If you missed Marcus Du Sautoy’s Faraday lecture (it’s well worth a watch) you can find it here, complete with slides from the presentation. Entitled ‘The Secret Mathematicians’, Du Sautoy gave a ‘portrait of the artist as a mathematician’. For those who believe the boundaries between the arts and sciences are more blurry than it may seem, this lecture was a great affirmation. Steering clear of the clichéd examples of mathematical artists (I’m thinking of Bach in particular), Du Sautoy talked of intriguing and stimulating artists inspired by mathematics, most of whom, I’m ashamed to admit, I had no prior knowledge of.
In domestic news, this week has been lacking in content, largely because submissions, I’m afraid to say, haven’t been gracing my inbox and I’m not a bloging machine! The hits we’re getting don’t suggest any let up in interest or new readers, so if you’ve been toying over sending something in, don’t hesitate. E-mail it straight to youngfreethought@googlemail.com.
Friday, 19 February 2010
Sunday, 7 February 2010
The Right To Offend
In the face of increasing evidence, reason and opposition, religionists nowadays often use that last ditch attempt to postpone a logical outcome: offence. Though infantile and irrelevant, it can often take centre stage in difficult dilemmas when it comes to discussing religion with friends and family for atheists. For those young ‘converts’ out there, I’m sure you’re aware of the difficulties of ‘coming out’. But even with friends who happen to be religious, a sudden confrontation can cause theory to crash headlong into practise.
The question I hope a young freethinker out there will answer is this: when discussing religion with friends and family, how far should you go to try and avoid causing offence? What about when talking to strangers about the subject? Typically this isn’t a problem on internet forums and blogs, but the non-virtual world is a different beast. I look forward to reading your fresh and original responses to this problem. Send them to youngfreethought@googlemail.com.
The question I hope a young freethinker out there will answer is this: when discussing religion with friends and family, how far should you go to try and avoid causing offence? What about when talking to strangers about the subject? Typically this isn’t a problem on internet forums and blogs, but the non-virtual world is a different beast. I look forward to reading your fresh and original responses to this problem. Send them to youngfreethought@googlemail.com.
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Nope To Pope
The Pope’s planned visit to Britain was recently accompanied with an attack on the UK’s new equality laws. He told a collection of British Bishops to resist the laws with “missionary zeal” as they violated “natural law”. The legislation is designed to prevent discrimination against gays and women in the workplace. Essentially, the laws are uncontroversial unless you maintain bigoted medieval superstitions.According to the BBC, Ratzinger said "Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.”
Bear in mind that the beliefs in question would be abhorrent to anyone not blinded by religious dogma. Religions have demanded exemption from common law since secularism has been around. The law is reflection of that shifting ‘moral zeitgeist’. The fact the leader of an enormous faith is resisting it simply shows once more that Catholics are on the wrong side of history.
Andy Armitage over at the Pink Triangle blog has given the Ratzinger or ‘Ratzo’ what for and rallies bloggers to oppose the Pope’s statements. In his post entitled 'Enter the monster - but let's not make it easy for him' he writes:
I suspect websites and blogs will be ablaze between now and September, when it’s thought this insult to human rights, human dignity and all that is decent will be allowed to place his jackboots on our soil. All power to their keyboards. Let us send an unequivocal message to the Vatican and to our own pusillanimous leaders that this evil obscenity is not wanted here by anyone but misguided Catholics and other members of the Deluded Herd...In the meantime, please sign this petition urging the Pope to pay for his own visit to UK, rather than the bill being picked up by the UK taxpayer.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Overdosing On Homeopathy Pills
In a recent protest against the pseudo-scientific claptrap of the homeopathic industry, UK sceptics 'overdosed' on homeopathy pills outside Boots, a large commercial drug store who recently began selling homeopathy pills. The group wanted to demonstrate that these pills, which are simply made of water, are as harmless as they are useful.
In the UK, the NHS operates a number of homeopathic clinics, paid for and maintained by the taxpayer. There is even a Royal London Homeopathic Hospital as part of the University College London Hospitals NHS trust. University College London is a world leading university (ranked 4th in the world by THE-QS World University Rankings).
In the face of such government-funded illogic it is easy to lose heart. The taxpayer may as well be funding mystics with healing crystals who harness the positive energy (such an overused word with meaningless prefixes helplessly attached) of the spirits to heal your inner spirit guide. That’s why it’s lovely to see a group of devoted sceptics out on what looks to be a rather chilly morning, with minimal media attention, pointing out the utter stupidity of such illogic. This video shows one such group and their noble efforts. One man says, reading from the pill box “Maximum of twenty in a day – and I’ve just had eighty-four!” Enjoy.
Do remember that before putting anything in your mouth, check out what it is. You can OD on water.
Hat tip to Humanist Life for this story. If you want to know why homeopathy is harmless, read this article from Simon Singh.
In the UK, the NHS operates a number of homeopathic clinics, paid for and maintained by the taxpayer. There is even a Royal London Homeopathic Hospital as part of the University College London Hospitals NHS trust. University College London is a world leading university (ranked 4th in the world by THE-QS World University Rankings).
In the face of such government-funded illogic it is easy to lose heart. The taxpayer may as well be funding mystics with healing crystals who harness the positive energy (such an overused word with meaningless prefixes helplessly attached) of the spirits to heal your inner spirit guide. That’s why it’s lovely to see a group of devoted sceptics out on what looks to be a rather chilly morning, with minimal media attention, pointing out the utter stupidity of such illogic. This video shows one such group and their noble efforts. One man says, reading from the pill box “Maximum of twenty in a day – and I’ve just had eighty-four!” Enjoy.
Do remember that before putting anything in your mouth, check out what it is. You can OD on water.
Hat tip to Humanist Life for this story. If you want to know why homeopathy is harmless, read this article from Simon Singh.
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
The Problem Of Evil - An Invitation
Christopher Hitchens has been on form recently, writing about the religious response to the disaster in Haiti in Slate. Hitchens writes:
As so often, the first priest out of the trap on this occasion was that evil moron Pat Robertson, who announced on the Christian Broadcasting Network that Haitians had long ago made an agreement with Satan to enlist diabolic help against French imperialism. The implication was clear ... for this offense, God would kill underfed Haitian babies in slums 200 years later. (He would also kill the Archbishop of Port-au-Prince, Joseph Serge Miot, and bring his cathedral down on his head, though since Pat Robertson doesn't really think that Catholics are proper Christians, there's perhaps scant irony there.)
