Ten Commandments or just three?

The Catholic and Protestant versions of the 10 commandments are not the same.  Perhaps the biggest difference is that idolatry is not only permitted in the Catholic version, but more or less required.  This is why crucifixes in Catholic churches are usually complete with a Jesus, whereas in Protestant churches the crosses are bare.  The exclusion of the second commandment (about idolatry) means that the ninth is split into two for catholics.  Strangely they chose to do this rather than adopt the tenth commandment from Deuteronomy.  (See below.)  However, laying these differences aside, do the commandments make sense otherwise?  Which version do we follow?  You might be surprised that the Old Testament has more than one set of 10 commandments!

The 'published' commandments are normally based on the original set as delivered in Exodus 20.  However, the stone tablets carrying these instructions were smashed by Moses after the Israelites made the golden calf.  Fortunately someone took to trouble to remember what they were, because they have been useful ever since.

The commandments were then delivered again (Deuteronomy 4:13.) and they are then substantially different.  1 to 4 are pretty much the same but 10 is that a kid should not be boiled in its mother's milk!  (This does appear as a 'lesser' commandment in Ex 20 and hence is part of the Jewish halacha, but it seems surprising that it in Deuteronomy it is promoted to be one of the 'top ten').

Given their fate, it is surprising that the original set of laws are more generally adopted.  Maybe it is because they are more relevant to people who are no longer members of a dessert dwelling tribe?  Judge for yourself.

Four of the commandments are simply religious edicts.  Three more are prohibitions that are not embodied in modern law:  honour thy parents; adultery is punished by death (but generally only if you are female); and generic coveting (which is after all only a 'thought crime'). 

That leaves only three that are maintained in present day law in most 'christian countries' - you may not kill or steal, and in some situations (but not all) you are not allowed to lie.

Is anything missing from these commandments?  It would appear so.  Tomorrow I will talk about that, but in the meantime you might like to read an earlier post about 'Do Old Testament Laws still count?'.

License to kill

When James Bond, 007, gets his license to kill and is sent out to find the evil enemy we sit back and enjoy the drama of the movie.  His foe gets a few chances to be ruthless and unsporting, but James Bond wins the day.  But when US forces go out and do the same in real life it seems that it is less acceptable.  What is the difference?  Is it that James Bond is more-or-less alone and in spite of the odds he is the hero and saviour of the world?  (Felix Leiter might have been a better choice to go after bin Laden?)  Is it that we all recognise it as fiction and realise that it is ok to suspend reality for a while?  Is it that Bond's enemies never have followers who will rain retribution on the survivors?

Whatever the reason, I can see that there is a difference between Bond vs Blofeld and Obama vs Osama.

The thing that bothers me most is that I see both sides of the argument but can not see the solution.  I don't like the notion that it is OK to go out to kill the baddies without offering them a fair trial.  But I don't like the idea that the baddies get away with it all the time either.

Perhaps there comes a point where it is necessary for the western world to draw a line in the sand and defend it, and perhaps this is the point.  I'm sure of one thing. 

Islam, the religion of peace, is a force that we will soon have to reckon with.

(Thanks again to Sarah for the link to the photo.)

Alternative vote referendum

We just had a flyer from the NOtoAV campaign.  The arguments they use are pretty laughable.  The worst one was:

"Someone else's 5th preference is worth the same as your 1st preference"

So presumably then, my 5th preference is NOT worth as much as their first?

They go on to point out that AV would encourage candidates to pander to the wishes of the 'fringe parties'.  I think they are worried that the candidates might actually pander to the wishes of the average voter, who is certainly not represented by the main parties!

On the other hand - via Jerry Coyne

Another point of view has to be considered.

Bin Laden was not armed is an article from Jerry Coyne.  He has a point.  Truth and justice should not be subverted.  Criminals are entitled to a fair trial aren't they?

This point of view arose during today's discussions at work too.  If we adopted the Queensbury Rules it might be a reasonable argument.  But those who fight by other rules might not deserve to be tried by convenient and compassionate (??) Western legal systems.

Bin Laden presumably believed in the system of sharia law.  Under that system, those of us who do not accept Islam have no rights at all.  We are classed as some kind of lesser being.

I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I feel that truth would actually be subverted if a notorious terrorist like Bin Laden was taken to trial.  It would waste another $100 million and take another 5 years, by which time he could be like the Lockerbie bomber and claim to be dying and therefore be allowed to go free.

Just as sharia has no respect for me, I have no respect for islamic terrorists.  They offer me no rights, and I feel that equality is a good thing to aim for.

As for justice?  Perhaps the justice has been done now - nine years too late.  Today's political leaders are the Neville Chamberlains of the 21st century.  Where is Winston Churchill when you need him?  Somebody has to resist the 'third islamic invasion'.  (Cue for another blog post soon I think.  Namely the significance of 11th September for Islam - and I am not talking about 2001 but a much earlier date.)

Small note:  I didn't really intend to get drawn into this!

Bin Laden Free - via Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens might be ill but he has lost none of his expertise with words.

Only today I was muttering to people at work that we British tax payers (and the same applies to residents of other 'fortunate' nations) are facing cutbacks in our own country but we are funding the governments that harbour terrorists at the usual rate.  Or perhaps, innocently, they accidentally failed to notice notorious terrorists who were hiding like cowards in pleasant towns in Pakistan while sending their foot soldiers out to die for the cause.  (OK the Bin Laden free wall is beginning to crumble.)  And at the same time they are innocently developing nuclear weapons to fire at another country that deserves little support from the west - namely India.

Two people assured me today that I didn't understand international politics and that we need allies around the world.  Apparently the way to get allies is to pay them obscene amounts of money.  Do you get friends that way?  Or do you get friends by doing things that they respect and by expecting equality?

In his latest article in Slate, Hitchens expresses many of the views that I was just beginning to form in my own mind.  Read it, and if you disagree with his views I would love to see your comments.  Just one extract is presented here as a taster.

"There's perhaps some slight satisfaction to be gained from this smoking-gun proof of official Pakistani complicity with al-Qaida, but in general it only underlines the sense of anticlimax. After all, who did not know that the United States was lavishly feeding the same hands that fed Bin Laden? There's some minor triumph, also, in the confirmation that our old enemy was not a heroic guerrilla fighter but the pampered client of a corrupt and vicious oligarchy that runs a failed and rogue state."

UK referendum about the 'alternative vote'

If David Cameron doesn't want it then it MUST be good! #Yes2AV

This Youtube video makes it all perfectly clear. Why should you vote of the 'alternative vote' instead of 'first past the post'?



Sorry to my non-UK readers. This must seem rather trivial! (David Cameron is our Prime Minister. I don't suppose you have ever heard of him.) The rest of us didn't know what he was like before he got elected by accident. I blame the previous PM, Gordon Brown, for that. Without Gordon Brown we would not have the present government. Enough said about Gordon Brown. Others have described him adequately.

Bin Laden Free Zone

You'll hear nothing about today's big news on this blog.  It is a 'Bin Laden free zone'.

Oh yes!  The whole world is a 'Bin Laden free zone' now!

Adding a comment (with thanks to Sarah):

"I have never wished a man dead,but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."  -  Mark Twain.

Men and beards - and P Z Myers

I just saw a tweet from P Z Myers of Pharyngula fame.  (PZ is normally pronounced Pee Zee except by Richard Dawkins who seems determined to stick to 'Pee Zed'.) It was about how someone told him that he 'grew old and grew a beard'.

