The conclusion to Richard Dawkins’ Channel 4 documentary ‘The Root of all evil?’ was shown tonight. Apparently Dawkins dislikes the title, and it’s certainly a misnomer. He himself quoted Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

The argument is certainly that religion is a major negative factor in the world’s problems, but not that it’s the sole cause.

In the last week I’ve been engaged in various discussions, both on this blog and others, about religion and the flaws in Dawkins’ arguments. Although I disagreed with most critiques, I tried to watch the show with these in mind. I felt that the two shows needed to be seen together - the first was an out-and-out attack on religion, with the second explaining more about why regular religion is dangerous, not just the extremists, and clarifying that it’s entirely understandable why religious beliefs prevail in a psychological sense.

Tonight’s show had more that was new to me than last week’s. I hadn’t heard of the disturbing Hell Houses, or the Accelerated Christian Education program in which children are isolated and given science textbooks with references to Noah’s Ark. I thought Dawkins did a good job of explaining why these fairly extreme examples were the natural extension of the more normal moderate beliefs, particularly when he tried to question how moderate believers justified picking and choosing the parts of scripture they liked.

The only part I’d have changed was the section on morality. While the point was to provide an evolutionary explanation for why we behave in a moral fashion, I think it could be easily confused with a morality drawn from science, which I don’t think is possible. Science and morality are in different spheres, and it’s hard to imagine how they could ever link. I personally work from the principles of ‘the greater good’ and ‘treat people as you’d like to be treated’, and from that I think that decent methods of behaviour can be drawn. The conclusions often cross over with religious ideas, but without the messy problem of contradictory scripture. But that’s brancing into secular humanism, which is a whole other topic
At one point Dawkins politely, but directly, asked a rabbi how the ‘faith school’ could justify teaching that the Earth is only 5000 years old, an idea shown to be incorrect by every branch of science. And it’s then that you can see through the bluster and the rhetoric and realise that the rabbi simply has no answer. And that’s exactly the point. How can that be justified? And why is it acceptable to the majority of the population?

It also touched on the idea of religion as a meme. I find that an absolutely fascinating idea, because it’s entirely logical and anybody can do it as a thought experiment. If you wanted to create an idea, or a thought, that although false would never die out, what properties would it have? It could require that you spread it as widely as possible, it could make a virtue of mystery, etc. etc. Once you’re done you look at the results and the parallels with religion are obvious. That’s just coincidence? Unfortunately the program couldn’t go into much detail, but it’s great to see it getting some exposure on national tv.

Overall, I think the two shows were an excellent introduction to the idea of religion as both dangerous and flawed. If nothing else, it has hopefully started many people thinking and debating, and that can’t hurt.

I picked up the DVD set of Lost this morning, and I’ve just finished watching the episodes I missed. I managed to avoid the spoilers, and many thanks to those who deliberately kept quiet - I appreciate it I was very impressed with the finale! It’s one of those shows where you desperately hope there’s a grand story that’s slowly being unveiled. Unlike, say, the X-Files. I watched that damn show through nine(?) series, even when everybody else had abandoned it, and I don’t think it spoils anything to say that it became apparent they’d been making it up as they went along¹. Given the Lost writers’ pedigree, though, I have high hopes. It’s certainly intriguing enough to keep me watching - roll on series two!

1. I think everybody else realised this after series two [↩]

(posting via flickr as I still haven’t configured the email->blog setup)

It’s nearly half 2, I can’t sleep, and I’m bored. Too tired to concentrate on anything, but not enough to actually drop off. It’s my own silly fault as I didn’t go out all day.

The picture is my pink fish. He’s also a torch. I once made a short film in which my sister threw him into a bin, and then the house was invaded by pink fish out for revenge. I think it lasted 20 seconds total, and the invasion was accomplished using a blue screen alpha mask that was actually an inconsistently lit bedsheet, plus Adobe Premiere’s built-in filters. It was quite fun in the end, wonder if I still have a copy somewhere.

I’m planning to get up at 8 so I don’t have the same trouble tomorrow night…That’ll probably make me moody, tho, so you may want to steer clear

Just trying to upgrade the underlying code-base to use the latest version of K2. I’ll probably break something; bear with me…

Update: Comments broke - they do actually work, but weird stuff happens after you click ’submit’. Trying to figure it out…

Update 2: Dammit - it was working for a few minutes, and then I don’t know what happened
Update 3: Phew. Five hours later, and it’s complete. I’ve no idea how it took so long, but there are a few upgrades. Including, finally, strawberries. As ever, please let me know if anything’s amiss.

