Podcasts for everyone

Have you ever listened to a podcast?  Most people seem still to be shying away from learning to enjoy the range of listening or viewing opportunities available to them.  I'm hoping to convince you that it is easy and that you might be missing out on a world of entertaining and informative programming.

Perhaps you have tried your favorite TV station's web based player to watch a TV programme that you have missed?  It is as simple as that to listen to a podcast.  If you don't mind sitting at your computer or using your mobile phone's web app you can often just go to the website of a podcast and listen or watch it there.  There is actually no need to wrestle with new software or learn how to transfer it to your MP3 player (or i-pod if that is your preference - although it definitely isn't mine).  I'll come back to that later.

The only trouble is . . . how to find out what is available out there, and where. 

A year ago I had not taken the plunge into the ocean of podcasts, but now I am surfing the waves and hardly ever listen to the radio.  This is not just my annoyance with the BBC showing through again.  Radio 4 actually does host some interesting, intelligent and informative programmes.  But there are not enough of them, and the overpowering political correctness sometimes forces them to 'teach the controversy' even if there really isn't one to teach.  Most independent podcasts do not feel compelled to follow the same restrictive guidelines and they can take the risk of causing offence without upsetting their directors (or the government).They do not have to present a fully balanced argument, although most of them do.

To be perfectly honest, I can't remember what made me look for the first podcast, let alone which one of my current twenty I found first.  But these days I look forward to day of publication of several independently produced programmes.  Some others are there as gap fillers, and I even listen to one  religious offering about 'Intelligent Design' - and hate it!  My own preference, as you will have noticed from the topics of this blog, is currently for scientific and skeptical subjects, and I am not averse to a regular dose of atheism.  If you are one of my regular readers - yes there are a few of you and I appreciate you all very much - you could enjoy the same.  I think over the next few weeks I might venture to review some of the good (and the bad).  I am just trying to decide how to categorise my comments.

I have deliberately avoided getting into the question of how to download podcasts onto your mobile device.  If you find yourself drawn to this type of media I am sure that you will find a way.  It is of little use to explain that I personally use a programme called 'gpodder' to manage my podcasts and transfer them to my Sony Walkman 16GB MP3 player.  Those of you with Macs will find that it is all intuitive (or at least you will tell us that until your dying day) and those on Windows can probably use media player or something similar.   (I might have mentioned before that I don't use Windows or a Mac at home, but run Ubuntu linux instead.) 

As a taster - try these, in no particular order but all excellent!

Skeptoid 
by Brian Dunning. 
Short accurately researched weekly episodes about the mysteries of the world.  Click the picture for a link to the home page containing recent episodes (or transcripts if you prefer to read instead of listening).

Skeptics Guide to the Universe 
from the New England Skeptical Society. 
Intelligently and entertainingly looking at subjects of interest to skeptics.  I think this embedded code for the following picture will play the latest episode for you, but failing that you will at least find their web site here.  There are two options: the regular weekly hour long programme or the '5 x 5' podcasts which are more like those from Skeptoid.

The Pod Delusion
UK based, (clever name too), taking 'sceptical angles on topical politics and pseudo-science'.  Many interesting reports from interesting reporters and now apparently very high on the list of favorites on i-tunes (not that I know anything about i-tunes).  They also publish special recordings of specific UK events from time to time.  All being well you can listen to the embedded object here or you can visit their web site.

Judgement Day this week!

Not wishing to get you worried, I wonder whether you have noticed that the second coming is due in three days time - according to some American religiot called Harold Camping - who has calculated that "Judgement Day is May 21, 2011".  At least he has been thoughtful enough to consider what will happen to the rest of us after 21st May, after he has been whisked up to heaven.  He says " I have scheduled new posts to come out between May 21st and October 21st 2011, that will help those dealing with the End Times of the Apocalypse."

It is not entirely clear how he has worked this out, but on that day, exactly 7000 years after the flood, Christ will return to earth and take all the 'saved' up to heaven, leaving the rest of us on earth to suffer 'the tribulation' for exactly 5 months, until the end of the world.  One thing is obvious - he has not used the calendar developed by Archbishop Ussher as mentioned in a previous post When was the flood?