Now some of my friends don't like my beard, but as I always tell them, all men have beards.  (Note that, not being a competitive sort of chap, I didn't say that all real men have beards, however tempting that might have been).

Its just that some of us choose not to shave them off every day.

(PZ is not even old - so exactly what sense is to be made of the 'accusation' anyway?)

The luckiest ship in the US Navy

This story came to my attention on the BBC's delightful general knowledge quiz, QI some weeks ago.  Even the BBC does get something right!

The USS Phoenix was the only ship at Pearl Harbour that was not significantly damaged during the Japanese attack in 1942.  She came to be known as the luckiest ship in the navy.  Sadly that luck did not continue into her service in the Argentinian navy.

The Phoenix was renamed ARR General Belgrano, and sunk on May 2, 1982, during the Falklands War, by the nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror. 

Lucky or not, she does at least have the notoriety of being the only ship ever to have been sunk by a nuclear submarine during hostilities.

Wise words from Sagan!

A nice lazy afternoon, reading blogging and relaxing!  It gives me chance to find wise words from Carl Sagan:

"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science."

Gerin Oil - the acceptable face of soft drugs?

An old friend (well . . . not all that old but I have known him for a long time) and regular reader of this blog has brought an article to my attention.  So here is an extra post for Sunday 1st May.  I am sure that you can guess from this linked (2006) article from Richard Dawkins.net that his IQ is higher than average as the humour is rather high-brow.  However, I am certain that the same applies to all my readers so I am not afraid to share the fun.

Gerin oil, sometimes written geriniol is of course an anagram of 'religion'.  It is proposed by the famous Richard Dawkins as a fictional drug that makes people do irrational and self-destructive things.  In Dawkins' satirical description, users are often introduced to the "drug" at social gatherings such as weddings and funerals. In small amounts it is considered by most observers to be harmless, but as usage increases it is said to cause a disconnect with reality where users expect private wishes to come true.  In even higher doses users may experience spasmodic muscular movements and aural or visual hallucinations.

Small note:
This is not aimed at anyone in particular so I hope she manages to see the funny side of this satire!

Some Mark Twain

Time for another lazy post today!  I can't resist some Mark Twain quotations:

"The most interesting information comes from children for they tell all they know and then stop."

"Heaven for climate.  Hell for companionship."

"Apparently there is nothing that cannot happen today."

and finally for now

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Creationism in schools (in UK)

Here's a link to a petition opposing the teaching of creationism in schools in the UK.

Creationism is known, and officially acknowledged, to be contrary to scientific fact. We therefore demand that creationism should not be presented as a valid scientific position, nor creationist websites and resources be promoted, in publicly funded schools or in any youth activities run on publicly funded school premises.

They have a target of 5000 signatures.  Might I encourage you to spend a minute on it?

Whining atheists? Whining theists?

I feel like a lazy post today . . . and the ideal opportunity arose.

"Frankly, religions need to grow up and accept that they are going to be treated from now on like any other claims of truth - with the skilled rhetoric of people like Hitchens, and with the direct speaking of scientists like Dawkins."

This is a quote from Steve Zara's blog (click for link) which is well worth a read.

Ubuntu 11.04 out today

Why is this surprising?  Well of course the date of release of the new version of Ubuntu has been known for some time and indeed these releases come around every 6 months.  The fact that 11.04 (so named because it is in the fourth month of year 11) has been launched today is not a surprise at all.

Ubuntu is of course a computer operating system - an alternative to Microsoft Windows or Apple Mac's latest expensive offering may be.  I started playing with Ubuntu about 4 years ago as a result of 'force majeur'.  I had been thinking of trying it out for quite a while, but when my new desktop PC's hard disk failed under warranty and the supplier had gone bankrupt I was not prepared to pay anyone for a new copy of Windows.  So the adventure started!  Ubuntu is totally free but totally worth as much as Windows!

As you might know, Ubuntu is a version of Linux, and Linux is a version of Unix.  Unix users have always maintained (from their 'ivory tower') that 'their' operating system was secure and powerful and free from viruses.  Everyone else has been 'taught' that it is simply non-intuitive and impossible to use.  So is this true?

After a few years I suppose you might expect that any semi-intelligent person could persuade themselves of anything, so my own experience is merely anecdotal.  However, I have one desktop, one laptop and one netbook running Ubuntu.  When I last had to buy a new laptop and considered returning to Windows (or Windoze as Linux users like to say) I made myself a list of things that I would miss about the two operating systems.  Result:

Windows 7 - 1 thing (namely Microsoft Excel).
Ubuntu - 11 things (subject of another blog post perhaps)

As a reasonably knowledgeable PC user and fixer, I suppose that is not surprising either.  However, the interesting thing is that people around me have been easily convinced.  These are people who want to use their PC, not to spend time learning about it and trying out new things.

My mother - well into her 70s - has had a PC for nearly 15 years.  She started off with Windows 3.1 (on a cast-off PC), and had graduated to XP.  She complained about a year ago that her PC was getting terribly slow (4 minutes from switching it on to getting to Google).  I suggested trying Ubuntu instead of Windows, and much to my surprise (even shock) she agreed.  (Result: 1 minute from switching on to reaching Google.)  She hardly ever looks back and has even installed a newer version herself!

But what about the younger generation?

My 16 year old daughter decided to buy a netbook and after only 2 weeks managed to get something nasty via Facebook (I think).  Windows 7 was not easily recoverable.  (I tried!)  Surprisingly she agreed to try Ubuntu.  She hasn't looked back either - and believe me, its not because Dad can do no wrong.

Finally (for the time being) my 13 year old son had a similar problem and I decided to try to convert him too.  We are one week into the experiment, but so far so good!

Windows - watch out!  Linux really is coming!

The question is - how long can I resist downloading the new version of Ubuntu?  I feel strangely reluctant but somewhat tempted.  What I have got is working and I don't like to rock the boat.  But maybe the new version is even better.  We'll see!

Sink holes!

Imagine how you would feel if a hole like this suddenly appeared at the bottom of your garden!

This is called a 'sink hole' and it is one of a few that have appeared in recent years in Guatemala City.  They are typically over 100m deep, probably caused by water  escaping from a drain and eroding away the rock below.

Of course conspiracy theorists posit the idea that these holes are caused by some sort of alien weapon, such as a powerful energy beam from space, but the water theory seems to be more plausible.

I think I might move to another city if I lived there.

More glory!

The word 'glory' conjures up many different ideas, and yesterday's post was one that I found spectacular.  For me, none of the uses of glory involves deities though.

This is a photo of something called a 'glory hole' in the middle of a reservoir, and I find it somewhat un-nerving.

Apparently this is the second largest hole in a lake, at 22m diameter.  It is the top of a pipe which controls the maximum level of the reservoir behind the Monticello Dam, California.  Effectively it is the top of the overflow pipe like the one on your kitchen sink.

Glory be!

I took this startling photo a few years ago, flying over the Yorkshire Wolds.  It is not a halo, as people often describe it, but strictly speaking it is a 'glory'.

Exercise for the reader:  Why is the circle centred on the basket of the balloon not on the centre of the balloon itself?

An Easter celebration!

OK -  perhaps a slightly naughty picture chosen for Easter Day.  Did I ever mention that Easter is defined as the Sunday after the full moon, after the vernal equinox.  That is why the date can move so much depending how the full moon falls.

Presumably the priest is Roman Catholic?  The bishop seems to be looking on with interest, and no doubt he will be planning the cover-up.

Have you ever noticed . . . condescension?