It is of course unfair to lump all believers in this category. Only the most farcical examples are liable to such scorn. However, all believers must ask themselves why God would allow such a thing to happen. Evil is broadly defined in terms of moral and natural causes. It is the latter that has resulted and continues to cause so many problems for religious apologists.
As Bertrand Russell pointed out (see post on original sin) in order for someone to say that innocent children deserve the suffering they experience as a result of events such as these, they must become as cruel as the God in whom they believe. Those too, who assert that evil events of this magnitude occur in order that we may develop, simply fail to grasp the enormous moral wickedness required to assert such a thing.
I am yet to encounter an adequate solution to this problem. Therefore, I invite any religious person under 21 to send in a submission to youngfreethought@gmail.com that adequately addresses the problem of natural evil. Afterwards, I shall invite responses from our regular readers to this post.
Please don’t forget to donate to Non-Believers Giving Aid to help those in Haiti.
As so often, the first priest out of the trap on this occasion was that evil moron Pat Robertson, who announced on the Christian Broadcasting Network that Haitians had long ago made an agreement with Satan to enlist diabolic help against French imperialism. The implication was clear ... for this offense, God would kill underfed Haitian babies in slums 200 years later. (He would also kill the Archbishop of Port-au-Prince, Joseph Serge Miot, and bring his cathedral down on his head, though since Pat Robertson doesn't really think that Catholics are proper Christians, there's perhaps scant irony there.)
It is of course unfair to lump all believers in this category. Only the most farcical examples are liable to such scorn. However, all believers must ask themselves why God would allow such a thing to happen. Evil is broadly defined in terms of moral and natural causes. It is the latter that has resulted and continues to cause so many problems for religious apologists.
As Bertrand Russell pointed out (see post on original sin) in order for someone to say that innocent children deserve the suffering they experience as a result of events such as these, they must become as cruel as the God in whom they believe. Those too, who assert that evil events of this magnitude occur in order that we may develop, simply fail to grasp the enormous moral wickedness required to assert such a thing.
I am yet to encounter an adequate solution to this problem. Therefore, I invite any religious person under 21 to send in a submission to youngfreethought@gmail.com that adequately addresses the problem of natural evil. Afterwards, I shall invite responses from our regular readers to this post.
Please don’t forget to donate to Non-Believers Giving Aid to help those in Haiti.
Friday, 22 January 2010
The Last Man Who Knew Everything
Thomas Young (1773-1829) was a man from a by-gone age. The last da Vinci, the extent of his knowledge and scale of achievement will perhaps never be matched. The subtitle to Andrew Robinson’s book from which this post borrows it’s title is Thomas Young, The Anonymous Polymath Who Provided Newton Wrong, Explained How We See, Cured the Sick, and Deciphered the Rosetta Stone, Among Other Feats of Genius. Readers of this blog might be interested to know Simon Singh describes (as does his wikipedia article) that, at the tender age of 14, Young was fluent in Latin and Greek and knew his way around French, Italian, Hebrew, German, Chaldean, Syriac, Samaritan, Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Amharic.
The conditions required for genius are diverse, there isn’t a formula, but there usually are subtle reasons. Young was distant from his Quaker parents and a keen autodidact – he believed that the need for a tutor was purely the result of a lack of self-discipline. He said of himself that he was born old and died young.
To those of us who recognize the importance of youth in shaping your own future and who desire to be informed human beings, the thought often occurs of men such as Young. To what extent should they be mimicked, copied and imitated? Upon reading of the lone, self-taught polymath, should we swiftly lock ourselves up in voluntary confinement? This is neither likely, nor wise. Genius probably can be developed and honed, but the decision should not be prescriptive. Besides, none of us really have any hope of achieving a fraction of what Young managed in his 55 years on planet Earth. Tentative talent too, rarely morphs into success later on. But, said Isaac Asimov of Young... "He was the best kind of infant prodigy, the kind that matures into an adult prodigy”.
I hope there are young readers of this blog who will achieve something like one of Young’s multitude of accolades – I also think it likely. Future scientists, authors, speakers and keen amateurs all can learn something from the early life of this admirable truth-seeker. An innocence; that all knowledge is attainable and worth attaining, should not be lost entirely with age. Young Freethinkers – let’s do our best to keep this freedom.
The conditions required for genius are diverse, there isn’t a formula, but there usually are subtle reasons. Young was distant from his Quaker parents and a keen autodidact – he believed that the need for a tutor was purely the result of a lack of self-discipline. He said of himself that he was born old and died young.
To those of us who recognize the importance of youth in shaping your own future and who desire to be informed human beings, the thought often occurs of men such as Young. To what extent should they be mimicked, copied and imitated? Upon reading of the lone, self-taught polymath, should we swiftly lock ourselves up in voluntary confinement? This is neither likely, nor wise. Genius probably can be developed and honed, but the decision should not be prescriptive. Besides, none of us really have any hope of achieving a fraction of what Young managed in his 55 years on planet Earth. Tentative talent too, rarely morphs into success later on. But, said Isaac Asimov of Young... "He was the best kind of infant prodigy, the kind that matures into an adult prodigy”.I hope there are young readers of this blog who will achieve something like one of Young’s multitude of accolades – I also think it likely. Future scientists, authors, speakers and keen amateurs all can learn something from the early life of this admirable truth-seeker. An innocence; that all knowledge is attainable and worth attaining, should not be lost entirely with age. Young Freethinkers – let’s do our best to keep this freedom.
Monday, 18 January 2010
Non-Believers Giving Aid - Haiti Earthquake
A short post about the recent disaster in Haiti. As a non-believer, you may want to ensure your money does not end up supporting any form of proselytizing or conditional aid. As such, we felt that we should make you aware of the RDFRS’s and other freethinking associations’ attempts at providing secular aid to the people of Haiti – Non-Believers Giving Aid. The RDFRS website states:
Clearly the immediate need is for the suffering people of Haiti, and all the money raised by this current appeal will go to that cause, but the new account will remain available for future emergencies too. There are, of course, many ways for you to donate to relief organizations already, but doing it through Non-Believers Giving Aid offers some advantages:
1. 100% of your donation will be go to these charities: not even the PayPal fees will be deducted from your donation, since Richard will personally donate a sum to cover the cost of these (capped at $10,000). This means that more of your money will reach the people in need.