I admit I wasn’t up in time to see it live (but then I don’t have any 24-hr news channels anyway) but the Stardust capsule landed safely on Earth. Woo! It was visible across north America as it streaked through the sky, and parachutes were deployed as planned. Initial observations by the helicopter crew suggest it’s unharmed. I think this is the first extra-terresterial sample retrieved since the Apollo era, if you don’t count the Genesis probe.

Tomorrow at 0900GMT NASA’s Stardust probe will, hopefully, drift slowly to ground on the salt flats of Utah, carrying with it a sample from Comet P/Wild 2. This sample was collected as the comet passed by at 6km/sec, or 6 times faster than a rifle bullet, and contains particles which should help considerably in the understanding of both comets and the formation of the solar system. The last time a probe like this returned the results weren’t so good. Solar wind atoms were recovered from the Genesis probe, however, so it wasn’t a total loss. The NASA team say they’ve tested the Stardust systems as best they can, but all they can do now is wait. Unlike Genesis, this probe is to land on the surface rather than requiring entertaining helicopter-based mid-air snatches. The probe’s current position can be seen here.

Assuming everything goes to plan, the sample returned will contain both samples from the comet as well as particles from the space around it. The latter will be in extremely small quantities, and due to the size being smaller than a grain of salt will be extremely difficult to find. It’s estimated that over 30,000 man hours will be needed to find these grains, but instead of employing ‘a small army of microscopists’ to analyse over 1.5 million images they’re turning to the internet community. Much like seti@home, volunteers can download a small program then analyse data as it’s released by NASA. Space.com says:

According to the Stardust@home plan, if two out of four volunteers claim to find a dust track the corresponding image will be sent to 100 more volunteers for verification. Should at least one-fifth of those reviewers affirm the find, the image will be kicked up to a team of UC Berkeley undergraduates trained to spot aerogel dust tracks.

Must sign up for that. Using this technique it’s anticipated that the project should be completed by the end of the year.

While we’re talking about all things astronomical, isn’t it fantastic that the Mars Rovers are still going, one martian and two terran years after landing? They were only meant to survive six months or so, but have coped through two martian winters, in the process finding conclusive evidence of a once-liquid surface, as well as vast amounts of geological data, the first dust devil ever seen on another planet, a martian eclipse, a a meteorite and even a bunny. Opportunity has driven just over 4 miles, while Spirit’s at 3.75. Amazing!

I was thinking: if I ever have kids, the wonders of internet archives mean that everything I’m currently writing will likely be available to them. In fact, it’s possible they’re reading this post.

Um, hi.

So this is me at 22. I don’t know anything. To be frank, the concept of fatherhood scares the hell out of me. I haven’t figured out myself yet, let alone any idea of how to raise anyone. What did I do about Santa? I don’t want to lie to you, but I know how wonderful the idea of magical reindeer etc. can be, and it seems a shame to deprive you of that. What if one of you wants to be a boxer, or takes a liking to blood sports? I deplore those things, but I can’t tell you what to think. I think that smacking a child is morally wrong, but what if it’s an evolutionary fact that some children cannot learn without the threat of physical force? I hope not, but it’s far from obvious. What do I say to you about the incessant cruelty of some people, when I haven’t figured out how to deal with that myself yet?

Do I play games as often as I can? Do I fill the house with books? Do I let you do what you want, within reason? Do I encourage everything you want to do? Do I answer every question as well as I can? Did I teach you the scientific method, then leave you to form your own opinions on everything? As of now, I can’t see why I wouldn’t do any of these things.

One thing I’m pretty sure of: if you ever want a book, I’ll get it for you. Everything else I guess is up for negotiation, but books are too important; as long as it’s affordable it’s yours. If this isn’t the case, I’d better have a damn good reason.

Phrases I don’t want to say:

• while you’re living under my roof
• because I said so
• blood is thicker than water
• childhood’s the best time of your life

If you catch me saying one of those things then - well - I’ve clearly taken leave of my senses and deserve to be beaten around the head with a book on decency.

I think.

What I’m trying to say is: it’s tough being a parent, so you should buy me cookies and surprise gifts as often as possible. I think that’s only fair. You should encourage your mother and grandparents to do the same.