Let's just hope that he is wrong - or else a lot of people I know are  . . . well . . . in for a bit of a rough time!  If I wake up on that morning and find the house empty, my first thought might be that I slept in too long and the rest of the family (all christian) are now at work or school.  However, then the earthquakes might get me worried as we are not accustomed to them in rural Oxfordshire.

The twittersphere offers some thoughts on this topic.  A twitter user under the name of Good_Beard (also known as Hope without God) tweeted "I don't understand the claim that after the rapture there'll be wars because after the religious nuts have gone most of the causes will go."

RosaRubicondior (aka Rosa Rubicondior) tweeted "Looking forward to a #Christian-free world on 22 May when Christians finally realise how gullible they are. #Atheism #ThinkingOptimistically"

I wish it was that simple.  Most of the christians I know are dismissing Camping's calculation just as readily as I do.  One question remains then.  If they didn't believe Camping and 'The Rapture' does happen, will they be saved?

Would anyone like me to look after their valuables and investments for them?

p.s.  As of this moment, "The Rapture Index" is sitting at a nice toasty score of 182.  That is well into the 'fasten your seat belts' range.

"Dear 16 year old me"

See Little Miss Joey's moving video post warning about the dangers of sunburn and send it to a 16 year old that you know.

And then take a moment to glance at some of her great photography.

Do You Want to Convert an Atheist?

I thought this was so good that I just had to borrow it and bring it to your attention.  See the end of the post for attribution.


If you want to convert an Atheist your task should be simple.  Atheists believe in evidence; our opinions are based on it and when the evidence changes, or we discover new evidence, we change our opinions.  We have no sacred dogmas which can't be questioned; no tenets of 'faith' to which we must subscribe. 

This should make us very easy to convert.

All you need is authenticated, incontrovertible evidence that your god exists and your evidence only needs to pass a few simple tests which, presumably, you believe it's already passed

• You will need to explain why your evidence is evidence ONLY for your god and not any other.  Since people have believed in an estimated 3000 different gods in recorded human history, obviously you will need to show why your evidence couldn't be evidence for any of those.
• You will also need to explain how a god is the ONLY possible explanation for your evidence and why it can't possibly be explained as the result of a natural process.

Now, since, presumably, you were convinced of your god's existence by just such evidence, it shouldn't be too difficult to tell us Atheists where it's to be found and how it meets the above criteria.

In your own time....

(p.s.  Opinion isn't evidence and nor is a quote from a book unless the quote refers to authenticated, observable evidence meeting the above criteria).


So writes Rosa Rubicondior on her popular blog (where she specifically does give permission for her work to be reproduced without permission).  Read the (incredible?) comments that she has provoked  by clicking here. 

Look out! Sharia about!

If you don't know what this is about, you haven't been watching or listening to the news last weekend.  Does he deserve the acid in his eyes?  Or just in one eye as (apparently) a man is worth twice as much as a woman (at least when acting as a witness).  Should he have anaesthetic, and indeed why shouldn't he have acid thrown on his whole face (or half of it) like his poor victim.

This is one good reason why we should never allow sharia law to be implemented in any form in Britain (although of course I acknowledge Scotland's right to be different if it chooses.)  Not having sharia here should ensure that we never have to make a decision about the options above.  I'm not suggesting that things like this are known to be happening in Britain (yet) and nor am I complaining that Iran has decided to use another form of law for its own citizens, on its own sovereign territory.  But creeping Islam seems to be omnipresent.

In 2008, The Times reported "Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts", although they have been running since as long ago as 1982.  These courts are permitted to rule even on matters of domestic violence - which surely is a subject that should be dealt with in real courts according to the real laws of this country.  Many people are concerned about coercion, particularly for women who 'agree' to submit to judgement in Islamic courts.

It is not as if British laws do not already exist and not as if Britain is a country where we have too few laws.  Tolerance of other cultures is one matter, and one that Britain can justifiably claim with pride, but when those other cultures are allowed to work legally against the laws of the country I feel that that tolerance has gone too far.
 

Lightning strikes

Normally 'lightning strikes' at Heathrow airport have a drastic effect.  The workers go on strike, the planes stop flying and thousands of people are stranded and kept in ignorance of their expected departure time.  But not this time!