2. When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.
If you can, please give generously. Do not, however, feel we are commanding you to do so. All we hope is to make you aware of a non-religious way of supporting the relief effort. Our sympathies are with those affected by this disaster.
Clearly the immediate need is for the suffering people of Haiti, and all the money raised by this current appeal will go to that cause, but the new account will remain available for future emergencies too. There are, of course, many ways for you to donate to relief organizations already, but doing it through Non-Believers Giving Aid offers some advantages:
1. 100% of your donation will be go to these charities: not even the PayPal fees will be deducted from your donation, since Richard will personally donate a sum to cover the cost of these (capped at $10,000). This means that more of your money will reach the people in need.
2. When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.
If you can, please give generously. Do not, however, feel we are commanding you to do so. All we hope is to make you aware of a non-religious way of supporting the relief effort. Our sympathies are with those affected by this disaster.
Thursday, 14 January 2010
So You Want To Be A Scientist?
Any budding scientists over the age of 16? A competition is being run by BBC Radio 4’s excellent science programme Material World. The competition called ‘So you want to be a scientist?’ is, I’m afraid, only open to UK residents, but I highly recommend the podcast to everyone. The material world website states:
It's not just working scientists who have light bulb moments. Anyone, anywhere can have a brainwave that's worth investigating. But most of us never get the chance. This is that chance.
We want to hear your ideas, however practical, whimsical, big or small. We're not hoping to crack nuclear fusion, reverse climate change or discover the Higgs particle.
[...]
Science isn't all about giant leaps and sudden paradigm shifts.
It's mostly the opposite - single steps which contribute to the body of knowledge in a particular field.
Your idea is likely to be on a small scale, perhaps observational in nature, and be based around simple experiments.
It could be focused on exploring some aspect of your local environment or perhaps even put someone else's scientific claims to the test.
Sounds like a good idea to me; a great opportunity for keen amateurs and something many of our readers might be interested in. For more information, visit the Material World website. Good luck to those who enter.
It's not just working scientists who have light bulb moments. Anyone, anywhere can have a brainwave that's worth investigating. But most of us never get the chance. This is that chance.
We want to hear your ideas, however practical, whimsical, big or small. We're not hoping to crack nuclear fusion, reverse climate change or discover the Higgs particle.
[...]
Science isn't all about giant leaps and sudden paradigm shifts.
It's mostly the opposite - single steps which contribute to the body of knowledge in a particular field.
Your idea is likely to be on a small scale, perhaps observational in nature, and be based around simple experiments.
It could be focused on exploring some aspect of your local environment or perhaps even put someone else's scientific claims to the test.
Sounds like a good idea to me; a great opportunity for keen amateurs and something many of our readers might be interested in. For more information, visit the Material World website. Good luck to those who enter.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Bullying In The Church
A news story I’ve just been alerted to is perhaps a simple demonstration that religion does not make you a better person. The workers union Unite has identified ‘a culture of bullying in the established Church’ according to the Times (link here).
You might expect a religious work place, since believers are far better at morality than us atheists and agnostics, to be a pleasant working environment. It appears not. The petty and damaging human characteristics that lead to untold harm for many are present in Churches too.
A frightening example of this are the highly unpleasant events that occurred to the unfortunate Mr. Sharpe. The Times article reads:
Last month Unite called for the resignation of two bishops after claiming that a vicar, Mark Sharpe, had been forced out of his home and job in the Worcester diocese by what the union described as “a culture of neglect and bullying”. His departure with his family came after four years of alleged harassment, during which the family’s pet dog was fatally poisoned, faeces was smeared on his car and his tyres were slashed twice.
Mr. Sharpe was forced into an early retirement due to ill health at age 42.
The Archbishop Of Canterbury, head of the Church of England, had this to say about bullying:
“I have good reason to know from pastoral contacts with people how much of an issue it can be and I wish we were better at that.”
From an institution that must claim moral superiority over non-believers not open to salvation, this simply is not good enough. The Church needs to address the immoral actions of its flocks before condemning the rest of us to their proselytizing.
You might expect a religious work place, since believers are far better at morality than us atheists and agnostics, to be a pleasant working environment. It appears not. The petty and damaging human characteristics that lead to untold harm for many are present in Churches too.
A frightening example of this are the highly unpleasant events that occurred to the unfortunate Mr. Sharpe. The Times article reads:
Last month Unite called for the resignation of two bishops after claiming that a vicar, Mark Sharpe, had been forced out of his home and job in the Worcester diocese by what the union described as “a culture of neglect and bullying”. His departure with his family came after four years of alleged harassment, during which the family’s pet dog was fatally poisoned, faeces was smeared on his car and his tyres were slashed twice.
Mr. Sharpe was forced into an early retirement due to ill health at age 42.
The Archbishop Of Canterbury, head of the Church of England, had this to say about bullying:
“I have good reason to know from pastoral contacts with people how much of an issue it can be and I wish we were better at that.”
From an institution that must claim moral superiority over non-believers not open to salvation, this simply is not good enough. The Church needs to address the immoral actions of its flocks before condemning the rest of us to their proselytizing.
Monday, 4 January 2010
Atheism & The Search For Meaning
It is a persistent claim of those who fail to comprehend just how atheists can go on living in such a bleak universe, that their life is devoid of meaning, and thus not worth living. Religion provides meaning. Religion is, in some ways, a vehicle in order to provide to meaning. Religion always offers the chance of something else. After death, there is another life, but that is determined by our actions in this one. Meaning, for the religious mind, consists entirely in appeasing your particular God or gods in order that you get a good deal for the rest of eternity. The moral value present in this kind of life is highly suspect. If the Bible commanded murder (it does in fact, but that’s an aside) believers would be required to do it. The meaning of their life would be to kill. Incidentally, the Bible is interpreted as saying things like ‘do good to others’ and ‘care for your neighbour’ etc. Meaning is dictated, not created. However, it is, unarguably meaning.