Just so you know, I’m currently listening to an iTunes playlist comprising of David Gray, KT Tunstall and James Blunt. Are they really old fashioned now? Nah, I’m sure they’re still good - all that modern music just has no tune And, if you’re looking for a decent birthday present, a jetpack would be nice. I’m sure they’re available by now. Ooh, one more thing: if your mother puts up with me, she must be very special indeed. She’d probably appreciate a hug right now, too.

P.S. About the middle names. Them’s the breaks, I’m afraid. They’ll grow on you - really.

If a woman coughs in a film set before 1920, she’s going to die of consumption. It never fails.

How often do you recognise joy as an emotion? More than just extreme contentment, but the emotion that’s coupled to a physical feeling of happiness and it’s like you’re sparkling inside…I imagine that everybody gets this from different things, but for me it’s words and language.

The first time I remember being consciously aware of the feeling was when reading a collection of Byron’s poetry. There’s just something about the twists and spirals of wonderful language that really hits me. Stephen King does the same thing frequently - he’ll drop in a sentence so wonderfully surprising that I stop short and read it multiple times. I think it can be caused by beautiful phrases, but more often it’s because of a perfect metaphor or simile. It can happen in non-fiction too: Richard Dawkins and particularly the late Carl Sagan often express their meanings in beautiful linguistic turns, and I love feeling that wave of complete understanding when two seemingly unrelated ideas converge. I’m undoubtedly forgetting various authors, but those immediately spring to mind.

It just makes me happy. Unfortunately it’s almost impossible to exemplify, as I guess much depends on the moment, context, etc. Much as I enjoy all my various interests, I don’t experience that kind of joy with anything other than reading, and I guess it’s what compels me to try writing.

The reason this occured to me is that I just finished reading Neverwhere, by Neil Gaiman and wanted to recommend it very highly. It’s a wonderful modern fairy tale set in London Below - the city of those who fall through the cracks. The book’s full of quirky little ideas that intrigue for a few paragraphs, but then the tale moves on. If I came up with just one or two of these creations for one of my stories I’d be happy indeed Neverwhere is also another example of something of which I’m slowly becoming aware - that the things I most enjoy are entirely unpredictable from moment to moment.

You get the feeling throughout that Neil Gaiman is entirely in control of his style of writing. It’s told in a very relaxed style, but there are occasions where the language dances effortlessly around a revelation which was in hindsight fairly obvious, but simply never occured to you. Or there are times when reality shifts, and the language changes to become slightly more detached - as a reader you’re not quite sure what’s happening, mirroring the main character. There’s a sense of power behind the words; it’s like listening to Annie Lennox, or Celine Dion - the song could be soft and relaxing all the way through, but you’re aware at any time that they could turn up the volume and blast you away. You get the feeling that Neil Gaiman could, if he wished, scare the hell out of you without breaking a sweat. That, or drive you into madness.

The use of language frequently gave me the shivers, although often in a more subtle way. It was more of an overall thing in Neverwhere - the language was fantastic but also served to deepen the impression of the scene. It’s not that the words were just strung together nicely, it’s that they revealed more in the process. I think that makes sense.

Maybe this is too gushing, and maybe in a few weeks I’ll read it and cringe, but right now I can’t recommend Neverwhere enough. I found the novel excellent, from both a plot and language perspective, and encourage you to try it out. I’m trying to decide whether to read American Gods next, or whether to save it…I think I’ll read it now

Apologies for the tone of last night’s post - I was rather cross In the end I watched the first two episodes of West Wing Series 6, which was excellent¹. So far so good on the spoiler-avoidance front, too.

Being a rational person, I decided to teach my computer a lesson by not turning it on this morning. Ha. Don’t think you can mess me about and get away with it. This technique clearly worked, as this evening I have internet access once more, as well as various emails people will be wondering why I haven’t replied to.

I picked up a prescription this afternoon², and when I arrived home I found that although my name was on the outside of the bag, the medication inside was incorrect. Further examination revealed it actually had somebody else’s name on it. I took it back and they swapped it over - the pharmacist said he was ’stressed’ - but that’s so dangerous! I happened to know what I should be receiving and saw that the box was wrong, but even so I had a moment of ‘oh, I’m sure I’m just misunderstanding something’.

1. it really was - I’d call it a definite return to form if I did reviews [↩]
2. nothing bad, btw [↩]

I’ve been looking forward to the Lost finale all week, and I sat down to watch it just now. And the ‘previously on Lost’ showed something I hadn’t seen. Lots, in fact, so I turned it off. It seems that E4, in showing their series of catch-up episodes all in one night, didn’t bother with the previous episode. Nice. No problem, I thought, I’ll go download the missing episode over bittorrent, and download the finale while watching it.

