The British legal system is falling to pieces, and it worries me. Worse still, when talking to a close friend the other day, I realised that they didn't understand the purpose of having a legal system in the first place.
The legal system is not there to incarcerate or otherwise punish criminals, it is there to protect the freedom of the majority. It protects our freedom by punishing people who break rules that we, as a society, have, willingly and rightly, imposed on ourselves.
The legal system is there to ensure that we can retain as many freedoms as is feasibly possible while allowing large numbers of us to live together in something resembling order and harmony.
So we come to 42 days of detention without charge. You have to wonder if it takes 42 days to gather evidence to charge somebody what the quality of the evidence leading to their arrest was like. 42 days is a ridiculously large amount of time for this process. Canada has 24 hours. Even China, well known for being a bit over the top, 'only' has 37. Welcome to police state Britain.
Then we come to the decision of the Law Lords (those peers that are legally qualified) that evidence given by anonymous witnesses is to be disallowed as the prevention of cross-examination means that the trial is unfair. This is the right decision. It is the only sensible decision. Imagine you are incorrectly accused of a crime, and the majority of the weight of evidence against you comes from an anonymous witness. Shouldn't your lawyer be able to ask questions that would expose them as a fraud?
But the UK government wants to rush laws through making this kind of evidence acceptable.
Letting somebody get away with a crime is itself less of a crime than imprisoning an innocent person. It is time that people realised that the law is there to protect our freedoms, not make it easier for others to take them away.
Author Archive for Edward Baker
The British legal system is falling to pieces, and it worries me. Worse still, when talking to a close friend the other day, I realised that they didn't understand the purpose of having a legal system in the first place.
The legal system is not there to incarcerate or otherwise punish criminals, it is there to protect the freedom of the majority. It protects our freedom by punishing people who break rules that we, as a society, have, willingly and rightly, imposed on ourselves.
The legal system is there to ensure that we can retain as many freedoms as is feasibly possible while allowing large numbers of us to live together in something resembling order and harmony.
So we come to 42 days of detention without charge. You have to wonder if it takes 42 days to gather evidence to charge somebody what the quality of the evidence leading to their arrest was like. 42 days is a ridiculously large amount of time for this process. Canada has 24 hours. Even China, well known for being a bit over the top, 'only' has 37. Welcome to police state Britain.
Then we come to the decision of the Law Lords (those peers that are legally qualified) that evidence given by anonymous witnesses is to be disallowed as the prevention of cross-examination means that the trial is unfair. This is the right decision. It is the only sensible decision. Imagine you are incorrectly accused of a crime, and the majority of the weight of evidence against you comes from an anonymous witness. Shouldn't your lawyer be able to ask questions that would expose them as a fraud?
But the UK government wants to rush laws through making this kind of evidence acceptable.
Letting somebody get away with a crime is itself less of a crime than imprisoning an innocent person. It is time that people realised that the law is there to protect our freedoms, not make it easier for others to take them away.
The legal system is not there to incarcerate or otherwise punish criminals, it is there to protect the freedom of the majority. It protects our freedom by punishing people who break rules that we, as a society, have, willingly and rightly, imposed on ourselves.
The legal system is there to ensure that we can retain as many freedoms as is feasibly possible while allowing large numbers of us to live together in something resembling order and harmony.
So we come to 42 days of detention without charge. You have to wonder if it takes 42 days to gather evidence to charge somebody what the quality of the evidence leading to their arrest was like. 42 days is a ridiculously large amount of time for this process. Canada has 24 hours. Even China, well known for being a bit over the top, 'only' has 37. Welcome to police state Britain.
Then we come to the decision of the Law Lords (those peers that are legally qualified) that evidence given by anonymous witnesses is to be disallowed as the prevention of cross-examination means that the trial is unfair. This is the right decision. It is the only sensible decision. Imagine you are incorrectly accused of a crime, and the majority of the weight of evidence against you comes from an anonymous witness. Shouldn't your lawyer be able to ask questions that would expose them as a fraud?
But the UK government wants to rush laws through making this kind of evidence acceptable.
Letting somebody get away with a crime is itself less of a crime than imprisoning an innocent person. It is time that people realised that the law is there to protect our freedoms, not make it easier for others to take them away.
Renewable energy is a topic where a lot of nonsense has been spouted by both sides. The greens keep giving us worst case scenario situations you could make a Hollywood blockbuster about and the the 'evil nasty capitalists' say it's not worth the effort.
Lots of the arguments focus on climate change, but that is not to say the argument for using renewable energy collapses if it is ignored. Renewable energy sources have two other major advantages.
Raw Materials
Or the fact you don't need to buy them. Oil (and hence gas) prices are rising, and the planet has finite reserves. Renewable sources such as wave, wind and solar energy do not require the purchase of such things. This tends to reduce running costs, and hence consumers' bills.