Whenever the windows in a car get steamed up, a good old friend of mine (with a wry smile) complains about the 'condescension'!  He knows exactly what he is doing and often gets a laugh.  So - does that make the following picture a 'condescension trail'?

Now, forgetting all the conspiracy theories about 'chem trails', I wonder whether you have ever noticed something interesting about the way the trails are not symmetrical.  This photo of the trail from a four-engined aircraft is typical and it illustrates my point.

Did you notice how the condensation trails from the engines on the right wing combine almost immediately, whereas the left wing remains as two distinct trails for some time.  Next time you look up into the sky on a sunny day, you might be able to see it for yourself.  You will need to spot a four-engined plane - but they are not very rare (unless you live in an area with no major trans-continental flight paths overhead).

I have a view about the reason for this.  Do you?  Feel free to comment and start a discussion.

This second photo came to my attention recently too.

Beautiful!  And there is some fantastic physics at work in between the trails, and perhaps some clues about what is going on in the first photo.

Kites galore!

Living where I do, there are quite a lot of Red Kites around.  These impressive birds of prey, with wing spans of 2m, were reintroduced to the area about 10 years ago and they have been very successful.  Some people regard them as scavengers rather than predators.  Apparently they are timid and avoid fighting live prey, and they prefer their food well rotted.

Normally I would be impressed to see more than five of them together.  However, yesterday I couldn't count them as they wheeled and tumbled through the air together very close to my house.  There were at least 25 of them for just 10 or 15 minutes.  This picture gives an impression of the spectacle.

Two buzzards were also taking an interest in the crowd.  I wish I could have taken a look from their vantage point soaring high above the kites.

James Randi - an accidental blasphemer?

The Amazing Randi, as he is known, is said to have commented on his belief in god(s).

To make sure that my blasphemy is thoroughly expressed, I hereby state my opinion that the notion of a god is a basic superstition, that there is no evidence for the existence of any god(s), that devils, demons, angels and saints are myths, that there is no life after death, heaven nor hell, that the Pope is a dangerous, bigoted, medieval dinosaur, and that the Holy Ghost is a comic-book character worthy of laughter and derision. I accuse the Christian god of murder by allowing the Holocaust to take place -- not to mention the "ethnic cleansing" presently being performed by Christians in our world -- and I condemn and vilify this mythical deity for encouraging racial prejudice and commanding the degradation of women.

Do you get the feeling that he is still sitting on the fence?

Stop the bloody wailing!

A news story this week reminded me of the old Greenpeace tee-shirt in a round about sort of way (yes - the spelling sort of way).

Do you think mother humpback whales are more tolerant of 'pop music' than human mothers? If not, they might easily be irritated by the new tunes that apparently sweep across the Pacific Ocean every year, always from West to East.

I could just imagine the cetacean equivalent of "turn that music off" being a request to stop the wailing.

Whale Pop Songs Spread Across the Ocean is the title of an article in Science magazine last week. 11 years of research into whale songs in the Pacific has shown some of the fastest and most complex cultural evolution in a non-human species.

Wedding story

To celebrate 24 years of married bliss here's an old story about a wedding reception.

The First Epistle of John, shortened to 1 John, contains the 'moving' words, which might be reasonably quoted at weddings:
4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.


It is said that (once long ago in the dark ages before text messages and mobile phones) on the day of a wedding, one of the guests could not make it due to a family emergency. Instead, he sent a telegram, just saying "1 John 4 vs 17 to 18", the friendly sounding text above.

However, in transcription it became "John 4 vs 17 to 18" which tells a different story altogether, as it refers to The Gospel according to John:
4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

A good story - and of course an old one. I'm surprised that the word telegram was not picked up by the speeling chequer.

Little note:
On further inspection of 1 John, we find that this lovely text is taken out of context and is not actually appropriate for weddings because the previous verse says: 
4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 

Aside from that, we should not let it spoil a good story.

What's the harm?

Have a look at http://www.whatstheharm.net/ which tells you exactly what it says in its name.

It won't give you proof and won't give you evidence, but when someone says to you one day "but what's the harm in it?" this is a great source of information.  There is a nice introduction video from Penn Jillette, the loud half of Penn and Teller.

Unfortunately what you find on that site is not always cheerful reading.  In the section about homeopathy for example there are many stories of people with treatable conditions who decided to try alternative medicine and died unnecessarily.

There is a name for 'alternative medicine' that is proven to work by the way.  That name is "medicine"!

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is a web site which arms the inexpert atheist with questions that can be used whenever a Christian quotes a bible verse at you.  Have you noticed how they tend to do that as if somehow it proves anything?

Companion sites address the Koran (albeit - fortunately - in the 'unreliable' English translation) and the Book of Mormon.

Its well worth a bookmark in your browser.

(corrected the link 09:30 GMT)

Anti-religious - moi?

Just for a change I am feeling a little anti-religious.  Today I'll just use a few quotations from people much more eloquent than me.

"Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy. And in the final tolling it often turns out that the facts are more comforting than the fantasy."  Carl Sagan

"Comparing theology to science is a bit unfair.  Its like asking theologians to bring knives to a gun fight".  Anthony Pinn.
(Pinn's name was a link to a nice Youtube video - I loved the comment 3:00 minutes into the video about RD's tee shirt which declares We Are All Africans and the comment "That's easy for you to say!  You were born in Kenya".  Watch it for context!)

"Science has contributed a lot in the last hundred years and theology has contributed precisely zero".  Richard Dawkins in the same discussion.

And finally, "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.  Religion is answers that my never be questioned."  Anon

Woman, know thy place!

Here is an absolute MUST READ!  This is another great Washington Post 'On Faith' blog post by Paula Kirby.  (Click on it for a link - please!   That link actually takes you to the Richard Dawkins site but you get the full text there.)

It is something that I think everyone should read about equality.  Many seem to think that the last paragraph is the best (see below), but the rest of the article is similarly erudite, incisive and hard-hitting.

Religion is one lie after another: the lie of original sin, the lie of eternal life, the lie of hell, the lie of answered prayer, the lie that life can have no meaning without religion, the lie that religion is the source of morality, the lie of creationism, the lie of a spy-in-the-sky who hears your every word and reads your every thought. And to this list we must add the lie that it views men and women as . . .


It continues in a similar way and there is a lot more of it.  You really DO have to go to the original to read it!

The Moral Landscape

I remember the disappointment a few years ago - well . . . quite a few years ago - when one of my fellow physics students asked one of the 'why questions' in a lecture.  The lecturer's answer made me realise for the first time that scientists in general assert that the 'why questions' are answered by philosophers and I felt a bit cheated.  I wondered whether I had chosen to read the wrong subject.  Fortunately at last a few scientists are very publicly telling us that science can and should try to break down these barriers - to take the non-overlapping magisteria by the lapels and make them overlap!

Sam Harris is definitely one of these people, being a neuroscientist, 'New Atheist' and author.  Seeing him live on stage for the first time with Richard Dawkins in Oxford on 12th April was a greater pleasure than I expected.  I found that I liked his presentation style better than his writing, but that will not stop me reading him further.  The event was very much focused on Harris's new book 'The Moral Landscape', with Dawkins generally taking a secondary role of intelligent questioner.

Some people dislike this format where the 'stars' on stage agree with each other too much.  I've heard the term 'love-in' used.  These people tend to want to hear controversy.  For me though, it is much better to hear two intelligent people developing ideas and concentrating on the areas that they want people to understand better.  Better to hear something new instead of the few standard questions that we hear frequently.  Christians have these 'love-ins' every Sunday (assuming that they do actually go to church).  They sit and listen to the preacher in an orderly and quiet admiration of the wise words from the pulpit (even if secretively dissenting over a coffee after the service).  And yet this is exactly what some of them object to in a secular event where we in the audience are said to be worshiping.