On 23rd April this year, one of the huge new Airbus 380 planes was struck by lightning on its final approach to land at Heathrow.  Lightning strikes on planes are neither unusual nor surprising, and the large commercial planes are designed to be unaffected.  The metal body conducts the current safely around the passengers who might even have been unaware of the event.  This type of metallic enclosure is known as a 'Faraday cage' - physics is everywhere!

Of the very few plane accidents 'caused' by lightning, all but a handful have been tiny single-engined planes that have been unlucky (or silly) enough to be close to a thunder storm.

The thing that really is surprising is that an amateur cameraman, Chris Dawson, was lucky enough to be in the right place to catch this spectacular event.    I have included two screen shots above and embedded the Youtube movie below. Watch it and be amazed!

(Replaced the video clip 31/7/11 as the previous embed code had stopped working. By Nov 2012 the replacement video had gone altogether from Youtube, but another video of the same event can be seen via CBS news, here.)

That does it for the BBC!

I am totally outraged this evening, having accidentally watched the BBC news.  Yes it really was an accident.

Perhaps you have noticed previous posts suggesting that the (balanced and unbiased) BBC supports UK government policies and reports the news accordingly.  This is a minority government, supported by 36 Liberal Democrat  MPs who have completely betrayed their party, as reported by disappointed party member Jennie Rigg on this week's episode (#84) of the excellent Pod Delusion.

Where do the words 'compliant quisling' deserve to go this evening?  It is not just the disingenuous turncoat, Nick Clegg - but all the LibDem MPs.

Tonight the BBC took the trouble - believe it or not - to report that 350 people protested outside parliament that the government cuts were not large enough.  They made a point of mentioning that some people actually do support the government.

Yes! 350! That is not a typing error.  Three hundred and fifty people!

That is 50 people more than the 300 who remained in Trafalgar Square just a few weeks ago after 400,000 people had gone home peacefully.  400,000 who took a whole day of their free time to protest against the government cuts!  350 is about the number of people who were quietly shopping in my local Sainsburys at that moment, and fewer than the number in Tesco.

Democracy . . . ?

BBC . . . obviously the voice of the minority government!  (Spit!!!)

Just vaccinate!

In case you hear anyone saying that they are afraid to have their children vaccinated, perhaps you can be ready with some facts.  Failing to vaccinate is now starting to be dangerous to ALL of us, and not just to the unfortunate infants.  Just having been vaccinated yourself should not make you feel safe because a (small) percentage of people do not acquire immunity even if they are vaccinated.  Those of us who are in that category need further help.  We need everyone in our communities to be vaccinated to ensure that the old - nearly eliminated - diseases stay that way.

At present we are failing to achieve sufficient 'herd immunity' because of seemingly rational fears of parents who have heard how their children might be harmed.  Epidemics are now a near certainty.  People will -yes definitely WILL - die because of the dreadful lies of the anti-vaccination movements.

Be ready to give these answers:

1. The anti-vaccination movement bases its scare stories on 'proof by mummy instinct' and not on science.
2/  Andrew Wakefield who started it all off has been completely discredited and is no longer allowed to practice as a doctor.
3/  The 'mercury' in vaccinations is definitely and provably not harmful.
4/  Vaccination does not cause autism - definitely and provably!
5/  Big pharmaceutical companies might not be paragons of virtue but they are not not giving our children autism!

A little skeptical research will help everyone to learn the truth.  And the truth is that many many people will die if we do not vaccinate.  Start here - Health Protection Agency issues warning to parents in SE England.

According to this article at Skeptical Science blog:

The first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented…

• an estimated 52 million cases of the disease
• 17,400 cases of mental retardation
• 5,200 deaths

Incidentally - when I was a baby there was no vaccination for measles, and apparently I am one of the few who has had measles twice.  I don't want to get it again if I can help it, but

Friggatriskaidekaphobia and Unix time

Its Friday the 13th - an unlucky day according to some.  But of course every day is unlucky for some and my superstition filter is working harder today than most others.  I'm ready to point out the logical fallacies in people's anecdotes about the day - and no doubt they will grumble at me for doing so.

