'lying for secularism'?

I think the government is just frightened of the likely response from religious minorities if it took a fair and just stance. In doing this, it discriminates against the majority.

But then again, if this was an effective democracy they would not be in government anyway.

Inside a hot air balloon

Have you ever flown in a hot air balloon?

If not, this view from the basket into the balloon with the burner ignited might be a surprising new sight for you.

Inside John's balloon - thanks to Mildred.

 At the very least, it is a pretty picture.

The bigger IF

The Archbishop of Westminster was leading a service this morning as part of the 'protests' in London called "The Big IF".  For some inexplicable reason, The Methodist Church allowed him to use Westminster Central Hall for this purpose.

Apparently he was preaching about tax avoidance and how it affects the poorest people of the world.  Suprisingly (??), the big companies that have subsidiaries in tax havens are somehow involved in the starvation of the people (whereas their own corrupt governments are not.

Now I care a lot about tax avoidance, whether it is by members of the UK Government or by big companies.  But there is one obvious organisation that avoids taxation wherever it goes, and indeed reclaims taxes at the expense of the rest of the citizens.  This organisation is (as Richard Dawkins has said) 'one of the greatest forces for evil in the world' and the Archbishop of Westminster is its representative.

Not only does that church augment its fabulous wealth at the expense of the rest of us, but it is responsible for the deaths of plenty of people too.  I need hardly mention the AIDS crisis or the failure to allow abortions to save the lives of the mothers.  Why stop there?  But I will.

The pot is calling the kettle black!

Brilliant people might not be the most productive

I used to report to a director, but via matrix management work for another utterly brilliant man.  When it came to detail, I felt like an intellectual-dwarf compared with either.  But looking at the situation in a different way I review it like this.

When I went to my director with a good idea I would come out of the meeting with an even better idea.

When I went to my day-to-day boss with an idea, I would return with three more ideas!  (None of them were mine but all were sensible.)

Both of them were brilliant men (and still are).  Neither of them had the talents of making a decision to do anything nor of making things happen, nor the talent of making people follow them.  I respect and like both of them in spite of those flaws.

After that I worked for someone who had none of the intellectual prowess of my previous bosses, and yet he seemed to be able to gather followers and lead the ordinary people in the direction that he required - whether it was for the company or for personal gain - whether the followers recognise that they were merely being used or not.

This sort of thing seems to have happened frustratingly often throughout my professional career.

So it seems to me to be clear that the most brilliant intellects have no chance of prevailing in the real world.  That probably means that a perfect world will never be achieved.  Incidentally, only one of the above - the one who I least respect - has children.

Is this happening the world over?  Does this make tomorrow's planned demonstrations 'The Big IF' in London a waste of time?  I won't be going, but I will certainly be writing about it.

The world is complicated isn't it?

The person of the Holy Spirit

One of the great mysteries that makes Christianity seem hard to believe is the doctrine of the Trinity.  Somehow God exists as three persons and yet is only one God. 

This mysterious and strange set of affairs is perhaps most clearly set out in the 'Athanasian Creed' - the one that you have probably never heard of.  Most Western Christians accept this 'third' creed as an accurate statement of their beliefs, even if they do not use it regularly in worship, preferring the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed.  If you go to the Wikipedia page and read it you will probably understand why.  In its repetitive and multiply-redundant phraseology it tells us about the three persons of God - and if we have been brought up in a Christian culture it is very likely that we won't give much thought to the following question.

Who is 'the person' of the Holy Spirit?

Obviously we can understand the concept of Jesus as a person, even if we happen to have a view that he might have been a mythical person.  God, the father, is a little harder to envisage as the second person, in that he has no earthly form, except in a few Old Testament stories.

But the person of the Holy Spirit is something that is so familiar that we never question it - and yet so alien that we can't imagine it either.

Do you find that as paradoxical as me?

Jack or Jill?

I have to do a little maintenance on a family laptop.  When I say 'maintenance', I suppose I really mean that it is major surgery, to replace the connector on the motherboard for the power lead.