But what are atheists to do? There is no one commanding you to refrain from your own nature. Nor is there anyone commanding you to treat others as you would treat yourself. Neither is there any kind of 'spiritual' principle. Life is absent of an external guide. What startles many people is just why, or how, atheists can and do go on, living seemingly happy and fulfilled lives. Perhaps many would believe that they truly cannot. Their rejection of God (or gods) excludes them of any privilege of purpose. The answer the atheist usually gives is this: I create my own meaning.
This idea is most closely identified with the philosophical and literary movement conveniently labelled existentialism. In what will most likely end as the man’s entire legacy, Jean Paul Sartre summed the thought up in three words: ‘being precedes essence’. There are many interpretations and nuisances of Sartre’s work as a whole and of this quote in particular, but the broad meaning of this phrase becomes pretty clear after some thought. Our meaning, or ‘essence’, what the purpose of our lives is, what we must fulfil or carry out, comes after we are born. We're here before we know why. We exist prior to our acknowledgement of this fact. At some point that realisation hits. Albert Camus, when brilliantly championing the absurdist cause in The Myth of Sisyphus, writes this wonderfully poetic description of a similar kind of awakening:
So long as the mind keeps silent in the motionless world of its hopes, everything is reflected and arranged in the unity of its nostalgia. But with its first move this world cracks and tumbles: an infinite number of shimmering fragments is offered to the understanding. We must despair of ever reconstructing the familiar, calm surface which would give us peace of heart.
The religious believer remains in a primitive state. Without thinking, they accept, or are indoctrinated by, the meaning they are given at birth. More concerned and doubtful Christians have solved the problem with a ‘leap of faith’. Camus regards this move as mistaken. The question that concerns him in his essay is that of suicide. Meaning is gone; so why not end my own life? He feels the only proper response to this truth is one of rebellion. Suicide is the equivalent to admitting defeat of a universe devoid of cosmic sanction. Sisyphus was condemned by the gods to push a boulder to the top of a hill, whereupon it would instantly fall to the bottom and Sisyphus would have no choice but to push it back up all over again for eternity. This is a metaphor that Camus struck upon and utilised. A metaphor for life – one of ultimately meaningless struggle. But, says Camus, ‘one must imagine Sisyphus happy’.
To what extent does atheism necessitate an absurdist or existential outlook? A life without meaning of any kind does seem futile. But why exactly must this meaning come from anywhere other than ourselves or our reason? All individuals do find meaning in their lives somehow; whether they deny it or not; the atheist is no different – except that they must create their own. Atheism does require some form of very basic existential belief. The picture of that school of thought shown in this essay is incomplete and not in any wider context, but it is not out of spirit.
In the words of a even more modern thinker ‘who ties up their life with the ultimate fate of the cosmos?’. When it is put like that, things do become clear. Only the insane or supremely self-elevated would do such a thing. Contemplation and recognition of an indifferent world is not to be shunned, but when making a moral decision, why should it intervene at all?
Cold-heartedness is often attributed to scientific thought. Though I may have given the impression in this essay that I agree with this view, I see it as mistaken. Grand indifference, I find, both exhilarating and liberating. The greatest crime against reason I have so far noticed, is the lack of a particular image around the world. It should be placed in every public place and known to all virtually from birth. The Pale Blue Dot is the ultimate giver of perspective.
And where does meaning fit in on the 0.12 pixels? All over it. But what is truly startling is that, at present, those 0.12 pixels are the only place known where meaning exists in the entire universe. Is that not enough?
But what are atheists to do? There is no one commanding you to refrain from your own nature. Nor is there anyone commanding you to treat others as you would treat yourself. Neither is there any kind of 'spiritual' principle. Life is absent of an external guide. What startles many people is just why, or how, atheists can and do go on, living seemingly happy and fulfilled lives. Perhaps many would believe that they truly cannot. Their rejection of God (or gods) excludes them of any privilege of purpose. The answer the atheist usually gives is this: I create my own meaning.
This idea is most closely identified with the philosophical and literary movement conveniently labelled existentialism. In what will most likely end as the man’s entire legacy, Jean Paul Sartre summed the thought up in three words: ‘being precedes essence’. There are many interpretations and nuisances of Sartre’s work as a whole and of this quote in particular, but the broad meaning of this phrase becomes pretty clear after some thought. Our meaning, or ‘essence’, what the purpose of our lives is, what we must fulfil or carry out, comes after we are born. We're here before we know why. We exist prior to our acknowledgement of this fact. At some point that realisation hits. Albert Camus, when brilliantly championing the absurdist cause in The Myth of Sisyphus, writes this wonderfully poetic description of a similar kind of awakening:
So long as the mind keeps silent in the motionless world of its hopes, everything is reflected and arranged in the unity of its nostalgia. But with its first move this world cracks and tumbles: an infinite number of shimmering fragments is offered to the understanding. We must despair of ever reconstructing the familiar, calm surface which would give us peace of heart.
The religious believer remains in a primitive state. Without thinking, they accept, or are indoctrinated by, the meaning they are given at birth. More concerned and doubtful Christians have solved the problem with a ‘leap of faith’. Camus regards this move as mistaken. The question that concerns him in his essay is that of suicide. Meaning is gone; so why not end my own life? He feels the only proper response to this truth is one of rebellion. Suicide is the equivalent to admitting defeat of a universe devoid of cosmic sanction. Sisyphus was condemned by the gods to push a boulder to the top of a hill, whereupon it would instantly fall to the bottom and Sisyphus would have no choice but to push it back up all over again for eternity. This is a metaphor that Camus struck upon and utilised. A metaphor for life – one of ultimately meaningless struggle. But, says Camus, ‘one must imagine Sisyphus happy’.
To what extent does atheism necessitate an absurdist or existential outlook? A life without meaning of any kind does seem futile. But why exactly must this meaning come from anywhere other than ourselves or our reason? All individuals do find meaning in their lives somehow; whether they deny it or not; the atheist is no different – except that they must create their own. Atheism does require some form of very basic existential belief. The picture of that school of thought shown in this essay is incomplete and not in any wider context, but it is not out of spirit.