Apparently it is only since the 19th century that this day has been considered particularly unlucky although people were already wary of Fridays in the 14th century.  Every year we have at least one of them, and some years we have three.

Not wishing to fuel world-wide friggatriskaidekaphobia - the fear of Friday the thirteenth - I have chosen one surprising but entirely harmless story for the day.  As regular readers will know, I am an (amateur) user of the Ubuntu operating system, which is a member of the Unix/Linux family. 

'Unix time' reached 1,234,567,890 seconds on Friday, February 13, 2009.

I expect you feel that your life is now enriched!

And one more thing!

Blogger is back in operation again, today Friday 13th!

You might have noticed that there was no post yesterday, for the first time since I started writing on 11th January.  It seems that blogger caused worldwide outrage by going into read-only mode for a couple of days.  Those of us who use it regularly started to feel withdrawal symptoms and today turned out to be a lucky day after all. 

Whatever all the other users say, I think it is a little churlish to complain when the service is (after all) entirely free and extremely reliable.  Where would you get better value for money than this?

Tears and heroism

Having recently read "The Birthday Boys" by Beryl Bainbridge, which was given to me as a birthday present by a dear friend, I discovered that I had two things in common with Scott of the Antarctic.  Of course he had qualities  - sheer heroism and the ability to lead a team - that I could not aspire to emulate, but two little things might be considered to be a start.

Bainbridge's approach was an interesting one, even if the title of her book was a little puzzling.  Each chapter was written in the words of a different crew member, starting off with Petty Officer Taff Evans, and ending up with Captain Lawrence Edward (Titus) Oates who's famous words "I'm just going outside, and I may be some time" were uttered on his birthday.

It is amazing to think that 100 years ago, nobody had ever been to the South Pole.  Two expeditions were in Antarctic, poised to make an attempt.  The world has moved a long way in the last century.

Of course the story does not end well for Scott and his companions.  Bainbridge's description of the whole 'adventure' was consistent with other accounts that I had previously read.  The organisation and resourcing of the expedition were meticulous and yet misguided, more like a boy-scouts' outing than a scientific expedition to one of the most hostile parts of the world.  They were brave men, but with the bad weather that they experienced they had little chance of success.  This was compounded by the strange and fateful decision that a team of five men would attempt to reach the pole, when the resources had been gathered for only four to do it.

In a strange English way they also felt cheated by Amundson who reached the pole before them, and survived the return journey.  How could he be so unsporting as to say that his expedition was going North, and then to go South instead?  How could he use dogs when man-hauling was the only 'proper' way to do polar exploration?  And yet Scott's use of mechanised equipment was not unsporting - even though it worked against them in the end due to unreliability of the machines.

One of the things I found that I have in common with Scott was an inability to organise things properly.  Yes - I am indulging in another bout of self-deprecation as another dear friend sometimes reminds me.  But I fear that I could organise things no better than Scott did.

The other was that he has a tendency towards lacrimosity, both in sad situations and (surprisingly) in happy occasions.  He found that it was embarrassing to him and to the other men around him. 

My female friends never seem to find my tears difficult to cope with.  Male friends and colleagues have looked very uncomfortable.  I ought to be accustomed to it by now but I am not!

First humanist funeral

Last week I had the misfortune to have to attend the funeral of a colleague.  It may seem strange to say this, but in the end I almost found it to be a pleasure.  Certainly I will remember it fondly.

It is not that I didn't care for him.  I was very sad that he had departed this life, but as we drove to the crematorium I wondered out loud whether it would be a humanist ceremony.  I knew that he was not a religious man.  Truly a good man - but not religious in any way.

Sure enough - the official was from the British Humanist Association (BHA), and she conducted the ceremony with respect and great dignity.  Three of his friends and his son spoke, and of course the three friends had to be gently persuaded to cut their words short due to time constraints.  Even that was achieved delicately and with a touch of humour.

The end result was that I came out of the 'chapel' feeling that we had truly celebrated the life of a great man.  Being naturally prone to tears, I think this is the first time that I have not had the need to feel embarrassed by lacrimosity at a funeral.

Well done BHA! 

USA releases bin Laden photo

Hands free!