Security
We need not worry is another country stops selling us coal/gas. We would be self-sufficient in terms of energy production. This would mean that the cost of energy would be more stable.
So in the long term consumers could save money if the government invests heavily in renewable energy (oh, and we may just save the planet too).
Lots of the arguments focus on climate change, but that is not to say the argument for using renewable energy collapses if it is ignored. Renewable energy sources have two other major advantages.
Raw Materials
Or the fact you don't need to buy them. Oil (and hence gas) prices are rising, and the planet has finite reserves. Renewable sources such as wave, wind and solar energy do not require the purchase of such things. This tends to reduce running costs, and hence consumers' bills.
Security
We need not worry is another country stops selling us coal/gas. We would be self-sufficient in terms of energy production. This would mean that the cost of energy would be more stable.
So in the long term consumers could save money if the government invests heavily in renewable energy (oh, and we may just save the planet too).
I would like to make it perfectly clear that I hate, with a passion, talk shows. Why these people need to use television as a medium to air their laundry is beyond me. I know lots of people want to be on the TV, but I wouldn't want to share anything that personal, and generally anything that embarrassing/pathetic, with the world at large.
But that's not the aim of today's rant. No, today we focus on that Jeremy Kyle staple, the lie-detector (aka polygraph) test. There is much argument on the reliability of these tests, generally somewhere between 60% and 97% is quoted (however a great deal of this evidence is unreliable).
The physiological effects recorded by the polygraph are not unique to deception. Surely this should set off alarm bells?
Well no, these people on what seems to be a daily basis put major decisions in the hands of a machine which is at best 97% accurate. Kyle is guilty, as others are, of making this seem almost infallible.
What I do in a situation like this is turn the statistics around. 97% accurate means 3% inaccurate. For every 100 tests done, 3 (on average) will give the incorrect result (remember that this is the best case scenario!).
If you were a jury member would that be accurate enough for you to convict? If you were a judge would you accept that if the average accuracy of the evidence before you was 97% then for every 100 people you convicted 3 would have been denied their freedom for no reason at all. I hope not.
Innocent people will unfortunately be imprisoned under any system of law and order we have, as a species, yet envisioned. But for me the number of innocents convicted would have to be, as a minimum, somewhere around 1 in 10,000 (99.99% accuracy). If the evidence was any less convincing than that I would, personally, have to call that reasonable doubt.
But Kyle commits a worse sin. An inconclusive test is just that, it is impossible to draw a conclusion from it. Yet the daytime demigod, facing four possible thieves who had undergone the polygraph, three of which got an all clear and one of whom got an 'inconclusive', picked on that 'inconclusive' person as the culprit. An inconclusive result, even given the fact that the others pass the truth test, does not mean that person has failed to tell the truth, it means that the test has failed to discriminate.
Of course this would require Kyle, the juror/judge, the people on the show, etc. to have a sound basic knowledge of mathematics and scientific reasoning. Which given the fact we live in the Jeremy Kyle generation is sadly unlikely.
But that's not the aim of today's rant. No, today we focus on that Jeremy Kyle staple, the lie-detector (aka polygraph) test. There is much argument on the reliability of these tests, generally somewhere between 60% and 97% is quoted (however a great deal of this evidence is unreliable).
The physiological effects recorded by the polygraph are not unique to deception. Surely this should set off alarm bells?
Well no, these people on what seems to be a daily basis put major decisions in the hands of a machine which is at best 97% accurate. Kyle is guilty, as others are, of making this seem almost infallible.
What I do in a situation like this is turn the statistics around. 97% accurate means 3% inaccurate. For every 100 tests done, 3 (on average) will give the incorrect result (remember that this is the best case scenario!).
If you were a jury member would that be accurate enough for you to convict? If you were a judge would you accept that if the average accuracy of the evidence before you was 97% then for every 100 people you convicted 3 would have been denied their freedom for no reason at all. I hope not.
Innocent people will unfortunately be imprisoned under any system of law and order we have, as a species, yet envisioned. But for me the number of innocents convicted would have to be, as a minimum, somewhere around 1 in 10,000 (99.99% accuracy). If the evidence was any less convincing than that I would, personally, have to call that reasonable doubt.
But Kyle commits a worse sin. An inconclusive test is just that, it is impossible to draw a conclusion from it. Yet the daytime demigod, facing four possible thieves who had undergone the polygraph, three of which got an all clear and one of whom got an 'inconclusive', picked on that 'inconclusive' person as the culprit. An inconclusive result, even given the fact that the others pass the truth test, does not mean that person has failed to tell the truth, it means that the test has failed to discriminate.