In the words of a even more modern thinker ‘who ties up their life with the ultimate fate of the cosmos?’. When it is put like that, things do become clear. Only the insane or supremely self-elevated would do such a thing. Contemplation and recognition of an indifferent world is not to be shunned, but when making a moral decision, why should it intervene at all?
Cold-heartedness is often attributed to scientific thought. Though I may have given the impression in this essay that I agree with this view, I see it as mistaken. Grand indifference, I find, both exhilarating and liberating. The greatest crime against reason I have so far noticed, is the lack of a particular image around the world. It should be placed in every public place and known to all virtually from birth. The Pale Blue Dot is the ultimate giver of perspective.
And where does meaning fit in on the 0.12 pixels? All over it. But what is truly startling is that, at present, those 0.12 pixels are the only place known where meaning exists in the entire universe. Is that not enough?
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Secularism & The East
In local news, two questions have been added to the suggestion list. After a detailed essay by Kyle Eschen on the reasons why America is constitutionally not a Christian nation - I want to know why then, it most certainly is a Christian nation. Why are bible-bashers most commonly found in the most visionary secular nation in the world? And just why is it that here in Britain, almost exclusively lagging behind Scandinavia in terms of religious non-belief, does the population seem not too fussed? Does the lack of religion in the state mean people crave it more in their daily lives? And vice-versa – does its presence in the political system and the enshrined status of the CofE mean that in people's private lives, they'd just rather forget about the whole thing? Whilst, I'm guessing, the majority in Britain would perhaps vaguely believe in some kind of supernatural force in the universe, America is second to none for fervent Christianity. Why?
For the second question we look east. Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism... I haven't heard much talk from the new atheists about any of these religions (or faiths). Perhaps this can be put down to the unfamiliar nature of such religions, or, to put it bluntly, western ignorance. Do these faiths pose so much of a threat as the three monotheisms we are all familiar with? Can we learn anything from them? How do we battle such faiths? Feel free to pick up on any aspect of these religions you like.
I look forward to publishing your responses.
For the second question we look east. Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism... I haven't heard much talk from the new atheists about any of these religions (or faiths). Perhaps this can be put down to the unfamiliar nature of such religions, or, to put it bluntly, western ignorance. Do these faiths pose so much of a threat as the three monotheisms we are all familiar with? Can we learn anything from them? How do we battle such faiths? Feel free to pick up on any aspect of these religions you like.
I look forward to publishing your responses.
Friday, 18 December 2009
The Week That Wasn't
First off, apologies to Young Freethought's regular readers. The last week was rather manic and I was forced to briefly put the blog on the backburner. However, the holiday season is approaching, giving me plenty of time to write and read your submissions. So send them in!
I shall once again extend my personal thanks to Richard Dawkins for his generous support. His letter has had an incredible impact on the blog and I'm sure inspired many readers. Such is its brilliance; I've put up a permanent link on the sidebar so you can easily access it at any time without having to search the ever-expanding archive.
In the coming days you can expect my thoughts on some of Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza's arguments and an essay on Christian America. Until then...
I shall once again extend my personal thanks to Richard Dawkins for his generous support. His letter has had an incredible impact on the blog and I'm sure inspired many readers. Such is its brilliance; I've put up a permanent link on the sidebar so you can easily access it at any time without having to search the ever-expanding archive.
In the coming days you can expect my thoughts on some of Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza's arguments and an essay on Christian America. Until then...
Monday, 7 December 2009
Bill O'Reilly - Antihero of Freethought
A motivation for one of our suggested articles. Ad hominem attacks should be avoided, they are pernicious and often irrelevant, but Bill O’Reilly is simply crazy. The namesake of the Fox show The O’Reilly Factor boasts one of the biggest followings for a ‘news’ programme on American TV, so this isn't picking on the weak or obscure. His latest attack (video below the post) on the ‘deluded’ atheist band is almost too hard to criticise through its astounding unreason. In response to posters published by the American Humanist Association which read ‘Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake’, O’Reilly had this to say:
“So why does the American Humanist Society, who wants to be good for goodness’ sake, why do they loathe the baby Jesus? He’s just a baby”
Adding...
“You don’t sell atheism by running down a baby do ya?’ How do you sell atheism by running down a baby? It’s just a baby”
For what it’s worth, here is the quasi-syllogism that perhaps went on in O’Reilly’s head (and I really have tried to be fair here):
Proposition 1 – The American Humanist Association believe you can be good without God or a god and release posters saying just this.
Proposition 2 – The baby Jesus was God.
Conclusion – Therefore atheists loath the baby Jesus and try to promote atheism by insulting a baby.
At this point, one of O’Reilly’s Angels even began laughing and later chuckled ‘I think you’re nuts’. Yes... Quite. Maybe they aren’t so immune to logic after all.
In a similar ‘infantocentric’ vein, O’Reilly writes this in his newspaper column –
‘But there is a serious side to this, and the American "humanists" should listen up. Christmas is a joyous time for children; that's the big upside of celebrating the birth of Jesus. Why, then, do people who want to "be good" spend money denigrating a beautiful day? Could it be that the humanists are not really interested in good at all? Maybe.’
This illogicality would even lead me to doubt the man’s sincerity if it weren’t for the abrasive and close-minded tone with which he is so synonymous.
But this argument is just a prelude to O’Reilly’s dialectical masterpiece, the pièce de résistance as he sees it: atheists hate Christmas because atheists are jealous. He writes –
‘The question is, why bother? Why spend money at Christmas time to spread dubious will among men? The reason, I believe, is that the atheists are jealous of the Yuletide season. While Christians have Jesus and Jews have the prophets, non-believers have Bill Maher. There are no atheist Christmas carols, no pagan displays of largesse like Santa Claus. In fact, for the non-believer, Christmas is just a day off, a time to consider that Mardi Gras is less than two months away.’
I’ll let you be the judge of that and our proposed article on atheist Christmas celebrations should be just the place. View our ‘Suggested Topics’ section for the full title. Detailed cross-examinations of O’Reilly are welcome too – if you’re brain can handle such nonsense without self-destructing that is.
“So why does the American Humanist Society, who wants to be good for goodness’ sake, why do they loathe the baby Jesus? He’s just a baby”
Adding...