Here in UK, for a few years now, it has been illegal to use your mobile phone while driving (unless you use a hands-free kit).  Of course it doesn't stop people doing it.  The thing that fascinates me is the way people's attitudes are so inconsistent.  So often they go into 'righteous indignation mode' when they see someone with one hand on the wheel and the other holding the phone to their ear, and then do something else much more dangerous themselves.

Personally I think the new law relating specifically to mobiles was not necessary.  It is the leglislative state gone mad.  There were already perfectly good laws about 'driving without due care and attention', and introducing a law about phones somehow legitimises other things.  However, the law is the law. 

What about similar activities?  Eating, even unwrapping sweets, while driving is legal (I think), whereas drinking while driving is not.  I'm not talking about imbibing alcohol but the consumption of other potable fluids.  I remember a case a few years ago where someone was prosecuted for drinking Coca Cola from a bottle while in the driver's seat with the engine running.  She was actually stationary in a long queue at a red traffic light, with the hand brake on.  What's the harm?  This seems like legal nonsense and over-officious policing.  (I resist the temptation to criticise the police as I know I will be told off by one of my loyal readers - but cases like this do make me feel a little cross.) 

Smoking is legal, even though presumably one must find it quite distracting to light up.  How many hands are needed?  And the fact that you are then in possession of something hot must be a potential distraction worse than a phone.  Changing a CD or a radio station is also condoned.

Perhaps worst of all though is the nearly ubiquitous GPS navigation system.  People have often assured me that they are much safer driving with GPS than with the old-fashioned system that I still use (namely MAPS).  But then they start to programme it while driving along.  Aaaaarrrggghhh!  They might as well be watching a movie while driving.

One day I was in a car with two friends (a couple at the time) and they both had their GPS systems running.  We reached a T-junction and his (in a female voice) suggested turning left, while hers (in a male voice) proposed right.  My map could have come to the rescue but it was more fun to watch what happened.  (I don't think that is why they are no longer a couple!)

One final thought.  I have often wondered about hands-free kits.  What would happen if I was holding my hands-free kit to my ear while driving?  Surely it would be perfectly legal?

Windoze or Ubuntu (Linux)?

I more or less promised last week to talk about why I tend to use Ubuntu Linux these days instead of Windows.

What would I miss about Windows?

1/  Excel
2/  . . . hardly anything else!


However, there is always the option of using it by running a copy of Windows in Oracle's excellent (and still free) VirtualBox environment on Ubuntu.  Windows in a window is a compromise.

What would I miss about Ubuntu?

0/  Security (I think)
1/  General speed and responsiveness
2/  The online community's help with (almost) whatever problem I meet whereas for Windoze it seems more difficult.
3/  LaserJet 1000 printer driver (none available on 64 bit Win7 but no problem in Ubuntu)
4/  Multiple desktops - how you get used to having this facility! 
5/  Easy way to save Youtube videos as they download - grab them from the cache folder.
6/  Ubuntu One synch so easy - if you trust cloud computing.  (And OK - there are other ways to do this on Windows.)
7/  Tomboy notes just work and synch.  I keep little notes to myself and can open them on each of the three machines that I use regularly.  (Cloud computing again though.)
8/  It's free
9/  Its so easy to reinstall in event of a major problem - and did I mention . . . free!
10/  Freedom from Win7's unexplained one minute freeze ups experienced on my laptop
11/  Login window without a visible choice of user names.  (This used to be available in Win XP but seems to have vanished in Win 7 and I regard it to be a security feature, albeit 'soft security')
12/  And finally - OK I admit it - It is not Windows.  My slightly anarchical world view is showing through.)


I would admit that there are still some slightly negative points about using Linux but I can live with these:

1/  Shorter battery life on my laptop - this is the only really annoying factor.
2/  A few niggles about wireless network cards and in some versions the reluctance of the PC to suspend to RAM (sleep) and resume (wake).
3/  Intel/nvidia's Optimus technology - there are no linux drivers if you are unlucky to have that hardware.  You lose the speed and 3D acceleration but just have basic graphics.  I'm quite happy without it as my graphics card is not nvidia and the processor is not Intel.  Nvidia always used to be the Linux users graphic card supplier of choice, for good compatibility.  Clearly their policy has changed.  What a pity.
4/  I suppose if you are a big game player there might be other items too.  