Of course this would require Kyle, the juror/judge, the people on the show, etc. to have a sound basic knowledge of mathematics and scientific reasoning. Which given the fact we live in the Jeremy Kyle generation is sadly unlikely.
For those UK readers who think that the problem of creationism entering the education system as science is an American phenomenon there is bad news. Such teaching is going on daily in the UK too, mainly thanks to Tony Blair's great belief in 'faith schools'.
The right to home-school your children is something that i find myself uneasy with. I kow some parents are more than capable, but it should not be used as a method of indoctrination. Being taught proper science, and being able to discuss the implications of ideas such as evolution, creationism, etc with their peers exposes children to the idea that not everybody believes the same things, and will hopefully cause them to turn to the evidence.
This article from the Telegraph highlights the problems when parents do the wrong thing. No child should have a link between 'The Wizard of Oz' and atheism, it is a FICTIONAL story, it says nothing about religion. The twisting of fictional fantasy to fatastical beliefs continues with Harry Potter 'the Lord is in charge of your life, and in Harry Potter the characters are interested in gaining power for themselves'.
But worse is yet to come...
'We don't want people teaching our children that they come from monkeys,' says Michelle McKissick, 40, from Houston, who teaches her four children at home. What happens in biology classrooms is 'a lie', she says, before instructing me in the 'correct' view: Genesis 1.11 – not a metaphor, or a story, but fact. She firmly believes that the world is only 6,000 years old and that, consequently, man and dinosaurs (created on Day Six, along with Adam and Eve) once lived together quite happily – the creationist view of the universe. 'Dinosaurs weren't all these great big huge monstrosities,' she smiles, 'and they weren't all ferocious. Probably most of them were, in fact, plant-eaters.' It is Noah's flood, she points out patiently, that is responsible for the existence of fossils. And as for the vexing question of how Noah got a brachiosaurus, an animal that could have weighed up to 33 tons and eaten 3,000lb of green plants a day on to the Ark – 'He took the young ones. That would make the most sense.'
Why would herbivorous animals have teeth perfectly designed for tearing into animal flesh and practically useless for chewing plants? Perhaps she should be denied the right to decide what makes 'the most sense'?
This article from the Telegraph highlights the problems when parents do the wrong thing. No child should have a link between 'The Wizard of Oz' and atheism, it is a FICTIONAL story, it says nothing about religion. The twisting of fictional fantasy to fatastical beliefs continues with Harry Potter 'the Lord is in charge of your life, and in Harry Potter the characters are interested in gaining power for themselves'.
But worse is yet to come...
'We don't want people teaching our children that they come from monkeys,' says Michelle McKissick, 40, from Houston, who teaches her four children at home. What happens in biology classrooms is 'a lie', she says, before instructing me in the 'correct' view: Genesis 1.11 – not a metaphor, or a story, but fact. She firmly believes that the world is only 6,000 years old and that, consequently, man and dinosaurs (created on Day Six, along with Adam and Eve) once lived together quite happily – the creationist view of the universe. 'Dinosaurs weren't all these great big huge monstrosities,' she smiles, 'and they weren't all ferocious. Probably most of them were, in fact, plant-eaters.' It is Noah's flood, she points out patiently, that is responsible for the existence of fossils. And as for the vexing question of how Noah got a brachiosaurus, an animal that could have weighed up to 33 tons and eaten 3,000lb of green plants a day on to the Ark – 'He took the young ones. That would make the most sense.'
Why would herbivorous animals have teeth perfectly designed for tearing into animal flesh and practically useless for chewing plants? Perhaps she should be denied the right to decide what makes 'the most sense'?
Scientific ideas are out there to be attacked by scientists. If a theory survives an attack it lives to fight another day, if not it is either thrown onto the pile of rejected ideas (phlogiston) or it is used although it is kown to be incomplete (Newtonian mechanics is known to be wrong, however it agrees with relativistic mechanics so closely for 'everyday' situations that it used regularly as the mathematics is simpler). It is also possible to alter the theory so that it survives the attack.
These attacks need to be scientific attacks (i.e. they require empirical evidence). Attacks from revealed sources such as the bible are totally unacceptable. The process of attacking an idea is to develop an experiment that will either prove the theory wrong, or let it survive to be attacked by another experiment.
It is not possible to prove a scientific idea, but scientists have a lot of confidence in ideas that have withstood a large number of attacks.
These attacks need to be scientific attacks (i.e. they require empirical evidence). Attacks from revealed sources such as the bible are totally unacceptable. The process of attacking an idea is to develop an experiment that will either prove the theory wrong, or let it survive to be attacked by another experiment.
It is not possible to prove a scientific idea, but scientists have a lot of confidence in ideas that have withstood a large number of attacks.
