I really ought to find out who the bloke was who narrated the British Pathe News Reels of the 1950s. He embodied the optimistic spirit of the age. Here he is, telling us about the activities of some complete nutters.
And the winner is: A VW Beetle
Eh, lad. They don't make 'em like they used to.
In my post a few days ago, I touched on the subject of giving children bullshit answers to their questions. I saw this video featured on Pharyngula earlier, and felt the need to share it.
I like the style of this Thunderf00t video.
I had a dream last night. One that I remembered when I woke up, that is. It was enough of a curiosity that I made an effort to commit it to memory before going back to sleep. Perhaps I should add, in case you've pictured me as a lazy-bones who doesn't like to get out of bed of a morning, that it was part way through the night when I woke.
It being a normal sort of dream, on recollecting the storyline after waking, there were many inconsistencies, which, of course, did not seem inconsistent while the dream was happening. The gist of it was this:
I was talking with Richard Dawkins, who seemed very at home in the basement study I used to own and occupy several years ago. In fact, so much at home that it appeared to be his. Part of our conversation was about blogging, the details of which escape me, but in the course of our discussion he kindly gave me a roll of cling film.
I feel I should point out that this was no ordinary roll of cling film. This roll came in a cartridge, with a plastic gear wheel attached to each end of the core of the roll, obviously designed to go in a very hi-tech dispenser (of which I knew nothing). As is often the case with dreams, it didn't seem strange that he should give me such an odd artifact.
I don't know what I did with his gift. It went 'out of focus' and played no further part in the story, which had already moved on to me offering to make coffee. He accepted my offer, and in response to my enquiry "how do you like it", he replied "black, white, third and dill".
In the transission from basement study to kitchen, Richard morphed into a woman, who, it seemed, was my high-powered boss. I mentioned to her, as I began to prepare the coffee, that I understood what "black, white" meant (although the meaning is not at all clear to me now), but that I'd never heard the "third and dill" part, and would be grateful for enlightenment.
She explained that 'dill' meant 'very little milk', to which I said, "oh, I see, just a dash". She looked puzzled, and asked me what that meant, so I told her it meant 'very little milk'. She said, "oh, I see", after which we embarked on a discussion of the etymology of the word 'dash', and it's various meanings.
I woke up before finding out what "third" meant. Damn and blast!
I tend to think that dreams are what happens in our brains when we relax the stricter insistence on logic that we usually impose during our waking hours. Dreaming is just letting it all hang out, goin' with the flow, chillin', layin' back. Unless you can convince me otherwise?
No post yesterday because... well... here's a clue:
But now I have a nice, pristine Windows 7 installation up and running again, which is pleasing. All updated and ready to get back into the fray!
I featured Calamities of Nature yesterday, which tends to look at life from thoughtful perspectives, and occasionally offers something which some would consider controversial. Here's the latest from Jesus and Mo, another site I heartily recommend.
As you can see, J&M tends to be a bit more controversial, although the controversy often seems externally manufactured. There's some sort of delicious poetry in the fact that those externally manufactured controversies are often the subject of the 'controversial' cartoons.
When people make 'unwelcome' comments about Christianity, one often hears the response, from disgruntled Christians, that "you wouldn't say that about Islam!" It always strikes me as a particularly stupid comment. Perhaps those who make it hanker for the good old witch-burning days of yore?
One of the beauties of the Jesus and Mo cartoons is that the aforementioned criticism (if you can call it that) cannot be levelled at them. The are always well balanced!
I heartily recommend a visit to Calamities of Nature. Here's an example of the type of thing you'll see there.
I read this article on the BBC News website, about five 'killer' whales being named as plaintiffs in a court case, which raises some interesting questions.
Actually, the article itself doesn't raise many, if any, interesting questions, but reading it provoked some of my own. The gist of the article is that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have brought a lawsuit, in San Diego, against Seaworld (the owners of the properties where the whales are located), on behalf of the whales. They are citing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, which abolished "slavery or involuntary servitude".
PETA are claiming that the whales are enslaved, which, bearing in mind they are wild-captured animals being held in captivity, and 'forced' to perform 'unnatural' acts, seems a reasonable claim. But, as Seaworld's lawyer, Theodore Shaw, is reported to have said, "Neither orcas nor any other animal were included in the 'We the people...' when the Constitution was adopted."
He's got a point, and, consequently, it seems highly unlikely that PETA will win in court. But then, I think it highly unlikely that PETA's objective is to win, more likely to gain attention for their cause.
I'm all for the ethical treatment of animals, but I have some reservations about PETA. It is alleged that although they claim to eschew violence, they make large donations to the Animal Liberation Front, who apparently set fire to the Coulston Foundation primate-research facility some years ago.
I don't know about that. The issue I have is this: how do we, as humans, know what animals want and like? How do we know that those whales are not enjoying their lives? Just because I wouldn't want to spend my days doing what they do, and living like they do, doesn't mean that they feel the same way. Saying that 'if they were released they wouldn't stay there' is not proof that they are unhappy.