Don't lose heart, I'm not going to get too technical.  I just want to muse on the etymology of technical jargon, and perhaps to make a little fun of it.

In locating the spare part that I need, I used the power of Ebay, naturally, and found the component at a very reasonable price.  Finding it was not difficult, but the description is "ASUS . . . Genuine DC Power Jack Socket Connector."  So why does this seem strange? 

To me, the jack is the plug that plugs into this socket connector, and you could read the description that way.  On the other hand, thinking of the many variants on the nursery rhyme about Jack and Jill you might think of it in a different way.

If the plug is a Jack, does that make the socket a Jill?

Crimes that the church defends

"I know of no crime that has not been defended by the church, in one form or other. 

The church is not a pioneer; it accepts a new truth, last of all, and only when denial has become useless." 

Robert G. Ingersoll

Why can't theists just leave us alone?

As atheists we are often asked why we have to criticise religions.

That would be a good question if those religions did not intrude into our daily lives quite as much.

This link from The Thinking Atheist takes you to one of the best summaries of the situation that I have seen recently.  One short extract gives you an idea of the contents . . .

"Ask yourself. When's the last time an atheist rang your doorbell with the Good News of Humanism? How often do you find Richard Dawkins books in the dresser drawers of your hotel rooms? When was the last atheist temple erected in your neighborhood? Have you ever attended an atheist revival? Has atheism demanded 10% of your household income? How many dedicated atheist television channels come through your satellite dish? How many atheist verses were you instructed to memorize as a child? When's the last time someone thanked a FARMER (or even the cook) at the dinner table instead of God?"

Good points - I think you will agree.

One rule for the rich

Today we have heard in the news that three members of the House of Lords are being investigated for alleged wrong-doings.  They might (or of course might not) have offered to accept payment for services relating to the business of government.  Of course that would have been illegal . . . (if indeed they had done it).

Two of them are just 'ordinary' Lords, presumably accustomed to being well rewarded for doing f**k all.  It might be understandable (but still unforgivable) that they had got into bad habits.

But the third surely has no excuse for failing to understand the law of the land properly, as he is a former senior policeman.  As the BBC web site says here . . .

Lord (Brian) Mackenzie, a former chief superintendent for Durham police and president of the Police Superintendents Association, said he could arrange parties for paying clients - including on the terrace of the House of Lords - after being asked if this was possible.

Lord Brian MacKenzie of Framwellgate: ''I have not broken any of the rules'' "There is a rule that you shouldn't host a reception in parliament where you have a pecuniary interest. I thought that's bloody nonsense. [Whereas to me that makes perfect sense, since I don't see why the Houses of Parliament should be confused with a Gentleman's Club]  Nonetheless... how would you get round that?

"I just say to a colleague who has nothing to do with it, 'would you host a function for me?'" he said. 

But Lord Mackenzie told the BBC he was "quite happy" that he had not broken the rules.

Yeah . . . right!  In the light of these allegations, do you suppose he might have behaved perfectly well when he was a copper?  A policeman breaking the law?  Surely not.  Perhaps we might begin to doubt the propaganda that we get about our perfect police, if we didn't already suspect that things were not perfectly in order.

Of course these three will escape any risk of a custodial sentence for their misdeeds.  Even if there is a theoretical risk, I expect they have friends - oh no, 'colleagues' - who can arrange things for them.

Meanwhile everyone else who works for the UK Government seems to be required to take training on corruption - as in avoiding it.  Do members of the House of Lords have to take this training?  Or do they do their training in their subsidised bar, advising each other about what they can get away with? 

It is beginning to seem that way isn't it?  This is the kind of thing that really raises the morale of public sector workers!

Another well-defaced road-sign

It seems to be a tradition to deface No Entry signs in Europe's cities.  Does it happen in other parts of the world?  Paris seems to be the capital of this type of graffiti.

Parisienne graffiti - no entry.

Very tastefully executed!