This article by Tim Radford in the Guardian nicely illustrates an important point.
There's more to science than big names and their big ideas. Darwin's discovery is important, but it was co-discovered by Alfred Russel Wallace, and many people have helped to fill in gaps in the theory ever since. Scientific ideas are rarely totally complete.
There's more to science than big names and their big ideas. Darwin's discovery is important, but it was co-discovered by Alfred Russel Wallace, and many people have helped to fill in gaps in the theory ever since. Scientific ideas are rarely totally complete.
Perhaps one of the craziest organisations on the planet there exists plenty of debate on whether the Church of Scientology is a religion, business or 'just' a cult. However the fact that you can be arrested and face prosecution for calling the organisation a cult is plainly ridiculous. (See this article).
The American National Centre for Science Education seems to be a lot better funded than our own British Centre for Science Education, although the situation is a lot worse the other side of the Atlantic. They have produced these videos, shown on www.expelledexposed.com, which are worth watching for people who aren't creationists, or perhaps worse, IDiots.
Yes, two of the most influential texts of the last millennium do actually agree on some things. This brings joy to my heart, as the last thing we really need is any of this ridiculous Muslim/Christian. Islam/Christianity, Koran/Bible rivallry. So, you may ask, what do these two 'great' texts agree on? well the answer comes from Steve Wells over at Dwindling In Unbelief.
1) A woman is worth half as much as a man.
2) Insects have four legs.
Great! Good to see that recent advances in equal rights and insect morphology have filtered down into the core of some of the world's major religions!
1) A woman is worth half as much as a man.
2) Insects have four legs.
Great! Good to see that recent advances in equal rights and insect morphology have filtered down into the core of some of the world's major religions!
"When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you," - Ben Stein.
This originally came from here. Thankfully it seems that Stein's film hasn't made it to this side of the Atlantic, we're generally not quite as extremist as the United States. It's not relly a good opinion, science leads to vacuum cleaners, computers, medicines, and a whole lot of other things too. Extremist opinions lead to events such as the Holocaust, and I for one would rather trust in science than trust in Stein.
This originally came from here. Thankfully it seems that Stein's film hasn't made it to this side of the Atlantic, we're generally not quite as extremist as the United States. It's not relly a good opinion, science leads to vacuum cleaners, computers, medicines, and a whole lot of other things too. Extremist opinions lead to events such as the Holocaust, and I for one would rather trust in science than trust in Stein.
This came to me via the British Centre for Science Education
Expelled flunks the test
www.ExpelledExposed.com finds new creationist “documentary” lacking accuracy on many levels
Expelled flunks the test
www.ExpelledExposed.com finds new creationist “documentary” lacking accuracy on many levels
Oakland, California, April 15, 2008 — Millions of dollars have been spent promoting Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed to fundamentalist church groups, but that money would have been better spent on fact checkers. www.ExpelledExposed.com, a website launched today by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), reveals the truth behind the creationist movie’s misrepresentations.
“Creationists have been making the same arguments for decades,” says Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education. “They’ve gotten better at marketing these claims, but they’re no more valid now than during the Scopes trial of the 1920s. Creationists have been predicting the death of evolution for over a century, yet it is constantly affirmed by evidence from fields Darwin could never have imagined.” Given the damning assessment at www.ExpelledExposed.com, Scott adds, “Perhaps the filmmakers should have spent more time hitting the books, instead of beating up on hardworking scientists.”
Throughout the movie, Ben Stein claims that “Big Science” represses intelligent design to advance an atheistic agenda, but Peter Hess, from NCSE’s Faith Outreach Project, doesn’t buy it. “There are many successful evolutionary biologists who are also people of faith,” he observes, “and a host of people of faith who regard intelligent design as a misconceived and harmful rejection of science. In attempting to pit Christianity against science, Expelled misrepresents both.”
“We reviewed public records and reports on the intelligent design promoters who were supposedly discriminated against, and we discovered that the claims that they lost their jobs over intelligent design are unsupported,” explains Josh Rosenau, a biologist at NCSE. “That said, professors who aren’t making advances in their field, editors who disregard their journal’s established practices, and lecturers who repeat creationist falsehoods shouldn’t be surprised if they have trouble holding jobs. These people weren’t expelled; they flunked out.” www.ExpelledExposed.com contains information about the “martyrs” from Expelled, and also of real scientists who successfully challenged established science. “The difference,” NCSE researcher Carrie Sager observes, “is that real scientists back their challenges with experimental results. Results are what changed minds, forced textbook revisions, and earned Nobel Prizes.”