“You don’t sell atheism by running down a baby do ya?’ How do you sell atheism by running down a baby? It’s just a baby”
For what it’s worth, here is the quasi-syllogism that perhaps went on in O’Reilly’s head (and I really have tried to be fair here):
Proposition 1 – The American Humanist Association believe you can be good without God or a god and release posters saying just this.
Proposition 2 – The baby Jesus was God.
Conclusion – Therefore atheists loath the baby Jesus and try to promote atheism by insulting a baby.
At this point, one of O’Reilly’s Angels even began laughing and later chuckled ‘I think you’re nuts’. Yes... Quite. Maybe they aren’t so immune to logic after all.
In a similar ‘infantocentric’ vein, O’Reilly writes this in his newspaper column –
‘But there is a serious side to this, and the American "humanists" should listen up. Christmas is a joyous time for children; that's the big upside of celebrating the birth of Jesus. Why, then, do people who want to "be good" spend money denigrating a beautiful day? Could it be that the humanists are not really interested in good at all? Maybe.’
This illogicality would even lead me to doubt the man’s sincerity if it weren’t for the abrasive and close-minded tone with which he is so synonymous.
But this argument is just a prelude to O’Reilly’s dialectical masterpiece, the pièce de résistance as he sees it: atheists hate Christmas because atheists are jealous. He writes –
‘The question is, why bother? Why spend money at Christmas time to spread dubious will among men? The reason, I believe, is that the atheists are jealous of the Yuletide season. While Christians have Jesus and Jews have the prophets, non-believers have Bill Maher. There are no atheist Christmas carols, no pagan displays of largesse like Santa Claus. In fact, for the non-believer, Christmas is just a day off, a time to consider that Mardi Gras is less than two months away.’
I’ll let you be the judge of that and our proposed article on atheist Christmas celebrations should be just the place. View our ‘Suggested Topics’ section for the full title. Detailed cross-examinations of O’Reilly are welcome too – if you’re brain can handle such nonsense without self-destructing that is.
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Suggested Writing For Readers
As promised, here is the link to the 'Atheism is the new fundamentalism debate', as reviewed by myself in November. As Andy Armitage pointed out in the comments section, the title was pretty unfortunate and probably the product of a Christian 'title-chooser'. Nonetheless, the debate is highly recommended. Dawkins in particular stands out (and that's not me being biased either).
Remember, we need submissions! To try and encourage more entries, we've come up with four essay titles we suggest our readers write about. They will be included on our sidebar and new titles will be added as old ones are posted.
Remember, we need submissions! To try and encourage more entries, we've come up with four essay titles we suggest our readers write about. They will be included on our sidebar and new titles will be added as old ones are posted.
- America is one of the most fervent Christian nations in the world. Why has the United States failed to live up to its original secular values?
- 2009 marked the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth and the sesquicentennial of the publication of The Origin of Species . What is the status of ‘evolution’ like in the public sphere as the year draws to a close?
- The Rationalist Association run a Christmas event for non-believers, attended by famous authors and comedians. Is it ok or right for non-theists to continue celebrating what were once deeply religious festivals?
- Why, in the 21st century, after much scientific and technological development, is religion not dwindling as a remnant of our history?
These are just suggested titles. Feel free to alter them or ignore them. And don't forget that book reviews and news pieces are also welcome. Sent them all in to this address.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Happy Anniversary For The Origin Of Species
This day, 150 years ago, was perhaps the most important day in human history. It is no exaggeration to say that Darwin’s theory of evolution by the process of natural selection tipped our tiny brains out of our heads, shook them all up and put them back upside down, considerably more informed and even more humble. After Thursday 24th November 1859 nothing could be seen in the same way again. The idea of evolution, that species change and alter over time, was nothing new by Darwin’s day. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, published anonymously in 1844, collected the ideas of the day regarding transmutation, as evolution was then known. But we can trace the history of this idea all the way back to Anaximander of the Milesian School (the first ‘member’, as it were, being the original prototype for the Renaissance Man; Thales). The real important point about what Darwin and Wallace hit upon was the mechanism of change, not the idea of change itself. We should remember Darwin and Wallace, not for ‘discovering’ evolution, but for having the vision to conceive of natural selection, a sublime and elegantly simple concept.
I’m sure I’m like many others when I say I have a good understanding of the basics of evolution. I’ve read The Selfish Gene and books like it. I get evolution. But I’ve never read On the Origin of Species. I’ve always planned to amend this and what better time than now. So today, I’m beginning perhaps the most important book ever written. I would encourage readers to do the same. What better time is there than this instant?
In other news, the site has been redesigned in order to try and make longer articles easier to read. Any comments, good or bad, send them in to youngfreethought@googlemail.com. Pieces in the pipeline include a thought-provoking account of our current global situation from one of our younger readers and a futuristic speech on nanotechnology – the next great event in human history. In the meantime, happy reading!
I’m sure I’m like many others when I say I have a good understanding of the basics of evolution. I’ve read The Selfish Gene and books like it. I get evolution. But I’ve never read On the Origin of Species. I’ve always planned to amend this and what better time than now. So today, I’m beginning perhaps the most important book ever written. I would encourage readers to do the same. What better time is there than this instant?
In other news, the site has been redesigned in order to try and make longer articles easier to read. Any comments, good or bad, send them in to youngfreethought@googlemail.com. Pieces in the pipeline include a thought-provoking account of our current global situation from one of our younger readers and a futuristic speech on nanotechnology – the next great event in human history. In the meantime, happy reading!
Monday, 16 November 2009
Ancestors & Ages
Well there goes the first run of essays and articles. Thank you to Emily Speed, Alex Shaw and Alex Charlton for submitting those pieces. There are more on the way, but don’t hesitate to submit anything you think should be up here to youngfreethought@googlemail.com . The age at which submissions are received has been changed from 16-21, to simply under 21. This is because I received an essay from a writer slightly younger than 16, and it occurred to me that, if the piece is rational and articulate, it doesn’t matter what the age of the writer is. Of course, we still are here to publish the works of young people, so the 21 year roof remains – sorry!
