Feeding The Fish

As far as I can see, all survived the server move intact. All existing feeds and links in and out should be unaffected.

Merry Christmas to all those readers out there! As a Christmas gift I’m going to share with you a gem of a story: A robbery solved by a picture of the suspect being placed in a newspaper…directly below a picture of the same person complete with name.

That morning, page 1A ran two substantial photos: In one, a husky man in a black-and-blue checkered coat is seen hanging Christmas decorations in a shop window. In the other, a surveillance camera shows a convenience-store customer’s unattended wallet being swiped by
. . . a husky man in a black-and-blue checkered coat. Local police noticed the similarities, and quickly arrested the hapless criminal mastermind for felony second-degree theft. If the charges stick, we’ll gladly take the credit for the collar.

The actual front page can be seen here. This is so inadvertently brilliant that it comes in just under the wire to make my favourite story of 2007. Enjoy!

Something interesting from the mysociety blog:

A friend just pointed me to this by Danny Hillis from the Whole Earth Catalog, Winter 2000.

Like much of my generation, I grew up believing that I should try to “change the world,” presumably for the better. But I didn’t know how to do this. Looking at how other people have changed the world I concluded there are five ways of doing it:

Some people change the world by imposing their will on it.

Some people change the world by discovering a truth.

Some people change the world by changing people’s minds.

Some people change the world by creating things of great beauty.

Some people change the world by making new tools for change.

Danny Hillis goes on to say that the last one, the making of new tools for change, is the one that appeals to him the most. I think my friend was just flattering me, as that is what mySociety tries to do.

Mysociety is a group that tries to leverage the power of the internet to connect people, make politics more involving and strengthen the links between the people and those that represent them. They are responsible for TheyWorkForYou, WriteToThem, FixMyStreet and other fantastic services. Whenever people ask how the internet can really change the shape of politics, I point them to these guys. They are the pioneers and I am convinced that mysociety and projects and ideas like this will play a pivotal role in fixing our democracy and taking it to places those Greeks could never have dreamed of. I can’t wait to see what they think of next.

I also think they’re right that creating tools for change is the most appealing and powerful way of changing the world, because instead of you changing it directly you’ve made it so that a hundred or a thousand or a million after you will be able to affect change. What greater gift to the future could there be?

Through some fluke of StumbleUpon I seem to have had a surge of visitors - Hi to everyone and thanks for commenting! I’m glad I’ve had some Christian commenters for the last few posts; the blogs I read with a mixture of readers tend to be the most interesting ones. If nothing else, knowing I’m not solely preaching to the choir keeps me honest!

Matt asked:

Is it the active belief that gods do not exist and CANNOT exist, along with a concerted effort convince others of this? Or is it merely a LACK of belief that deities do exist (due of course to a lack of evidence), and not really caring what other people believe? Is there even a DIFFERENCE between these two “types” of atheism? Do people like me, who claim to fall into the second category, really just belong to the first category and are just kidding themselves and afraid to take a strong stance out of some desire to be polite or politically correct? I’m honestly asking here, none of this is meant to sound sarcastic or pedantic.

What you’ve hit on here is the difference between strong and weak atheism. Strong atheism is the positive assertion that there is no god, whilst weak atheism is the lack of belief in god.

If I were to say I was certain there was no god, I would be a hypocrite because I claim I arrive at my conclusions by following the evidence and (as many will happily point out) gods cannot be disproven. However, I see the lack of evidence for any of the multitude of gods that humanity has worshiped and enough convincing explanations of natural phenomena without invoking the supernatural that I see no reason to believe and live my life on the assumption that there’s no one there. ‘Weak’ atheism doesn’t in itself mean a weak stance - I have no idea how the numbers break down overall but I don’t know of any high profile atheists who hold themselves as members of the strong kind.
The idea that atheism is itself a faith can get interesting, I’m sure there are atheists who positively believe there is no god but my kind of atheism requires no belief in things that are unknowable.

There was a lot in the comments about militant atheists really existing and I wasn’t denying they do, just that the definition given defined ALL atheists as militant atheists. To be honest I’m not keen on the word ‘militant’ because it’s already loaded with a lot of meanings that don’t necessarily apply. Pretty much the worst excess of ‘new’ atheism is those who are on occasion a tad vocal or annoying, I include this image from Principles of Parsimony to aid with comparison:

We’re not even in the same league here folks.

But that doesn’t mean this isn’t something atheists should think about, our most prominent figures are those who commonly criticized for being too harsh, should we be concerned? To be honest, I think this is inevitable in any group that doesn’t have a formal leadership structure, the most common quoted atheist spokesmen will be those who are in the press more and confrontational people make better fodder for the press (this isn’t the way it should be, but I digress).