More insidious are the movie’s attempts to link evolution to the Holocaust. Susan Spath, a historian of science at NCSE, comments: “The implication that Darwin led to Nazism and the Holocaust is an irresponsible misrepresentation of a terrible history. Hitler abused many things, including science, and Expelled is wrong to shift blame off his shoulders and onto evolution.” www.ExpelledExposed.com quotes the Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman, who described similar claims in a previous creationist movie as “an outrageous and shoddy attempt ... to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust.”
The National Center for Science Education is a non-profit organization dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The NCSE maintains its archive of source material on the history of creationism at its Oakland, California, headquarters. On the web at www.ncseweb.org. www.ExpelledExposed.com is a resource for journalists, teachers, and curious moviegoers who want the full story behind Expelled.
Contacts:
Eugenie C. Scott, scott@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006
Josh Rosenau, rosenau@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006
Susan Spath, spath@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006
Carrie Sager, sager@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006
I quite often have 'chats' with people using the MeeboMe widget down there on the right. Quite often they are fellow atheists or reasonable human beings, sometimes they are fanatics telling me that I'm going to spend eternity in hell (which, if hell is relative, would be with them, meaning they're off to hell too or I've got a special pass upstairs). Anyway sometimes the misguided come and have a rather longer chat, as in this case.
[08:03] meeboguest924815: hello
[08:03] edwbaker: hi
[08:04] meeboguest924815: i am from the philippines how are u
[08:04] edwbaker: good thanks
[08:04] edwbaker: how are you?
[08:05] meeboguest924815: im fine...whats ur web all about?
[08:05] edwbaker: in what sense?
[08:06] meeboguest924815: are u an anglican?
[08:06] edwbaker: no
[08:06] meeboguest924815: i just want to know what ur web is...are u atheist?
[08:07] edwbaker: yes
[08:07] edwbaker: the website is about atheism
[08:08] meeboguest924815: thanks and ur from england?
[08:08] edwbaker: yes
[08:09] meeboguest924815: what do you think today atheism becomes the choice of the world people
[08:10] edwbaker: it's not based on old and inaccurate beliefs
[08:10] edwbaker: and it is consistent with the science
[08:11] edwbaker: and all religions disagree with each other, at the very most one can be right, but there are hundreds of them
[08:13] meeboguest924815: the champions of reason unsurpassed in history is thomas aquinas,,,he explained the congruence f reason and faith
[08:13] edwbaker: yes, you are very misguided
[08:14] meeboguest924815: einstein give in to the fact that the universe has beginning and sun will end..the scientific fact in which is trying to refute
[08:16] edwbaker: we know the uiniverse has a beginning and the sun will end, einstein accepted that
[08:16] edwbaker: but he accepted it because it was scientifically accurate
[08:17] meeboguest924815: hes scientist in physical law...he spend his time disproving god through science but he discover god in science
[08:17] edwbaker: He didn't spend time disproving god, he spent time studying physics
[08:18] meeboguest924815: if the universe has beginiing..then it has beginner...this is solid reason itself
[08:18] edwbaker: no, that's very very poor reason
[08:19] edwbaker: why is the 'beginner' there in the first place?
[08:19] meeboguest924815: the margin of error is improbable to create a universe...the basic force
[08:19] edwbaker: explain that to me....
[08:19] edwbaker: i don't understand your argument
[08:20] meeboguest924815: how complex accuracy in nuclear force...we need time...can i have your email?l
[08:21] meeboguest924815: i mean to create a universe the margin of error is 1 is to miilion something...thanks ill get in touch with you...anyway how young are you
[08:22] edwbaker: i'm 22
[08:23] meeboguest924815: im 30,,i spend my time disproving god...but im at great lost everytime i intensely resrearch
[08:23] edwbaker: why do you try to disprove god?
[08:25] meeboguest924815: because i rational being should fing meaning of existence...i know something y english people loose confidence in theistic ideology
[08:25] edwbaker: is there a meaning to existence?
[08:25] edwbaker: there doesn't have to be
[08:26] edwbaker: perhaps the meaning is what you make of it
[08:26] meeboguest924815: there is at least in me...and to people who think that way...look,the stones in israel scream to the history there is a living god
[08:27] meeboguest924815: history itself is a story betwwen god and the people
[08:28] meeboguest924815: if thre isnt...try to study how meaningful anglo saxons turn into race of reason from a senseless barbarians
[08:29] edwbaker: i think you may misunderstand some human history
[08:29] edwbaker: what do you belive?
[08:29] meeboguest924815: ifever i misunderstood based on ur perception...it was meaning
[08:30] meeboguest924815: i beleive in god and nothing else..if u dont beleive in god..u beleive in everything
[08:30] edwbaker: are you a Christian?
[08:31] meeboguest924815: my firend im not just a christian,,im a roman catholic christian,,,reasercher...advocates science,reason, knowledge,history,evolution etc.