The original existence of a minimum age was a manifestation of one dreadful fallacy, first brought to my attention in Richard Dawkins’ heroic epic of evolutionary biology – The Ancestor's Tale. The fallacy in question is ‘Essentialism’. In the sense used here, it essentially (ha!) means placing objects, people and pretty much anything really, into nice little categories for our own convenience. For instance, one species does not instantaneously give birth to another. No Homo heidelbergensis suddenly gave birth to a Homo sapiens; the change was gradual, with each individual capable of breeding with the generation preceding and succeeding it. To use a modern example, the legal driving age here in the UK is 17. It would be nonsense to assert that a 16 year and 364 day old person would be any less capable of driving than someone who is exactly 17 years old. In the same way, a 15 or even 14 year old might well be capable of writing an article worthy of publication. In the driving example, such categories are needed for legal reasons, but on this site, no such barriers are necessary.
In other news, some of you may have noticed that our domain has changed. You can still find us at the blogspot address, but the snazzy new address is youngfreethought.com. The twitter site has been running well, thanks to tweets from The Freethinker, New Humanist, Richard Dawkins.net and the Out Campaign. If you use twitter and would like to follow us, the address is @yfthought. Don’t forget the facebook page either; it has a handy discussion section.
I hope that the young freethinkers whose work has been published have gained something from it, as well as other young, and older, people who read, or are yet to read, it. Let's keep this up!
P.S: It appears that the last essay, submitted by Alex Charlton, had the option to comment disabled. This was not intentional and is now fixed. Please read the article and feel free to comment.
The original existence of a minimum age was a manifestation of one dreadful fallacy, first brought to my attention in Richard Dawkins’ heroic epic of evolutionary biology – The Ancestor's Tale. The fallacy in question is ‘Essentialism’. In the sense used here, it essentially (ha!) means placing objects, people and pretty much anything really, into nice little categories for our own convenience. For instance, one species does not instantaneously give birth to another. No Homo heidelbergensis suddenly gave birth to a Homo sapiens; the change was gradual, with each individual capable of breeding with the generation preceding and succeeding it. To use a modern example, the legal driving age here in the UK is 17. It would be nonsense to assert that a 16 year and 364 day old person would be any less capable of driving than someone who is exactly 17 years old. In the same way, a 15 or even 14 year old might well be capable of writing an article worthy of publication. In the driving example, such categories are needed for legal reasons, but on this site, no such barriers are necessary.
In other news, some of you may have noticed that our domain has changed. You can still find us at the blogspot address, but the snazzy new address is youngfreethought.com. The twitter site has been running well, thanks to tweets from The Freethinker, New Humanist, Richard Dawkins.net and the Out Campaign. If you use twitter and would like to follow us, the address is @yfthought. Don’t forget the facebook page either; it has a handy discussion section.
I hope that the young freethinkers whose work has been published have gained something from it, as well as other young, and older, people who read, or are yet to read, it. Let's keep this up!
P.S: It appears that the last essay, submitted by Alex Charlton, had the option to comment disabled. This was not intentional and is now fixed. Please read the article and feel free to comment.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Hits & U.S Teen Atheists
A short, but mostly hopeful post for today. A recent article in the Augusta Chronicle (link here) provides encouraging news. The number of people describing themselves has having no religious affiliation rose from 8.2% in 1990, to 15% in 2008 according to The American Religious Institution Survey. The number of atheists and agnostics remained fairly stable, perhaps because, in American society, making the final transition, as it were, to atheism, is still not quite socially acceptable. The best news, however, is that the article cited, is written by, and refers to, the voice of young atheists and freethinkers. As a group of people, we are most certainly out there and not alone. It's very pleasing to see such a voice in mainstream media.
Alex Shaw, a senior at Augusta Prep School writes this of his experience of the Church he grew up in for 16 years -
"It was fine, we always had an awesome youth program. I liked church as a community I just never believed in what the community was based on."
This appears to me to be a sorry state of affairs; atheists and freethinkers, searching for a sense of community, can find no other place except religious institutions. Individual religious groups certainly do provide a strong sense of community for their members, but I see no reason why a Humanist, or philosophical, or scientific, or freethinking, or even atheistic society cannot fulfil this same human need.
In more local matters, this blog reached 1000 hits today, and I've been astounded and grateful for the reaction it's been getting. Of course, at the moment, it is myself and my colleagues doing all the posting, but we really don't want this to be the case! So get your articles in to youngfreethought@googlemail.com and we'll be sure to read them. We want to hear from you!
Monday, 9 November 2009
The Wind, Catholics & Blogrolls
Last night, in a rare move, I went to The Old Vic theatre to see a production of Inherit the Wind (directed by Trevor Nunn, starring Kevin Spacey). The performance itself was a joy to watch and received a standing ovation, but the subject matter, for me, was far more absorbing. Inherit the Wind is based on the 1925 Scopes Trail, more commonly known as 'The Monkey Trail' (coined by the journalist H.L. Mencken). Scopes' innocence or guilt was, in one sense, not the issue being debated. The jury had to decide whether Darwin or the Bible was correct – predictably for a Tennessee jury in 1925, they chose the Bible.
150 years have passed since The Origin Of Species was published and it's been 84 years since the Scopes Trial. The issue of Evolution (or ‘evil-ution’ as it’s referred to in the play by the character Matthew Harrison Brady, a fictitious William Jennings Bryan – three time presidential candidate and lawyer for the prosecution) in American schools is still contentious. Speaking from my own experience, the amount of knowledge of Evolution people gain from their education is scandalous. The smallest, most unimaginably barren and simple conception of Evolution is all that must be taught to students at schools in the U.K. The wonder of science and the 'grandeur' that Darwin spoke of will never be appreciated until this changes. So, if you know a thing or two about Evolution, and the subject is raised in conversation with a friend, I urge you to make sure they understand the theory - and that it really is marvellous.
Catholics beware! Hitchens & Fry are on YouTube and they’re not pulling any punches. Here is the first part of the Intelligence Squared debate (don't let John Onaiyekan's lack of argument put you off; the debate really kicks off when Hitch gets going) -
I've had one query about citations for articles, or the lack of them. However, this is not an academic blog, and should not be taken as such. All that is required is submissions be reasonable, not make indefensible claims and, if asked, produce a defensible case for opinions and statements not supported in the article. The last point is not essential and well-written rational pieces, without citations, will always be welcome.