When I read Dawkins it does unsettle me a little sometimes, he rightly skewers the more fundamentalist aspects of religion but leaves little room to work with moderate groups, saying that we can’t be tip-toe around them because they create an environment that tolerates extremists. This is a little strange because you often see Dawkins work in common with religious leaders on various issues, this might be a ‘do as I do, not as I write’ situation. I think it’s perfectly possible for two people to think the other person is utterly mistaken, yet work constructively towards the better society both want. I confess to feeling unease about terms like ‘faith-heads’, I think the world has enough epithets. Richard Dawkins is a truly formidable mind and deserve the accolades he receives, I just wish The God Delusion had been up the standard of some of his other writing (which sets a high bar for him to cross). I found Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great to have a more reasonable tone, ironically because his criticisms were more detailed and specific (and hence also less prone to generalization).

But of course I’m glad they’re there, because their primary targets are always the most despicable of religions and their practitioners, and those are groups it is useless being polite about and need to be constantly and publicly confronted. We need vocal figures that aren’t afraid to get into the fight when the situation warrants it, like Christopher Hitchens speaking out when Jerry Farwell died. They provide the intellectual backing that lets the rest of us answer back when someone implies that we are no better than Stalin, simply for sharing his lack of belief. I think they walk a difficult line and would doubtlessly be denounced as intolerant and as bad as murderers no matter what they did, so I understand the ‘why bother to be extra kind?’ attitude.

And if nothing else, high profile ‘militant’ atheists let the rest of us seem reasonable in comparison: ‘Ooh, did that nasty Dawkins hurt you? Here, come read some nice Hement Mehta and we’ll have a cuddle’.

Everybody run! Fundamentalist atheists are roaming the streets, selling their books and giving lectures! The time for tolerance of this behaviour is over!

The Archbishop of Wales seems concerned about the rise of ‘Atheistic fundamentalism’. For the sake of my sanity I’m going to ignore the repeats of the ‘winterval’ and related myths (how I wish bishops and journalists would do the tiniest bit of research) and just point to Oliver Burkeman’s excellent article on the subject here. Let’s move onto those fun fundamentalist atheists.

The archbishop said “atheistic fundamentalism” was a new phenomenon.

Huh, see the trouble with the idea of fundamentalist atheism is that we have nothing to be fundamental about. I don’t have a holy book to assert is fundamentally true and unlike religious fundamentalists, I know exactly what would change my mind: Evidence.

He said it advocated that religion in general and Christianity in particular have no substance, and that some view the faith as “superstitious nonsense”.

Whilst many atheists might not say it so bluntly out of politeness, atheism is the belief in an absence of gods; by definition we see most of religion as untrue and useless superstition. That’s not being an extremist or militant atheist, that’s just being a normal one.

Dr Morgan’s Christmas message comes after the general director of the Evangelical Alliance, the Rev Joel Edwards, compared militant atheists to King Herod in their intolerance of religious faith.

Dr Morgan said: “All of this is what I would call the new “fundamentalism” of our age. It allows no room for disagreement, for doubt, for debate, for discussion.

But he said “virulent, almost irrational” attacks on it were “dangerous” because they refused to allow any contrary viewpoint and also affected the public perception of religion.

King Herod: Slaughterer of infants. Richard Dawkins: Writes books and gives speeches where he tries to persuade people through rational argument. I can see how the two can be confused.

I’m not quite sure these people quite understand what intolerance is, it is not intolerance to disagree with someone publically (you could even say that’s the definition of ‘debate’). The claim that this wave of atheism is closing down debate and disagreement is just plain wrong, doubt and scepticism are key foundations of current atheist thought. The hypocrisy here is evident, Dr Morgan is complaining about atheists shutting down the debate whilst Rev Edwards compares prominent atheists to mass murderers for writing books. This isn’t an isolated example; the Dean of Southwark compared Richard Dawkins to the July 7^th suicide bombers on much the same ground. That is what intolerance is- I don’t like your ideas so you’re at bad as Stalin! Or Hitler! Or the evil spawn of the two! I would call these ‘virulent, almost irrational’ attacks, yet they seem to be common, used by seemingly respectable people and journalists don’t seem inclined to question them. If atheists are venomously suppressing dissent, we don’t seem to be that good at it.

In the end there is this fundamental point that the act of disagreement isn’t in itself intolerant; two people can disagree yet respect each other’s right to hold those opinions and to continue existing. I feel perfectly comfortable with the Dr Morgan being out there and disagreeing with me, but from this article I get the impression he doesn’t feel the same. He managed to create a definition of fundamental atheism that would apply to all atheists and describes it as inherently intolerant of the Christian faith for disagreeing with it. Seeing as simply holding atheist views is intolerant and the point of the article is that this intolerance is wrong, the logical conclusion of the definition and argument is that public atheism shouldn’t be allowed to exist - I have to say I’m not feeling too tolerated. Moreover, the article demonstrates that any atheists who step up to the public square to give and defend their arguments will be accused of being exactly as evil and extreme as people who kill babies and innocent civilians. Remind me who’s shutting down debate again?

Friendly Christian draws my attention to a depressing story. Apparently Borders have been giving out Christmas Cards with the message ‘O Come all ye faithless’ when people are buying Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion. This is in itself a bit of a non-story, except we seem to have people quite strongly offended by it.