Why have I not described the great words that were uttered last night, when I can hardly deny that I was there to see two of my intellectual heroes?  The answer is that I am not a news reporter, and I don't trust myself to do it justice.  Besides that, dear reader, you would find your life enriched by listening to it yourself. The mp3 file is now available on the Pod Delusion web site.  Click for a link.

It is enough to say that Sam Harris made a strong case for the idea that there are objective rights and wrongs that can be determined by science.  He used many interesting examples to demonstrate that a measure of 'well-being' was one option to determine right from wrong and good from evil. 

He also pointed out a favorite concept of mine when trying to explain why religion can't be the sole source of any wisdom or morality.  All the scriptures were written by people with less access to knowledge than anyone in the room last night.  Indeed nobody in the room could ever have met anyone with as little understanding of the world as the authors of these sacred texts.  In moral terms they were no wiser than the average Afghan warlord of today.  (Maybe this is why they made such a mess of transcribing the 'inspired word of god'.)

My mind strayed (as I'm afraid it often does) to some of those movies where the action hero (perhaps James Bond?) arrives in a third world country and is helicoptered in to negotiate with the savage king or tribal chief.  To his surprise, he finds that they speak the Queen's English and were educated at Eton and Oxbridge.  I guess that doesn't happen much in real life and Harris's analogy is safe.

In conclusion - I found Sam Harris to be a fine speaker who got his point across very well.  Some of the questions from the audience were a little less comprehensible - but of course it was Oxford.  Before beating myself up about failing to understand them fully, I remind myself that there are two types of question:  those that seek knowledge, and those that seek to show how much knowledge the questioner wishes to demonstrate.

Unlucky 13? Not really.

The famous accident on Apollo 13 happened on April 13th 1970, surely providing evidence that 13 is an unlucky number?

Of course not!

I always thought that 1 is a much more unlucky number on the basis of all the evidence from the Apollo programme. All the astronauts died in the Apollo 1 fire, whereas they all survived Apollo 13 adventure.

**************

And yes - of course I plan to write about the interesting event in the Sheldonian in Oxford tonight, with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins on stage together.  But the post about Apollo 13 really HAD to go out on 13th and I can't write two posts in one day . . . or can I? 

Storm by Tim Minchin

Tim Minchin at his outrageous best! You can find the original at this link.

1954!

April 11th 1954 has been described as "the most boring day of the 20th century".  Apparently absolutely nothing happened!  I wouldn't know.  I hadn't been born.

Internet hunting

The concept of being able to aim and fire a weapon remotely, controlling it from your computer at home, might be attractive to some people.  To me it seems barbaric and slightly pathetic.  This idea. probably originating in Texas, became known as 'internet hunting'. 

Although probably a hoax, the practice has actually been banned in about forty US states.  Critics say that the industry was never viable and ridicule the way that laws can be made too easily.

The power of prayer!

Only in MT.Vernon, Texas?

I came across this entertaining little story - and at this time of year who knows how true it might be.  I wonder what the verdict was!

Drummond's Bar began construction on an expansion of their building to increase their business. In response, the local Baptist Church started a campaign with petitions and prayers to block the bar from expanding. Work progressed right up until the week before the grand reopening when lightning struck the bar and it burned to the ground! 

After it was burned to the ground by the lightning strike, the church folks were rather smug in their outlook, bragging about "the power of prayer", until the bar owner sued the church on the grounds that the church ... "was ultimately responsible for the demise of his building, either through direct or indirect actions or means." 

In its reply to the court, the church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection to the building's demise. The judge read through the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's reply, and at the opening hearing he commented, "I don't know how I'm going to decide this, but it appears from the paperwork that we have a bar owner who believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that now does not."

Bursting the bubble

Just a wonderful picture!  I'm feeling a bit like this at the moment too - missing the company of a couple of dear friends - but taking solice in the splendour of the physics and photography.

All credit to Richard Heeks, from Exeter, UK, for such artistry in science - and patience.  Isn't it amazing how the bubble turns into filaments like that? Follow this link to find some other photos in the series.

The part of the bubble on the left doesn't yet know that the other side has gone.  This is a great analogy for the travel of light through the universe.  When we see a distant object we have to remember that it might not be there any longer. 

I love to use analogies to explain science to the general public and make them realise how much they do know already.  I believe that the most brilliant scientists of 200 years ago would have given an arm and a leg to know as much as the most unscientific person today. 

And yet these treasures of knowledge are dismissed all too easily by those who just consume technology with no understanding.  The beauty of the bursting bubble is lost on most people. 

Is humanity an adult species?

Steve Zara is a prolific blogger and regular contributor to the Richard Dawkins.net forums, and yesterday he blogged about how atheists might change strategy to win arguments with theologians.  Its a good read and can be found at Steve's Posterous.  That got me thinking, particularly about whether humanity could be considered to be an adult race now.

"We talk about how science and materialism reveal to us our true freedoms and our true responsibilities - we may be an orphan species, with no heavenly parent, but we are also an adult species, able to live free of the need for commandments and punishment."

So are we adult enough I wonder?

My mind goes first to Kubrick's classic 2001: A Space Odyssey (the movie and Arthur C Clarke's book which I read six times as a teenager, understanding a little more each time).  If my understanding of it is correct, at the end the symbolism suggests that humanity is rather like a celestial infant, just embarking on out first exploration of the universe.

Christians of course are all exhorted to think as children think.  The message of the new testament seems clear on that.  One might be tempted to say that there is little harm in it.  (More on that tomorrow.)

Then my mind moves onto the ways that our nations go to war over arguments that could sometimes be described as petty and adolescent.  The same applies in family arguments.  My darling (bright and intelligent)  teenage daughter has just gone off 'in a strop' over something trivial - yet again, my fault as usual.  But her behaviour is little different from that of many mature human adults.

Trying to think of examples of true 'adulthood' is a little harder.  Politicians? No  Business people?  No.  Bankers?  No.  Priests?  Almost (sometimes).  Philosophers?  Maybe yes, although I am thinking of free-thinking philosophers such as Grayling,  Dennett and Russell rather than those who are less accessible to the general public.

The best hope for an adult outlook in our species almost certainly comes from the skeptical atheistic community.  We are still in the minority compared with the religious but I think there are tell-tale signs that humanity is growing up at last.

100 today!

No - not 100 years!  (I'm only half that age.)

The previous entry was my 100th post to the blog, and the number of readers is gradually increasing.  To anyone who has stuck with my ramblings so far - a big THANK YOU.  I hope you will mention Something Surprising to a few friends tomorrow and share the joy of the entertaining things that I come across every day.

The Good Book - Daily Mash

A colleague kindly mentioned to me today that A C Grayling's The Good Book got a rather different type of review today in a highly reputable (?) online journal called "The Daily Mash".  He says it is the only 'newspaper' he ever reads these days.  Certainly it has a different take on most topics and seems entertaining - if slightly obscure.  In this case it describes Grayling's 'atheist bible' as an impossible fairy tale (according to Christians).  Ha ha!  I guess the Christians would recognise one when they see it.

To give you a flavour of the parody in that august journal, on the topic of people being good without god, I quote:

Monsignor Stephen Malley, a leading Catholic theologian, added: "So this person just woke up one day and miraculously decided to do something for someone else?