Last of all, I'm very pleased to announce Young Freethought has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in our sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.
150 years have passed since The Origin Of Species was published and it's been 84 years since the Scopes Trial. The issue of Evolution (or ‘evil-ution’ as it’s referred to in the play by the character Matthew Harrison Brady, a fictitious William Jennings Bryan – three time presidential candidate and lawyer for the prosecution) in American schools is still contentious. Speaking from my own experience, the amount of knowledge of Evolution people gain from their education is scandalous. The smallest, most unimaginably barren and simple conception of Evolution is all that must be taught to students at schools in the U.K. The wonder of science and the 'grandeur' that Darwin spoke of will never be appreciated until this changes. So, if you know a thing or two about Evolution, and the subject is raised in conversation with a friend, I urge you to make sure they understand the theory - and that it really is marvellous.
Catholics beware! Hitchens & Fry are on YouTube and they’re not pulling any punches. Here is the first part of the Intelligence Squared debate (don't let John Onaiyekan's lack of argument put you off; the debate really kicks off when Hitch gets going) -
I've had one query about citations for articles, or the lack of them. However, this is not an academic blog, and should not be taken as such. All that is required is submissions be reasonable, not make indefensible claims and, if asked, produce a defensible case for opinions and statements not supported in the article. The last point is not essential and well-written rational pieces, without citations, will always be welcome.
Last of all, I'm very pleased to announce Young Freethought has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in our sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Upcoming events
First of all, I'd like to thank many of the atheist blogs and websites we’ve contacted. The response has been great so far and your support means a lot.
Now, a few notices about upcoming events. For those of you who were unfortunate enough to be unable to attend the debate between Hitchens & Fry (sounds like a 70's cop duo don't you think?) vs. Anne Widdecombe & Archbishop John Onaiyekan, you certainly missed a flurry of Catholic-bashing (The New Humanist article on the debate can be found here). Don’t fret! The debate will be broadcast by BBC World News on 7th and 8th of November (times can be found here).
If you have a taste for the mind-boggling and incomprehensible, there is a mathematics lecture by Professor Ian Stewart at the Royal Society tomorrow (5th November) entitled Mathematical curiosities and treasures. Stewart is a recipient of the Royal Society’s Faraday Medal (Richard Dawkins is amongst the previous recipients) and is currently at the University of Warwick. There is a live webcast of the lecture available here.
Finally, I'd also like to ask if any young readers will be attending the Richard Dawkins talk on his new book The Evidence For Evolution: The Greatest Show On Earth in London on 24th November. If your aged 16-21, we'd love to receive piece about the talk.
Now, a few notices about upcoming events. For those of you who were unfortunate enough to be unable to attend the debate between Hitchens & Fry (sounds like a 70's cop duo don't you think?) vs. Anne Widdecombe & Archbishop John Onaiyekan, you certainly missed a flurry of Catholic-bashing (The New Humanist article on the debate can be found here). Don’t fret! The debate will be broadcast by BBC World News on 7th and 8th of November (times can be found here).
If you have a taste for the mind-boggling and incomprehensible, there is a mathematics lecture by Professor Ian Stewart at the Royal Society tomorrow (5th November) entitled Mathematical curiosities and treasures. Stewart is a recipient of the Royal Society’s Faraday Medal (Richard Dawkins is amongst the previous recipients) and is currently at the University of Warwick. There is a live webcast of the lecture available here.
Finally, I'd also like to ask if any young readers will be attending the Richard Dawkins talk on his new book The Evidence For Evolution: The Greatest Show On Earth in London on 24th November. If your aged 16-21, we'd love to receive piece about the talk.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Welcome
Young Freethought is here to try and give a voice to a small section of society that, we feel, is currently being ignored. Young atheists and freethinkers are abundant, but trying to find out just what they think is a difficult thing. This is why we will accept submissions from anyone aged 16-21, on issues relating to Freethought. This could be a book review, an opinion piece on current news or even a small essay. The first few pieces will be going up later this week. They will be written by myself and my two colleagues at first, but we soon hope to be too busy reading submissions to be able to write our own pieces. If you're an experienced writer, or have never tried your hand at it before, it doesn't matter. We consider all entries equally.
This first post might also be a good place to outline just what it is we stand for. We are, above all, unashamedly atheistic. It doesn't matter what 'brand' of atheism you prescribe too; all are welcome here. If you are religious, don't feel like you can't submit articles, but preaching and various assorted 'woo' won't impress. The reason for our atheism? Science. We believe there is a logical and inevitable path from sincere scientific thought to atheism (to clarify, using Richard Dawkins’ 7 Point Scale, scientific rationalism demands we place ourselves as a 6.9 - strictly an agnostic, de facto atheist). Purely factual articles on the latest scientific research are welcome here. Lastly, this is a materialist blog. Not the kind of materialism that espouses buying nice things of course, but scientific materialism. Philosophical articles relating to the scientific method and materialism or 'physicalism' are also welcome and encouraged. There is a large ethical dimension we wish to explore too and we hope to receive many pieces on morality.
Currently, we are not even a mote of cosmic dust in the sunbeam that is the blogosphere. Hopefully this will all change very soon. We ask other likeminded bloggers to support us in this early stage.
This first post might also be a good place to outline just what it is we stand for. We are, above all, unashamedly atheistic. It doesn't matter what 'brand' of atheism you prescribe too; all are welcome here. If you are religious, don't feel like you can't submit articles, but preaching and various assorted 'woo' won't impress. The reason for our atheism? Science. We believe there is a logical and inevitable path from sincere scientific thought to atheism (to clarify, using Richard Dawkins’ 7 Point Scale, scientific rationalism demands we place ourselves as a 6.9 - strictly an agnostic, de facto atheist). Purely factual articles on the latest scientific research are welcome here. Lastly, this is a materialist blog. Not the kind of materialism that espouses buying nice things of course, but scientific materialism. Philosophical articles relating to the scientific method and materialism or 'physicalism' are also welcome and encouraged. There is a large ethical dimension we wish to explore too and we hope to receive many pieces on morality.
Currently, we are not even a mote of cosmic dust in the sunbeam that is the blogosphere. Hopefully this will all change very soon. We ask other likeminded bloggers to support us in this early stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