This constant see-saw we play between ‘dominant and must be respected’ and ‘oppressed and must be protected’ is just bizarre. How are we going between being a Christian country and Christians being a ‘punching bag’ and back in the blink of an eye? Of course there have been Christians that have been oppressed, but in this country at least, that’s always been by fellow Christians. There’s a weird, paranoid persecution complex that seems to come out whenever someone sticks a church spokesman in front of a reporter.

Everyone knows the origins Christmas has in pagan festivals and this really shouldn’t bother Christians. Either it’s wonderful the saviour was born it or it isn’t. What annoys me is this constant insistence on ownership of something Christianity co-opted when it has a far bigger meaning to our society. They say Borders are taking a Christian festival and abusing it, and I just don’t see how they get this. To be honest, I don’t think ‘O come all ye faithless’ is a funny joke but then I’m not sure it is a joke at all, I think it’s a very good message for churches. Isn’t Christ for everyone? At Christmas shouldn’t all churches have ‘O come all ye faithless’ written outside? Aren’t the faithless exactly who they want to reach? Aren’t we ‘lost’ without God’s light in our lives? Why aren’t these vicars shaking their heads, saying ‘oh those wacky atheists’ and then demonstrating how to live the gospel by turning the other cheek to any offence and reaching out to those outside their flock?

Why is it that whenever someone does anything to suggest that Christmas may be something more than a Christian holiday, they get torn down? Why does the Archbishop of York write angry letters in newspapers when card shops are selling secular Christmas cards when that’s the Christmas people want? No one wants to shut down churches, no one wants to make Christmas less than what it is or take away what it means to Christians, people just want to come together and celebrate love and practice generosity in the darkest time of the year, just as we have on this island for thousands of years. If Jesus preaches love, why do so many church leaders seem to have a problem with that?

When I’m blogging, I come off a lot of the time as angry because that’s what motivates me to finish writing, but this story just makes me sad. What a horrible world these people live in, to have so much anger in their lives over such a minor thing. How paranoid they must be to see the crowd of Atheists around them jeering in support of this devastating attack on the foundation of their faith. This is the kind of religion I loathe, the religion that seeks to dominate everything and dares to have ‘love’ on its lips when it has nothing but hate in its heart. It’d be a lot simpler if I bought into the idea that all religious people were like that, but I don’t because I know they’re not. All I have to do is go talk to Christians I know to find that. What I don’t understand is how there is such an incredible disconnect between the Christianity I see in those around me and what I see coming from these church leaders. Am I not being exposed to all the real leaders of Christianity because the media only reports on the angry ones? What’s the deal guys?

Daniel Finkelstein has a good article in The Times today on turnout and various stupid methods of increasing it (like automatically entering voters in a lottery! I’m feeling engaged now!).

But what if low turnout is a sign of angry disillusion with the political choices on offer? Well, I certainly wouldn’t want to disguise the signal with a whole load of synthetic schemes to reduce the cost of voting (with e-democracy and so forth) or increase its benefits (with lotteries and doughnuts). As it is, it doesn’t seem as though most of those who abstain in elections have given up on democracy and the law, they are just not that impressed at what they are being offered. Which is their business and that of the party leaderships. Not mine.

He’s absolutely right, If the voters are saying loud and clear we don’t like these choices, the solution isn’t to make it easier to choose or to offer incentives for choosing. Llow turnout isn’t a problem to be fixed by making democracy easier, but by making democracy better. It isn’t a disease, it’s a symptom and trying to cover it up will only make the rot in our political system worse.

US government does something scary, counter-productive and down-right creepy. World shocked.

First we have the US claiming in a UK court to have the right to kidnap citizens wanted for crimes in the US. As it turns out, if they can get them home and call ‘base!’ it’s totally legit. If this is how the Bush administration sees fit to treat one of it’s closest allies, how can they possible expect to win a war for hearts and minds where people hate them? To be fair, this must be confusing the hell out of them “Those brits are mad when we create a vastly uneven extradition process and then refuse to sign our end into law, right ok, but they’re also mad when we ignore the whole thing? WHAT IS IT YOU PEOPLE WANT??”

Also, it turns out they’ve been using fire-fighters (who as it turns out have the right to enter property without a warrant) to watch out for people “who is hostile, uncooperative or expressing hate or discontent with the United States” and “to identify material or behavior that may indicate terrorist activities”. Wow, DISCONTENT! That’s like a kind of treason! Now, some may see this as an obvious corruption of the fire-fighters role (and impressively violating both the first and fourth amendments) but I choose to see it as a gift to bloggers. We’re all tired of being reduced to overused Orwell references, but we can’t help ourselves because they always seem startlingly relevant. Thankfully, with fire-fighters going around looking for suspect books, we can turn out attentions to the more obscure Fahrenheit 451 for our blogging inspiration! Thank you America!
*A-hem*

“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none.”

There, not a hint of newspeak or Big Brother in sight! Don’t we all feel so much better?