"I'm sorry Professor Grayling, you may convince some people with this voodoo hocus pocus, but I will stick with the empirical logic of transubstantiation, thank you very much indeed."

Being ex-Church of England myself I can only refer the Monsignor to the 39 Articles of Religion which make it perfectly clear that (in England at least) (and since Henry VIII at least) the wine does not change to the blood, nor the bread to the body.  Transubstantiation is not substantiated!

At least the dear old 'C of E' originally got one thing right, even if in recent decades it has become more popish than the Roman Catholic Church by forgetting its real doctrines.

Like sleeping furiously!

A C Grayling was talking to to Decca Aitkenhead about his new 'secular bible' called The Good Book, in an interview reported in The Guardian.  He says that he has been compiling the book since he was a young man.

When asked whether he thought there was any truth in the assertion that the new atheist movement has offended potential sympathisers by being too outspoken or militant he is said to have answered like this.

"Well, firstly, I think the charges of militancy and fundamentalism of course come from our opponents, the theists. My rejoinder is to say when the boot was on their foot they burned us at the stake. All we're doing is speaking very frankly and bluntly and they don't like it," he laughs. "So we speak frankly and bluntly, and the respect agenda is now gone, they can no longer float behind the diaphanous veil – 'Ooh, I have faith so you mustn't offend me'. So they don't like the blunt talking. But we're not burning them at the stake. They've got to remember that when it was the other way around it was a much more serious matter.


"And besides, really," he adds with a withering little laugh, "how can you be a militant atheist? How can you be militant non-stamp collector? This is really what it comes down to. You just don't collect stamps. So how can you be a fundamentalist non-stamp collector? It's like sleeping furiously. It's just wrong."

This article brightened up my Monday morning.  I suppose now I have to add yet another book to my pile of important things to read.  The list never gets any shorter.

The origin of human rights?

I have often wondered where the concept of human rights emerged from and how it has become so widely accepted in the western world.  This is not to say that I in any way disagree with the concept.  It is just not totally obvious to me where the idea came from.  It does seem clear though that the concept is not from Christianity or Islam, both of which singularly failed to reject many forms of discrimination.

Does the evolutionary trait of altruism stretch this far?  It seems to be altruism taken to the extreme.

I was reminded of these musings while listening to this weekend's episode of the excellent Pod Delusion (episode 78) where Nick Boorer touched on the topic.  I get the impression that he is not a fan of Italian society, but setting that aside he told an interesting story, paraphrased below.

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human rights recently judged that the compulsory presence of crucifixes in Italian classrooms does not consistitute a violation of Article 2 of the First Protocol to the Eurpoean Convention on human rights.  How did they decide this?

They confirmed the judgements of the Italian Supreme Administrative Court.  It said that he modern principle of secularism and the importance that that principle was granted in Italy and in Europe was entirely predicated upon, and a direct product of Christianity and Europe's inherently Christian heritage.  The values the enlightenment espoused, liberty and freedom of every person, the declaration of the rights of man and ultimately the modern secular state are all based on the Christian concept of the world.

That might be legally true but I find it hard to accept that it is literally true.  As I always say - "In the EU there is no smoke without mirrors".

Abrahamic religions require the utter submission of one's moral conscience to one ultimate authority and explicitly reject tolerance and in fact demand discrimination

One mystery remains.  Which of the items on the Pod Delusion was the April Fool joke?  I'm pretty sure it was not this one though, as the topic was covered by the Religion Law Blog on March 21st.

When was the flood?

In the calendar developed by Archbishop James Ussher (who calculated that the world was created in 4004 BC), Noah's flood happened in 2348 BCE.

By comparison, there are Bristlecone Pine trees alive today that are dated to be 500 years older than this.

Of course there are many ancient stories of 'the flood' from different cultures.  Some are almost certainly older than the Old Testament version. Which one should we believe in if we don't accept that the bible is the literal word of god?

But more importantly where did all the water come from and where is it now?  And how did the koalas and kangaroos get back from Australia to get on the ark?  Or maybe they weren't there in Australia originally, but why did the amazing rafts of floating vegetation take the koalas and kangaroos only to Australia after the flood and not leave their kind anywhere else along the way there.

How can anyone really believe in this as a rational literal story? The fact that some people do believe it only strengthens my disbelief.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Or perhaps it should be "Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.".

TICKETS: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris – Oxford, Tues 12 April

Wow - tickets for this event were released this morning and as feared the BHA's server seemed to (shall we say) struggle a little with the demand.  After 30+ minutes of frustration I was disappointed not to have managed to buy any tickets even though I had had them half-bought three times.  The message was that they had sold out.  Result = spoilt morning!

Fortunately the sales server seems to have confused itself and later 'realised' that it actually hadn't sold the tickets that were in people's shopping baskets because it hadn't let them pay for said tickets. 

I just managed to buy some after all.  The day is saved.  It all goes to show how popular the New Atheists are. 

I must remember to take a cushion to sit on.  As far as I remember, the Sheldonian has some of the most uncomfortable seating in the entire world!

RINSE2 - homeopathic project management

A new project management rationale, based on a revision of the age-old technique of 'Homeopathic Project Management' (HPM), is being pioneered by the UK Government. A two-week training course* will have to be undertaken by anyone running projects for the government. The course will introduce them to the complex new terminology associated with this powerful technique. Replacing the current 'standard' PRINCE2 it is being presented under the pseudonym RINSE2.

Although government organisations have spent many years prevaricating over this idea, you have to admire the simplicity of HPM. In essence the idea is to dilute the resources allocated to the project, followed by thoroughly shaking up the organisation.** The principal technical terms 'dilution' and 'succussion' are new to project managers, but it is claimed by proponents of the technique that the more often they are carried out, the greater the efficaciousness.

Taken to the extreme, there is nobody left in the organisation who knows anything useful, but this helps senior management to drive the project to completion with significant cost savings. Furthermore, if applied correctly there is nobody left to assess effectively whether the completed project has any outstanding deficiencies. This has been found to be a great advantage.

The well-known outspoken author and critic of the analogous homeopathic medicine, Simon Singh, has been notably silent on this topic and this is seen as encouraging news by those who back the initiative.

RINSE2 represents the way that future government efficiency improvements are expected to be delivered and in carefully selected trials it has been found to be at least as effective as the better-known homeopathy. ***.

Press release date: 1st April 2011

© Something Surprising Blog

Notes for editors:
* Training to be provided by 'experts' carefully selected over a series of well planned, lavish business lunches.
** Beating everyone with a leather bound book has been shown to increase the effectiveness further, but only at the cost of legal fees in employment tribunals.
*** Homeopathy has been shown to be no better than placebo but in spite of this it is foreseen that RINSE2 will live up to similar expectations.

++ The previously favoured 'PRINCE2' is now consigned to the same fate as the National Health Service.

Might religion go extinct?

A surprising new paper was presented at the recent meeting of the American Physical Society.  I know a lot of engineers and physicists, but none of them are studying the decline of religious affiliation in 85 regions around the world.  However Daniel Abrams, Haley Yaple and Richard Wiener have been using techniques from the field of statistical mechanics to do just that.

They start with the observation that people claiming no religious affiliation constitute the fastest growing religious minority in many countries throughout the world. Americans without religious affiliation comprise the only religious group growing in all 50 states.  They claim their model predicts that for societies in which the perceived utility of not adhering is greater than the utility of adhering, religion will be driven toward extinction.

It is not hard to believe that this could apply to some of the better-known secular countries such as The Netherlands, but it seems more surprising that the trend in Ireland indicates that it is going the same way.