I needed to add a port forward setting to the routes to get torrents working properly. And, in the process, my router broke. Every couple of minutes a ping will get through, but that’s it. The reset button on the back seemingly does nothing, no matter how long you hold it in for, or when.

So I’m rather pissed off right now. Current plan is to get the DVD, which is due out this weekend(?), but the chances of avoiding spoilers between now and then is pretty slim.

I know it’s not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn’t stop me being disappointed right now. Going to break into my West Wing Series 6 box to cheer myself up.

Right - I think that’s enough religious debate for the time being. My brain’s spinning and I think I need a break This calls for an overload of cute. D’awww.

Some old jokes that I’d forgotten, but are still funny:

My doctor tells me I suffer from extreme hypochondria. He prescribed a strong placebo, but I don’t think it’s working.

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Fish

Why did the blonde go to church?[Stretch arms out to sides] She heard there was a guy in there hung like this.

…and…

Why is anal sex better than oral sex?

Continue reading ‘Changing the tone’

If you missed the Dawkins show the other night, a video clip of one of the most memorable moments can be found here.

Dawkins is interviewing Ted Haggard, one of the foremost US christian fundamentalists, and gets an earful of abuse when he deigns to suggest that Haggard may not be fully aware of the facts. Partial transcription:

Ted Haggard: Sometimes it’s hard for a human being to study the ear or study the eye and think that happened by accident.

Dawkins: I beg your pardon, did you say “by accident”?

Haggard: Yeah.

Dawkins: What do you mean “by accident”?

Haggard: That the eye just formed itself somehow.

Dawkins: Who says it did?

Haggard: Well, some evolutionists say it.

Dawkins: Not a single one that I’ve ever met.

Haggard: Really?

Dawkins: Really.

Haggard: Ohh.

Dawkins: You obviously know nothing about evolution.

Haggard: Or maybe you haven’t met the people I have.

Cue tirade. It really has to be seen to be believed.

There’s a massive amount of hypocrisy in there¹, but in the end that’s irrelevant. There are so many offensive things about Haggard’s comments that it’s hard to know where to start. He accuses the entire scientific community of arrogance for drawing tentative conclusions from evidence, and that drives me up the wall…I won’t continue as it’ll just wind me up. Others have covered it in greater detail.

As somebody on the J-walk comments said:

Sometimes it’s hard to look at a christian fundamentalist and think he/she became that way by intelligent design.

Puts the mental into fundamentalist, too. I’d also like to specifically point out the reaction of Fay Weldon, a woman who seems to get crazier and crazier with passing sentence, yet still garners a weird amount of respect in the UK media. She was on Radio 4, discussing the program:

Tom Sutcliffe - he was the only sensible one there - pointed out, ‘His specific point in the first programme is that faith is the problem - the belief in things without as it were physical or substantial evidence is the central problem.’ Then Weldon, outraged, says, ‘Well it’s outrageous, what is he going to put in its place, science?’ ‘Yes!’ says Sutcliffe, slightly exasperated. Weldon is flummoxed. ‘He’s going to look at the stars and say - ‘ [laughs] ‘I mean how is he going to explain them away?’

Quote from here. But, you know, maybe Haggard’s got a point. We should really do something about all these saltationist scientists who think the eye just spontaneously evolved. They’re just everywhere.

1. can’t resist pointing out that Haggard then had Dawkins thrown off his property for “calling the congregation animals” - preusumably referring to evolutionary theory. Given that we, cows and peas have a common ancestor, in a sense the entire congregation are like vegetables… [↩]

Couldn’t figure out this shadow for ages - looks like a dove…Turned out to be a puppet

One of my contact lenses was clouding a little this morning, and when I took it out to wash it my eye stung for a while. I decided to wear my glasses for the day, which I haven’t done for years. I’d forgotten about the fun issue of walking into warm rooms and suddenly not being able to see anything, but the major problem is to do with the way I actually see. I’m not sure how best to describe it, actually. I guess that it’s because the physics of light entering the eye is obviously different with a curved lens over the eyeball and the plane of a pair of glasses. When standing still everything’s fine, but movement feels markedly different. It’s like seeing the world from a different perspective, and is interesting for a while, but as the day’s worn on I’ve felt more and more queasy. Ugh. I’m sure this is a well known effect and I’d be interested to read more about it, but right now I’m going to go lie down.