[08:32] edwbaker: when was the world created?
[08:32] meeboguest924815: i study objectively atheism,,,everything about atheism,,,
[08:32] edwbaker: there's very little to study - it's the absence of belief
[08:33] meeboguest924815: universe was created around 20 to 30 billion yeras ago by god intricate design using all physical law...
[08:33] edwbaker: where did you get that age from?
[08:34] meeboguest924815: so where did you came from>thats a belief system science would tell you,,that will pave way to theistic disposition
[08:35] meeboguest924815: based on astronomers dating..they have such technical prowess we coulnt knew exactly,,but its so close to reality...thats all science is all about
[08:35] meeboguest924815: athesim is loosing folowers since scientist turn to god
[08:36] edwbaker: the age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years according to astronomers
[08:36] edwbaker: which scientists turn to god?
[08:36] meeboguest924815: ed,,theres someting wrong which accumulate in ur society so englishmen are in dispair of reality of god
[08:37] meeboguest924815: the history would tell you...scientist who turn to explain god as author of all unfathomable knowlege such as genteics
[08:38] meeboguest924815: genetics...a single cell may composedof 30 volumes of book...there are trillion cells in ur body times it to the volumes of books
[08:39] edwbaker: it's not literal books though, thats just an analogy
[08:39] meeboguest924815: if a library of book has an author,,a cellular being more intricate,more complex in its chemical composition and functioning has also author
[08:40] edwbaker: and that's taking the analogy too far
[08:40] meeboguest924815: we christian has used a lot of analogy to simplify what things could be understood by all I.Q. level
[08:41] meeboguest924815: i know the ground where we stand...
[08:42] meeboguest924815: we have roughly 4000 years of story between god and us
[08:43] meeboguest924815: vatican now is working to melt down all atheictic view
[08:44] meeboguest924815: since not all astronomers agree on dating....its all estemate
[08:45] edwbaker: they agree to within quite a small range
[08:47] meeboguest248740: how long haveu been atheist?
[08:48] edwbaker: always
[08:48] meeboguest248740: quantifiably what?
[08:49] edwbaker: since i knew about religion and science
[08:50] meeboguest248740: that was around back when your 7 years old ?
[08:51] edwbaker: if not before
[08:51] meeboguest248740: you know,,theres one explanation in christendom the appetite for atheism
[08:52] edwbaker: which is?
[08:54] meeboguest248740: Satan,the ancient deciver the father of lies...unseen yet his machineries like a whirlwind is conquring the world...though not all in history but snatching those who are not favored by our god
[08:56] edwbaker: yes, god is omnipotent apart from when it comes to the devil
[08:56] meeboguest248740: ed,,,i beleive england has life expectancy of 70 or more god give you time to think even crispily...you will hear him when your church began to call you
[08:56] Meebo Message: meeboguest24874
Damn... was just about to ask whether it would be ok to become a Muslim, or Hindu.
[08:03] meeboguest924815: hello
[08:03] edwbaker: hi
[08:04] meeboguest924815: i am from the philippines how are u
[08:04] edwbaker: good thanks
[08:04] edwbaker: how are you?
[08:05] meeboguest924815: im fine...whats ur web all about?
[08:05] edwbaker: in what sense?
[08:06] meeboguest924815: are u an anglican?
[08:06] edwbaker: no
[08:06] meeboguest924815: i just want to know what ur web is...are u atheist?
[08:07] edwbaker: yes
[08:07] edwbaker: the website is about atheism
[08:08] meeboguest924815: thanks and ur from england?
[08:08] edwbaker: yes
[08:09] meeboguest924815: what do you think today atheism becomes the choice of the world people
[08:10] edwbaker: it's not based on old and inaccurate beliefs
[08:10] edwbaker: and it is consistent with the science
[08:11] edwbaker: and all religions disagree with each other, at the very most one can be right, but there are hundreds of them
[08:13] meeboguest924815: the champions of reason unsurpassed in history is thomas aquinas,,,he explained the congruence f reason and faith
[08:13] edwbaker: yes, you are very misguided
[08:14] meeboguest924815: einstein give in to the fact that the universe has beginning and sun will end..the scientific fact in which is trying to refute
[08:16] edwbaker: we know the uiniverse has a beginning and the sun will end, einstein accepted that
[08:16] edwbaker: but he accepted it because it was scientifically accurate
[08:17] meeboguest924815: hes scientist in physical law...he spend his time disproving god through science but he discover god in science
[08:17] edwbaker: He didn't spend time disproving god, he spent time studying physics
[08:18] meeboguest924815: if the universe has beginiing..then it has beginner...this is solid reason itself
[08:18] edwbaker: no, that's very very poor reason
[08:19] edwbaker: why is the 'beginner' there in the first place?