Meanwhile, during a lunchtime discussion with two Portuguese colleagues recently, they assured me that Portugal is a Catholic country, but that it hardly mattered as they largely ignored the teachings of the church.  I had to disagree about whether it mattered, but that news is not altogether discouraging.


Here is a link to their paper.  Sadly it fails to pass the 'two equation test' and reminds me that I earned my physics degree in spite of my lack of expertise in statistical mechanics!

Another £25 billion lost to us?

"Some £25bn every year is thought to be lost to the public purse by wealthy tax avoiders. This money needs to be recouped to help save our essential public services."

This is the claim of the 'demonised' UK Uncut organisation which occupied Fortnum and Mason last Saturday, 26th March.

Whether this figure is exactly correct or not, it is perfectly clear that the wealthiest people pay the least tax in UK.  If they accidentally paid as much tax as I do (in £, not in %) I suspect they would probably sack their accountants.

(Am I ranting too much on a single topic this week?  Leave a comment if you think I should return to my usual rants - or indeed if you think this stuff matters a lot.)

Obscene wealth

This picture from the march in London says it all.

Of course out millionaire ministers wouldn't want to do anything to make this fairer.

Tax is for the little people

Its only fair to ask that the wealthiest people in UK pay their share of taxes.  Isn't it?  Nobody is asking for anything punitive - or at least not more punitive than the rest of us have to put up with. But how can Phillip Green be allowed to get away totally tax free with a UK income like his?  It is just not fair!

This picture is from the 26th March protest in London.  Does it remind you about the quotation from Cardinal Ratzinger that I posted a few days ago?

We seem to be left with a few options:

• Do nothing at all and ask people why they think it is worth doing anything. i.e. Just give in!
• Do something - like attending the protest as a lot of us did - i.e. Exercise our democratic right to protest!
• Sympathise with those who are indulging in a campaign against the likes of Vodafone and Top Shop.  i.e. Conspire to commit a crime if only a thought-crime.
• Take action with them because the first two items on this list clearly make too little difference.  i.e. Criminal activity albeit maybe for a just cause.

Now I personally feel my opinion to be right in the middle of this list, somewhere in between attending protests and supporting direct action.  I don't like the idea of criminal damage being caused but I do recognise that even 4 to 500,000 people parading through London can simply be ignored by our barely-elected government.  (It is still claimed by BBC to be only 'quarter of a million'.  I'm pretty sure that is an under-estimate.)

There was something just slightly satisfying, even to law-abiding professional me to see this mess on the windows of De Beers in Picadilly.  I have no idea of their tax status (although I think I could guess) but they are clearly associated with a certain part of our society.  I would like them to be made to feel the outrage that I am feeling now.

"23 of our ministers are millionaires" I read yesterday.  Snouts in the trough eh?  If we 'little people' don't start to make our voices heard more clearly they will continue to get off scot-free.

On the performance of the BBC

With regard to the march in central London today:

• It is my impression that the BBC downplays any criticism of the government
• I feel that they dwell on the sensational stuff in Trafalgar Square last night
• 399,700 people are back at home peacefully - vs 300 left in Trafalgar Square

Who gets on the late-night news?  Answer - the 300.

Let's hope for cutbacks that eliminate the BBC!  Spokesperson for the UK government or what??

March for the alternative

March 26th - the march for the alternative to the government cuts in London.  Estimates of the number of people attending vary but my colleagues and I side with the Guardian's estimate of 400,000, (based on various evidence from the number of coaches and trains to the sheer time it took to move along the march).  I can tell you one thing for certain.  The centre of London had traffic problems!

OK - say 100 people got excited and attacked some shops - shops that arguably deserved it as their owners pay effectively NO tax in UK.  But that leaves 399,900 people - all the people I actually saw in 6 hours included - who were there because they care what happens to the UK.  The atmosphere was uplifting.  There really is hope for humanity.

Just imagine - the cost of bailing out the banks recently is actually greater than the total amount that the government has spent on science since WW2!!  And we continue to pay bonuses to the bankers because they are ??good?? at it?

How do I choose just one photo from today?  The answer is that I just can't choose one.  The two that I have chosen show the good natured humour of an excellent day in London.

Now - regular readers will understand that I do not normally worship the police.  But today I can't offer enough praise for the soft touch that I observed.  The officers I spoke to were polite and sympathetic, guiding the protesters along the correct route but allowing tourists to go about their visit to London.  Well done to 'the Met'*!

* For readers outside UK - 'the Met' means "The Metropolitan Police", in London.

Christian terrorists all around us?

One aspect of terrorism has been defined as "use of threats of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a religious goal".

This sounds like Christianity - "Believe this or burn for eternity!"

On this opinion I do agree with the great Hitch!

Was hell 'invented' by gentle Jesus?

What are the origins of the concept of hell? Christopher Hitchens claims that in the Old Testament there is effectively no concept of hell in the modern sense. The idea of eternal suffering was only brought to us by 'gentle Jesus meek and mild'.

Of course Islam also has a concept similar to that of the christian hell, and it is called Jahannam. The origin of this word is thought to be from the same root as the Hebrew name Gehenna which was originally the name of a valley near Jerusalem. It was a place more like the Catholic concept of 'purgatory', and in Jewish tradition nobody would stay in Gehenna for a period longer than twelve months.

Gehenna is often translated into English as hell. However the King James version of the bible also translates the words 'sheol' and 'hades' as hell.

The Jewish meme of 'sheol' is sometimes translated to Greek as 'hades'. All the dead go there, regardless of their moral choices in life. Sheol predates all christian and muslim ideas of judgement and it is considered to be totally different from heaven and hell.

Even within one faith there are disagreements. For example, in Acts 23, verses 6-8 the Pharisees and Sadducees were unable to agree whether angels and spirits even exist, let alone where the spirits go after death.

Confusion reigns. If theologians cannot agree about the subject then surely it is futile to worry about it. Even within the three great mono-theistic religions followers are required to take different actions to avoid eternal damnation, so on the basis of this it is clear that the majority of people will be wrong and suffer the consequences.

Much as I hate to disagree with the great Hitch, I think his explanation might be a little simplistic.  But its a good story and vaguely true.

Simple christianity

“The Christian believer is a simple person: Bishops should protect the faith of their little people against the power of intellectuals”  -  Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now the pope of course).

If this offensive quotation had come from one of the new atheists I suspect that few christians would have been surprised. 

Perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe his meaning was lost in translation?  (Well OK, maybe not.)  Ratzinger wouldn't want to confuse his 'little people' with actual facts would he?

The Peace of Cod

An American christian friend has just bravely launched a new blog and I was reading the first few entries.  I was so glad to read the moving story of her daughter's first conversation and feel very happy for her.

However, her post "At his feet" described the peace of submitting yourself entirely to Jesus, and was less moving to me.  Gospel music like the linked song always did make me feel uncomfortable too - part of my de-conversion I think.

As I think she was effectively inviting me to comment, I posted a description of finding peace by escaping from the absolute tyranny of the 'less cuddly' aspects of a god like hers.  Hopefully it was polite - just as her comments here have always been courteous.  I feel I can be slightly more direct here on my own blog and can drop the capital letters for deities and religions.

I was reminded of that lovely prayer that begins "The Peace of God that passeth all understanding . . .".  I always liked it - but now I wonder whether that is partly because it indicated that the end of the service was imminent.  Those words describe my thoughts more vividly now than they ever did when I was a christian. (small c!)

Now on the other hand, the 'piece of cod' that I had for dinner this evening with chips and tartar sauce was quite delicious.