Claiming to know what animals want, and what's best for them, is not very dissimilar to claiming to know what gods want, and what they think is best for everyone. I wrote about what people think their god thinks, just the other day, and I suspect that a similar mechanism operates when we think about what animals think.
There is a difference, of course. We can observe animals' behaviours which can give us a clue to how they are feeling, or at least some of them at any rate. I'm just not very convinced that the whales in question have such a bad time. Their lifestyle is nowhere near on a par with battery hens, for example.
But whatever the pros and cons of PETA's actions, be kind to an animal whenever you get the opportunity.
While I was playing with the Shakespearean Insulter the other day, I clcked the Zenith Poetry link and found myself at the Heretical Rhyme Generator. Yeah! Another fun way to while away some idle moments. Here's one I did earlier:
Mendel's Serenade
What are these tiresome weasel words
Are they yours or hers or mine or his?
I ask only that you tell me, Lords
Was there ever spoken as true as this?
I edited it a little, but mostly to improve the cadence. Utter nonsense, but perhaps not entirely without merit.
Next up, mood music from k u: l i: (their latest offering, just released)
Melancholy, but mixed with optimism and peace.
And finally, why is the sky blue daddy?
Because the sun emits solar radiation, some of which is visible to the human eye. We see colors depending on the length of the light waves, from the longest (red) to the shortest (blue). When solar radiation passes through the earth's atmosphere, various molecules scatter the light waves (called diffusion). Blue waves, which are short and intense, get diffused more widely than other waves - so we see the sky as blue.
I suppose I can understand why some people say, because God made it that way. But boy, is that a cop out! Why not say, well, [insert child's name], you've asked me something which I don't know the answer to. How about you and me find out?
In days gone by perhaps there was an excuse in that finding out could be a major task, so the God did it answer was more excusable. But come on, it's much easier today, so there's really no excuse for fobbing off children with bullshit answers (and stifling their curiosity into the bargain).
On 28 August 1963, at a peaceful civil rights rally in Washington, D.C., USA, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream!" speech to more than 200,000 people.
Well, I have a suspicion!
Okay, I apologize to MLK for co-opting him, unwarranted, into this post, notwithstanding that he's dead and therefore can neither accept or reject it. And, it's true that I don't have an audience of 200,000. But why let mere trifles such as those get in my way? Back to my suspicion.
I suspect that most people's idea of Heaven (that is, those non-atheists who think that such a place exists, and it is their desired destination) is something like: "a place where everybody universally agrees with my point of view, including God."
I doubt that they would be comfortable with that description, and some would proabably rail against me for writing it (which those of you who have learned about logical fallacies will understand to be a possible ad hominem attack).
So let's rephrase it: "Heaven is a place where I agree with the point of view universally held by everyone else, including God."
Does that feel more comfortable?
How about: "Heaven is a place where everyone universally agrees with God's point of view, including me."
Better?
The thing is, research suggests that my first phrasing is probably nearest the mark, even if people don't like to admit it. Researchers at the University of Chicago did some experiments to see what people thought their god's opinion was about various issues. You can read their research paper, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by downloading this PDF entitled, Believers’ estimates of God’s beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people’s beliefs, but I'll give you an excerpt or two if you're too lazy, er, short of time, to read it for yourself.
Writing about their research, the authors say: When people try to infer other people’s attitudes and beliefs, they often do so egocentrically by using their own beliefs as an inductive guide. This research examines the extent to which people might also reason egocentrically about God’s beliefs. We predicted that people would be consistently more egocentric when reasoning about God’s beliefs than when reasoning about other people’s beliefs. Intuiting God’s beliefs on important issues may not produce an independent guide, but may instead serve as an echo chamber that reverberates one’s own beliefs.
They also note that: Unlike inferences about people, however, inferences about God’s beliefs cannot rely as readily on information directly from the judgment target. One can quiz neighbors on their beliefs, read editorials about celebrities’ positions, or observe public opinion polls. Religious agents do not lend themselves to public opinion polling. Even within Christianity, for example, groups differ quite dramatically in their interpretation of God’s attitudes toward such topics as same-sex marriage, the death penalty, and abortion. The inherent ambiguity of God’s beliefs on major issues and the extent to which religious texts may be open to interpretation and subjective evaluation, suggests not only strong egocentric biases when reasoning about God, but also that people may be consistently more egocentric when reasoning about God’s beliefs than when reasoning about other people’s beliefs.
The emphasis in the above paragraph is mine. I think that's so diplomatic as to be worthy of some praise. The paper is not that long, only six pages, which include some graphics, but here's a snippet from their summing up: Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging methodologies all suggest that religious believers are particularly likely to use their own beliefs as a guide when reasoning about God’s beliefs compared to when reasoning about other people’s beliefs. People’s estimates of God’s beliefs were more strongly correlated with their own beliefs than were their estimates of a broad range of other people’s beliefs. Manipulating people’s own beliefs similarly affected their estimates of God’s beliefs more than it affected estimates of other people’s beliefs, demonstrating that estimates of God’s beliefs are causally influenced at least in part by one’s own beliefs. Finally, neuroimaging evidence demonstrated that reasoning about God’s beliefs tends to activate the same regions that are active when reasoning about one’s own beliefs (indeed, statistically indistinguishable in the whole-brain analysis), whereas reasoning about the average American’s beliefs activates relatively distinct regions associated with reasoning about other people.