So have I upgraded to Ubuntu 11.04 yet?  Well - yes on my laptop.  The experience is generally rather positive too.  More on that topic soon.

Nice satire about the Archbishop!

The Skeptical Science blog has a nice post today.  The title was Archbishop’s ‘discomfort’ at Hitler suicide. 

It begins:

"Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has expressed ‘deep discomfort’ over the suicide of Adolf Hitler.

‘One cannot help but feel the man was driven to it,’ Dr Williams told a London press conference . . . "

What is wrong with government?

Have you ever been invited to give your opinion in the Houses of Parliament? (That's in UK by the way.)  I haven't.  Have you ever been un-invited because you are more rational than political?

Andy Lewis has.

See this link to an article on The Quackometer

Isn't it outrageous that parliament works more on patronage than on rationality?

And today someone explained to me that the same applies if you work for the European Commission in Barcelona.  Decisions are political - not rational.

Gravity suspended!

Isn't this lovely?

Take the hint Clegg!

After the Liberal Democrats' appalling performance in the UK local elections yesterday, calls are already going out for the resignation of their worst ever leader, Nick Clegg.

Last year, Richard Dawkins described Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal as a 'compliant quisling', but how much more appropriate is that expression for the disingenuous Nick Clegg?

For the first time in a generation, his party has had an opportunity to  influence the old-boys network of the British establishment, and he has wasted that chance by going against virtually every election promise that he made.  Whether it was the one about student tuition fees or his acquiescence to proposing the 'lame duck' reform of the Alternative Vote (albeit better than the current system), Clegg has let us down badly.  We await the result of the referendum of course, but there is no doubt that the No2AV campaign has confused and frightened a lot of voters very successfully.  I blame Clegg for failing us in this regard.

Meanwhile his Lib Dem colleague, Vince Cable, has been in charge of the Department for 'Banning Innovation and Science', (BIS).  (That is a kind of UK joke by the way - officially it is Business Innovation and Science.) 

This might have been a lame joke, but it is not as lame as the performance of the Lib Dems.  Clegg must go - or else why would any of us vote Lib Dem ever again.

Small note: Sorry for re-using this picture.  It seemed even more appropriate today.

Or is it Five Commandments?

After yesterday's thoughts on the 'Three Commandments' and how they affect everyday life in the 21st century (not much after removal of the redundant seven), it might be reasonable to ask which parts of biblical teaching are missing from them.

There is no reference in the Old Testament to anything like the 'golden rule' of doing unto others what you would like them to do to you.  In Dan Barker's 'Losing Faith in Faith' (p 347) he comments that this golden rule ought to be referred to as 'The Bronze Guideline' because there are many people who do not want anything done to them at all.

From the christian point of view this rule is a new testament invention, introduced into the law by Jesus.  But is this true?  It seems questionable for several reasons.

The golden rule as it appears Matthew 7:12 is actually a retelling of Rabbi Hillel's teachings in 10 AD.  It pre-dates Jesus significantly.  But that is not all.

Compare this also with the idea from the Brahmins in about 300BC "Hurt not others in ways that you would find hurtful".

Or try the even-earlier Confucian version from around 500BC "Do not do to do unto others what they would not want to be done to them". 

This latter version is surely the best one.

"Love thy neighbour" is also not an Old Testament commandment although Jesus treats it as such.  (Some make a reference to Leviticus 19:18 but that is said to refer specifically to 'the children of thy people' only rather than to generic neighbours of all nations). 

These important philosophies of the golden rule and loving thy neighbour seem much more useful than the first four commandments, probably more desirable three of the others.  They are surely a worthy addition to the three that are legally enforced these days.

I propose that there are now five commandments - source unknown, but probably not ordained by god.  Surely all were completely obvious to people long before the time of Moses!

How long does DNA identification take?

Apparently 5 hours is about enough.  Surprised?  If like most people (including me) you were wondering how they identified bin Laden so conclusively and so quickly, have a look at this fascinating blog entry about the technology involved.

How do you ID a dead Osama anyway? by Christie Wilcox.

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.