Small link: On a slightly less controversial note - see Authentic Fish and Chips - an English delicacy!

Vexed by demons

According to Carl Sagan, in his great book "The Demon Haunted World", 1996 (p116), St Augustine was 'much vexed with demons', which prey on the 'captive and outwitted minds of men'.  These demons have a striking similarity to the activities of the aliens who seem to abduct so many Americans in these times.

Augustine believed that witches were the offspring of the forbidden unions between demons and women.  Demonic seducers of women were known as incubi, and of men succubi.

"There are cases in which nuns reported, in some befuddlement, a striking resemblance between the incubus and the priest confessor, or the bishop, and awoke the next morning to find themselves polluted just as if they had commingled with a man".

There is nothing new in the World!  Ask Pope Benedict about it.  No seriously, ask him!

Facebook's 'A' week event

Atheists in Facebook have been invited to change their profile picture for this weekend join an event that you can find by clicking on this link.

Strangely enough I found that a lot of my contacts there have changed theirs.  Wonder why.  The idea of 'A' Week seems to be going down well with over 17,000 people liking it so far.

The Forer Effect

The Forer Effect, (or as it is sometimes known, the Barnum Effect) gives a little insight into one of the tools used by psychics in 'cold reading' where they can convince their 'victims' that they know more than they really do, and use that knowledge to gain even more knowledge from the victim's reaction. See how appropriate this seems as a description of yourself.

"You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life."

Forer's example seems to apply to most of us, and in his experiment people were asked to rate how accurately they felt it described them. The average score was more than 4 out of 5. The Forer effect is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to almost anyone.

Probability taken personally

A rationalist view is that 'luck is just probability taken personally'.

Sadly I can't attribute this as the author has remained somewhat elusive.

A couple of quotations

There have been no anti-religious posts here recently, so these go a little way to make up for that.

"The lion may lay down with the lamb, but the lamb won't get much sleep" - Woody Allan

"Just because you're offended doesn't mean you are right." - Ricky Gervais

Not ghostly spirits - just proof!

Until 1 January 1980, the United Kingdom defined alcohol content in terms of “proof spirit”, which was defined as the most dilute spirit that would sustain combustion of gunpowder.  It was found that gunpowder would not burn in rum that contained less than 57.15% abv.

Therefore, rum that contained this percentage of alcohol was defined to have "100 degrees proof".  Spirits with a lower alcohol content were described in terms of percentage proof or degrees proof.

More than 30 years later (in these days of standardised alcohol percentages) you still hear people talking about  spirits in terms of the proof spirit definition.  How many of them know what it means?

Gallows humour

When William Palmer, English 19th century doctor and convicted poisoner, stood on the trap door of the gallows in 1886, his last words were "Are you sure this is safe?"

Why are wrist watches so accurate?

Wrist watches only contain standard quartz crystals but many people observe that they seem much more accurate than clocks in other environments (like the car).  The answer is probably temperature control.  It is close to your skin which has a very constant temperature compared with other places.

Fire Walking

Fire walking is a remarkable spectacle and looks very dangerous. So how does it work when it is obviously not a case of mind over matter or anything paranormal?

The key lies in the very poor thermal conductivity of the charcoal.  As long as you only touch the charcoal, however hot it is, the surface cools so quickly that it does not burn you, and the heat is not conducted from inside the charcoal to the surface quickly enough to be a problem.

By analogy it is like a cake in a tin in the oven.  You can touch the cake with your fingers to see whether it is cooked, but even touching the tin for the briefest possible moment you will be burnt.  Haven't we all done that?

Mind you - even understanding all that I'm not sure I want to try fire walking.

The UK census 2011

The time for the national census is nearly upon us, and nobody living in the UK can be unaware of the furore about a few of the questions.  A sentence containing 'storm' and 'teacup' comes to mind. 

Do I care whether the Welsh are being asked whether they speak Welsh or not.  Not a jot!  (Nor even a tittle.)  I smile as I wonder how many people in England actually speak English though.

The religion question is a little more interesting, but still hardly earth-shattering.  An article in The Guardian's series called 'Face to Faith' nicely summarises this week's 'fuss' about some posters being banned from railway stations .  You can find all three posters here.

I loved one of the comments on the Guardian page above.  Asterixorb said:

"I find signs outside churches that say things like 'Jesus saves' 

nonsensical and offensive.  Who do I report it to?".

Japanese earthquake

Speaking of quacks, I hear that people are blaming a so-called 'supermoon' for the dreadful earthquake.

I had the pleasure of visiting Sendai a few of years ago and found the people there very hospitable.  If any country in the world can deal with this catastrophe calmly and efficiently then I am sure it is Japan.

This supermoon idea is just nonsense.  The moon and sun together exert a greater force on the Earth at full moon and new moon. The evidence for this is that you get 'spring tides' at those times.

Just at the moment we are a few days from new moon and I just checked the tide tables and see that the tides are not unusually high due to this impending 'supermoon'. Even if they were, they would have been higher a few days ago, at new moon.

Incidentally, the next full moon will bring tides among the highest in the year as the equinoctial spring tides are always the highest - and a great time to see the Severn Bore if you live near enough.

Tidal forces on the oceans can't be different from tidal forces on the Earth's crust. That means that according to the hypothesis of the Daily Mail the earthquake was several days too late.

In other words - the hypothesis is demonstrably hopeless.

The Quackometer - passed!

Just finished reading Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst's excellent book 'Trick or Treatment' and enjoyed it.  Somehow they managed to say that it is irrational to believe in most forms of alternative medicine without making me feel stupid for having fallen for a few homeopathic scams in the past.  I am now fully converted to the anti-homeopathy brigade.

Its funny how you can read a book like that, find a name you know, and realise that you have recently made the acquaintance of someone who is quite famous.  This came in the form of a reference to Andy Lewis's website 'The Quackometer' which claims to be a contribution to the automatic debunking of quack medicine on the net.

So - did it work?  I tested it on this blog and on my other technical web site and was relieved to find that I got a score of zero quacks on the international scale of quackery for both.  Phew!

Just to convince myself it worked I tried the British Chiropractic Association too.  They score 8 quacks.

Going to read Richard Wiseman's new book 'Paramormality' next.  The first few pages have been gripping.

JREF's million dollar challenge just got easier

The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) has for many years offered a large cash prize for anyone who can prove that they can use paranormal skills.  At present the prize is $1 million. 

The claimant has to agree the terms of the test in advance.  Of course all of them fail (so far at least) and then some of them claim that the test was unfair after all.

The qualifications for entry into the testing process have just been changed to make it easier as you can see at  JREF’s $1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge Now Easier Than Ever

Douglas Adams on the Scientific method

"Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!"  - Douglas Adams

He wrote long sentences didn't he!
Thanks to the Pod Delusion special about Douglas Adams for the first half of this, which led me to find the entire quotation.  I liked the last part and have heard Richard Dawkins quote it on videos on Youtube but had forgotten where it came from.

Identity theft for real

A colleague of mine was surprised last Friday when a brand new Iphone 4 (worth about £700) was delivered to his house by DHL.  Later in the day there was a phone call from someone claiming to be from DHL, informing him that they had delivered it in error and that they would send a representative to collect it.  This 'representative' turned out to be a man in a white 1999 registered van with no form of identification to link him with DHL.  (Yes the registration number has been recorded.)

My colleague should be congratulated on spotting a potential scam and he refused to hand the package over.  Instead he called the mobile phone company, O2, who were unhelpful.  Apparently he had to be able to answer his security question - that being the one that had clearly been set up for him by someone else, using his bank account details.  He has not had any dealing with O2 for several years.