And then: ...these data have interesting implications for the impact of religious thought on judgment and decision-making. People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want. The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing. This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God’s beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing.
In that time-honoured tradition of legal types, I rest my case.
From Traffic's Mr Fantasy album.
I came across this quite a while back and bookmarked it for future use. Well, you know how it is - the best laid plans of mice and men, and all that. I forgot all about it until today, when I embarked on a session of clearing out the dead and the dross from my bookmarks, and there it was, grinning at me like an idol of idiot-worshippers..
The original Shakespearean Insulter can be found here, but I've taken the liberty of embedding it here for your delectation and convenience*, even though thou art the veriest varlet that ever chewed with a tooth.
* You may actually find it easier to read on the source webpage (it has a white background).
Dear Jo,
Seeing as this is my first letter to you, I'd better put it in some sort of context.
Firstly, you'll have noticed that I addressed you informally. Well, I don't know for sure if you've ever been known as plain old Jo (as I am) but, assuming your peers, in your younger years, were like most children, it seems likely that they called you 'Jo'. Be that as it may, I'll be happy to address you as Joseph in the future, if you'd prefer it. Just let me know, okay?
Secondly, the reason for my informal approach is that I'm not looking for an 'official response', but rather to talk to the man 'behind the façade'. Besides, to be absolutely candid, I'm not expecting a direct response of any kind, but that's not an issue for me (you'll see why later).
Thirdly, I had to make this an open letter, even though it's personal in nature, because, search as I might on your website, I couldn't find any contact information
Anyway, if you get a few spare minutes when you're feeling relaxed and contented, with not much else to do, perhaps you'll be curious enough to peruse the rest of my letter to find out what prompted me to write it.
Still with me? Good. Because, you see, there are several things which I'm puzzled about. One of them, which seems both trivial and serious at the same time, is Leviticus.
Yes, I know. Sigh...not that again. But that's the point. Why not get it sorted? There's so much 'iffy' stuff in there, and it's easy pickings for anyone who wants to have a pop at Christianity.
I couldn't manage to wade through it all, sentence by sentence, but here's some of the 'highlights' I picked up at BibleGateway.com (I use the Contemporary English Version alongside the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, it makes it easier to understand).
3:16 ... All the fat shall be the Lord's.
3:17 By a perpetual law for your generations, and in all your habitations: neither blood nor fat shall you eat at all.
11:1-47 About what you can eat
12:1-8 About what women must do after giving birth
13:1-59 About skin diseases
14:33-57 About mildew in houses
17:10-14 About eating blood
18:1-23 About sexual relations
20:1-27 About death penalty offences
24:10-22 More punishments
26:14-29 "Vengeance is mine..."?
Unless I'm much mistaken, putting people to death for cursing their parents, for example, isn't any longer preached as the right thing to do. Times have changed, as have the rules of conduct we are expected to adhere to, and the methods used to enforce compliance.
It may not seem to have much in common with 'the word of God', but in the world of computer programming, when a construct in a computing language is considered out of date, and planned to be phased out, but still available for use, the manual is updated so the construct in question is clearly marked as deprecated.
As it happens, Wiktionary gives the etymology of 'deprecated' as: from Latin deprecatus, past participle of deprecari (“to pray against (a present or impending evil), pray for, intercede for (that which is in danger), rarely imprecate”), from de (“off”) + precari (“to pray”). Which rather neatly brings me to the purpose of this letter.
If I understand it correctly, then you, in your official capacity, are as close to the Lord who features in the book of Leviticus as it is possible for a human to get. So, why don't you ask him what to do about Leviticus? After all, it needn't be a complicated question. Simply ask if it should be deprecated, or maybe just ditched altogether. There'd be some real kudos in getting a definitive answer (and it'd be 'one in the eye' for your detractors - and Lord knows there are a few of them who've been having a bit of a field day of late, what with all the scandals and what have you).
Well, that's about it for this letter. I know what I've written about might not seem so important in the grand scheme of things (although some of that Leviticus stuff is pretty horrendous), but wouldn't it be a massive credibility boost (for very little effort) if you could come out and say, "Leviticus is deprecated/ditched - and that's official. Please mark all bibles accordingly."
Anyway, I'll let you get back to pontificating now.
Thanks for your time.
All the best.
Till next time.
Jo
This is a sobering video. A time-lapse map of every nuclear explosion since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto.
The soundtrack consists of a beep for each passing month, and a beep for each explosion. The pitch of each 'explosion beep' corresponds to the country which detonated each explosion. It makes a kind of music remeniscent of (bad) 8-bit home computer games from the eighties. As an alternative, mute the video and listen to the Carlos Santana track from his Divine Light album (it's about the right length, and the title seems appropriate).
The thing that struck me most is this. Of the seven countries which have detonated nuclear bombs, only the UK and France didn't set any off in their home territory.