[08:19] meeboguest924815: the margin of error is improbable to create a universe...the basic force
[08:19] edwbaker: explain that to me....
[08:19] edwbaker: i don't understand your argument
[08:20] meeboguest924815: how complex accuracy in nuclear force...we need time...can i have your email?l
[08:21] meeboguest924815: i mean to create a universe the margin of error is 1 is to miilion something...thanks ill get in touch with you...anyway how young are you
[08:22] edwbaker: i'm 22
[08:23] meeboguest924815: im 30,,i spend my time disproving god...but im at great lost everytime i intensely resrearch
[08:23] edwbaker: why do you try to disprove god?
[08:25] meeboguest924815: because i rational being should fing meaning of existence...i know something y english people loose confidence in theistic ideology
[08:25] edwbaker: is there a meaning to existence?
[08:25] edwbaker: there doesn't have to be
[08:26] edwbaker: perhaps the meaning is what you make of it
[08:26] meeboguest924815: there is at least in me...and to people who think that way...look,the stones in israel scream to the history there is a living god
[08:27] meeboguest924815: history itself is a story betwwen god and the people
[08:28] meeboguest924815: if thre isnt...try to study how meaningful anglo saxons turn into race of reason from a senseless barbarians
[08:29] edwbaker: i think you may misunderstand some human history
[08:29] edwbaker: what do you belive?
[08:29] meeboguest924815: ifever i misunderstood based on ur perception...it was meaning
[08:30] meeboguest924815: i beleive in god and nothing else..if u dont beleive in god..u beleive in everything
[08:30] edwbaker: are you a Christian?
[08:31] meeboguest924815: my firend im not just a christian,,im a roman catholic christian,,,reasercher...advocates science,reason, knowledge,history,evolution etc.
[08:32] edwbaker: when was the world created?
[08:32] meeboguest924815: i study objectively atheism,,,everything about atheism,,,
[08:32] edwbaker: there's very little to study - it's the absence of belief
[08:33] meeboguest924815: universe was created around 20 to 30 billion yeras ago by god intricate design using all physical law...
[08:33] edwbaker: where did you get that age from?
[08:34] meeboguest924815: so where did you came from>thats a belief system science would tell you,,that will pave way to theistic disposition
[08:35] meeboguest924815: based on astronomers dating..they have such technical prowess we coulnt knew exactly,,but its so close to reality...thats all science is all about
[08:35] meeboguest924815: athesim is loosing folowers since scientist turn to god
[08:36] edwbaker: the age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years according to astronomers
[08:36] edwbaker: which scientists turn to god?
[08:36] meeboguest924815: ed,,theres someting wrong which accumulate in ur society so englishmen are in dispair of reality of god
[08:37] meeboguest924815: the history would tell you...scientist who turn to explain god as author of all unfathomable knowlege such as genteics
[08:38] meeboguest924815: genetics...a single cell may composedof 30 volumes of book...there are trillion cells in ur body times it to the volumes of books
[08:39] edwbaker: it's not literal books though, thats just an analogy
[08:39] meeboguest924815: if a library of book has an author,,a cellular being more intricate,more complex in its chemical composition and functioning has also author
[08:40] edwbaker: and that's taking the analogy too far
[08:40] meeboguest924815: we christian has used a lot of analogy to simplify what things could be understood by all I.Q. level
[08:41] meeboguest924815: i know the ground where we stand...
[08:42] meeboguest924815: we have roughly 4000 years of story between god and us
[08:43] meeboguest924815: vatican now is working to melt down all atheictic view
[08:44] meeboguest924815: since not all astronomers agree on dating....its all estemate
[08:45] edwbaker: they agree to within quite a small range
[08:47] meeboguest248740: how long haveu been atheist?
[08:48] edwbaker: always
[08:48] meeboguest248740: quantifiably what?
[08:49] edwbaker: since i knew about religion and science
[08:50] meeboguest248740: that was around back when your 7 years old ?
[08:51] edwbaker: if not before
[08:51] meeboguest248740: you know,,theres one explanation in christendom the appetite for atheism
[08:52] edwbaker: which is?
[08:54] meeboguest248740: Satan,the ancient deciver the father of lies...unseen yet his machineries like a whirlwind is conquring the world...though not all in history but snatching those who are not favored by our god
[08:56] edwbaker: yes, god is omnipotent apart from when it comes to the devil
[08:56] meeboguest248740: ed,,,i beleive england has life expectancy of 70 or more god give you time to think even crispily...you will hear him when your church began to call you
[08:56] Meebo Message: meeboguest24874
Damn... was just about to ask whether it would be ok to become a Muslim, or Hindu.