Similarly his bank(s) have all been unhelpful and rather uninterested in the event.  Admittedly none of them have yet seen any transactions, but one might have hoped that they would be keen to spot potential fraud and take appropriate actions.  The police have also taken the details and said that they would send an officer around to collect the phone.  My colleague (I think reasonably) has declined to hand it over.   What would be the point when it has never been in the possession of the fraudsters.


The best help he has received so far is from DHL who apparently have to deal with this kind of thing on a regular basis.  At least they were able to reassure him that his case is not without precedent.  That must be some relief to him at least.

It is assumed that this has been perpetrated by someone with access to my colleague's address and bank account details, that they would have collected the phone and then sold the stolen goods.  Not an especially clever scam!  But a worrying case of identity theft!  I could easily imagine many people falling for it - even if as intelligent as my readers. Watch out for it. 

This is not one of those stories that is 'nth hand' with an unattributable source, although of course as soon as I tell anyone else it becomes like that.  Just beware. 

Tittle

As promised yesterday . . .

A tittle is the dot on a lower case i or j. It first appeared in the 11th century. Some languages (e.g. Irish) omit the tittle from the i.

[My mother used to use it as a term of derision if she didn't believe a story that was being told to her.  "Tittle" she would exclaim.  Haven't heard her use the term for a while now.]

Do Old Testament laws still count?

So often when you quote an inconvenient part of the Old Testament to a christian, they will tell you that it has been replaced by the teachings of Jesus and that Jesus came as saviour for us all etc.

If the OT really has been superseded then surely the ten commandments are also superseded, and the evidence suggests that this is not at all what they want. That is not to say that the 10 commandments have much to do with today's laws or morality when looked at critically. More of that another day soon - a post on that topic is at the planning stage.

Why is the Old Testament still there in the bible? Because it foretold the coming of Christ. (Or maybe the whole Jesus story was built up to fulfill the prophecies. More on that another day perhaps.)

So, how do we know that this is true that the OT has been superseded? Is it true that its inconvenient laws no longer apply? Maybe it is in the words of Jesus himself. Let's look at the book of Matthew.

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [So the context is OK then? If in doubt you can look it up yourself. It is just after the bit about everyone being 'Blessed' that was mocked so well in Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'.]

5:18 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [Not much doubt then. Not one jot to be changed. Presumably this applies to all the 613 commandments in the Torah, which are represented in the Jewish 'Halacha'. Incidentally what is a tittle? See tomorrow for the answer.  Here's a link added later!]

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Note to self! Must remember not to boil any goat kids in their own mother's milk then. (This is the tenth commandment if you read the version in Ex. 34:26 and you can also find it in Deut. 14:21)

The 'Four Jokes'

It is said that ALL jokes can be broken down into a combination of the following.

1/ Incongruous or surprising
2/ Puns and plays on words
3/ Exageration
4/ In jokes

Can you find one that does not?

Ok - I can't resist trying to give a one line example from memory of each.  I challenge my readers to come up with four better one liners (which shouldn't be difficult

1/  How does it change many dyslexics to take a light bulb?
2/  Famous football result - East Fife 4 - Forfar 5!
3/  I've told you a million times not to exagerate!
4/  Fusion power is 30 years away and always has been.

(Incidentally, there is a credible answer to the last one!  Must post it in the next week or so.)

Aid for emerging nuclear powers?

Should we, as UK tax payers, really be sending aid donations to Pakistan, a country where it seems to mean inevitable death to be a public figure who is not Islamic?  The 'religion of peace' strikes again, with the murder of the only christian in their cabinet, apparently for trying to change the country's blasphemy laws.

The thing that annoys me is that by paying my taxes I am partly subsidising a country where barbaric acts like this seem to be acceptable.  I am no happier that we are also giving aid to India.  Sorry folks, but if you can afford to develop nuclear weapons then surely you can afford to feed, clothe and even educate your people.  Of course they both could afford it but they choose not to.

Meanwhile in UK, the government is cutting back on everything except overseas aid which is ring-fenced.  Isn't it time we took a serious look at this policy?

David Colquhoun in Oxford

A good crowd (50 or 60 ish) gathered at the Oxford Skeptics in the Pub event last night, to hear Professor David Colquhoun, but I would estimate that about 25% quietly left at the interval.  Tempted to do so myself, I'm glad I stayed as the questions and answers were a little more interesting than the talk.

Although I would say that I agree with his campaign against Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), and agree with his consistent campaigning on the subject, I found the accounts of the events a little more disparaging than might have been necessary.  (Of course he was describing his hard won victories and wanted to describe them in detail.)

The slides contained a lot of text and the audience had little chance to read some of them, and I would just say that his method of presentation was 'unusual' for a professional speaker and member of the Royal Society.  I admit that there were a few giggles, including the surprising inclusion of the National Health Service's formal job specification for a 'Spiritual Healer'.

After last week's excellent event, (Paula Kirby), tonight was more than a little disappointing.  Hopefully the April event with Trystan Swale from the Righteous Indignation podcast will be more fun.

Wisdom of Dennett

When asked "Don't you believe in a transcendent force that governs everything", the ever-incisive Professor Daniel Dennett replied "Yes I do.  Gravity"

The 'arrogance' of the New Atheists? What arrogance?

I have taken a little flak in the last week about attending a series of meetings in Oxford.  One of the accusations was along the lines of "how can these people have the arrogance to tell others what to think" followed by the almost inevitable "I'm offended that you seem not to have any respect for my beliefs".  There was more, but this conveys the flavour of the conversation.  The fact that my accuser had not attended any of the said meetings was apparently not relevant.

And yes, I did say 'conversation', even that that sounds quite one-sided.  I have found in recent years that it is best to hold my tongue because my few attempts to reply have made matters even worse.  (The accidental use of the expression 'bronze age myths' a few months ago did not go down too well!)  I didn't even think quickly enough to use the defence that we were not hearing about what to think, but more how to think.

I'm not sure whether my developing thoughts are the result of listening to inspiring speakers this week, and meeting some of them in person, or whether I am beginning to recite the new atheist mantra without realising it.  I am definitely getting fed up of my idealogical heroes being called arrogant though.

So . . . thinking out loud . . . what about:

1/ The clergy-man standing up in the pulpit every Sunday and preaching what to think?  Is that somehow better than what I have been hearing?  If this sermonising is not arrogance what is it?

2/  Prayer groups meet every day within a few minutes drive of my home.  I don't go round knocking on the doors of the participants and telling them how offended I am by their gatherings.

3/  Bible studies take place in our parish regularly.  And yet they only seem to study the 'nice' verses in the old and new testaments.  Isn't that telling each other what to think?  (Or teaching each other which bits not to read?) It is definitely not about how to think.

4/  Finally for now - bible reading notes have been a pet hate of mine for many years, even when I was still a Christian.  Whenever I have picked up a copy of 'Guidelines' or another of those platitudinous little booklets I find phrases that make my flesh crawl.  Picking one up now, and opening it at random I read "It is the duty of every Christian, like a lawyer in a court room, to be able to respond to the questions of non-believers coherently and persuasively".  I hope none of them ever have to represent me in court then!

So which side is the greater purveyor of arrogance?  OK, some of the New Atheists are more outspoken than others.  But this week I have heard no ranting from the pulpit (and certainly I have heard that in churches).  I have just enjoyed the reasonable and well presented opinions of reasonable women and men.