"Science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke has died in Sri Lanka at the age of 90, an aide to the best-selling British author said.
Rohan De Silva said that Clarke died after suffering from breathing problems.
Clarke is the author of more than 100 books, including 2001: A Space Odyssey, collaborating with director Stanley Kubrick on the film of the same name."
From BBC Teletext
Misses what I would call his greatest contribution, a paper on the principle of geo-stationary satellites, now widely used for telecommunications, and also the 'space elevator' concept, a scientist as well as a science fiction author.
Rohan De Silva said that Clarke died after suffering from breathing problems.
Clarke is the author of more than 100 books, including 2001: A Space Odyssey, collaborating with director Stanley Kubrick on the film of the same name."
From BBC Teletext
Misses what I would call his greatest contribution, a paper on the principle of geo-stationary satellites, now widely used for telecommunications, and also the 'space elevator' concept, a scientist as well as a science fiction author.
As one of my friends is currently in the process of creating an ‘atheist and agnostic society’ at Imperial College (IC), and the most recent copy of the college magazine, Felix, contains several pieces regarding religion I have decided to make a few comments here to open the ideas to a wider audience.
The IC Islamic Ahul-Bayt Society invited Dr Cevat Babuna of the organisation Harun Yahya to talk on the subject of Evolution vs. Creationism (including Intelligent Design). As a bit of background, Dr Babuna is a Muslim neurosurgeon of Turkish nationality.
“The speaker was introduced with the claim that the society wanted to promote an exchange of ideas; he can’t have been listening, because he then proceeded with what can only be described as single-minded, bigoted propaganda.” Pietro Aronica, Felix.
Dr Babuna talked for over an hour, starting with the evils of ‘Social Darwinism’, trying to link anarchism, atheism, racism, fascism, Nazism, and communism to the theory of natural selection. In fact the words he used were more like, “the law of the jungle has killed more than 180million people’. This is clearly nonsense, as one attendee noted by pointing out that atheism and anti-Semitism were around long before Darwin proposed his magnum opus.
More ‘traditional’ attacks on Darwinism included the classic argument of ‘irreducible complexity’, clearly showing that Dr Babuna either does not understand the theory, or is wilfully ignorant of how powerful it can be.
As pointed out by Matty Hoban in Felix: “What made the lecture more interesting is that it was a Muslim speaking as opposed to an Evangelical Christian.” Perhaps Aronica pointed out the only real difference: “Everything was served with a large dose of Qur’an, added here and there to give a credible opinion… The plan backfired when even girls in hijab confronted him on the ridiculousness of his theories.”
Thankfully, many people found his arguments ridiculous (IC is one of the world’s leading science universities after all). Aronica reported, “Sometimes a chorus of dissent from the crowd would cover the speaker’s voice…”.
Pietro Aronica also gives a great example of what I like to call ‘Argument by Incredulous Substitution’. “The argument for Darwinism being the root of all evil was just bad, with no other word required. Maybe you are familiar with the reduction ad Hitlerum, an impressive sounding Latin phrase…basically, if Hitler liked X, X must be evil; other common variants are Nazis or Stalin instead of Hitler. Anybody can spot the fallacy in it, by putting as X something that is not considered unethical and still was supported by Hitler, like dogs, or paintings.
It’s a simple thing to forget, I guess, that anti0Semitism existed for millennia before Darwin was even born, that Hitler liked playing the blame game in a depression-ravaged hunger-stricken Germany, that Socrates had already questioned the existence of the Gods, and that racism is old as humanity itself… The sensible, logical people outnumbered and outweighed their opponents, and showed how such idiocy is not appreciated here. Despite claims to the contrary, creationism is declining, and today’s audience was the living proof. Let’s keep it up”
"All religions were forged as defences against this virus, chance. Once you have dreamt up a god or a goddess, you can abase yourself, offer up burnt offerings, put your knees to the ground or your bottom to the air, all in the hope that by fawnings and repeated praise you may ward off ill fortune, or gain an imaginary better world."
- Brian Aldiss, Science Fiction Novelist,
"Fiction or Prediction?", 2007
Thanks to Gord for finding this one.
Why is calling a teddy bear Mohammed so different from calling a child Mohammed. I was speaking to a Muslim friend of mine the other day about this, and he said that it did make him feel "slightly uneasy" and that he wouldn't personally want a child's toy named after the prophet.
What I found strange is that my Muslim friend is actually named after the prophet twice, yes he is Mohammed Mohammed.
What I found strange is that my Muslim friend is actually named after the prophet twice, yes he is Mohammed Mohammed.
Freedom of speech is an important concept. It means that I am free to write pretty much what I want to on here. But it also means that people can write and speak about ideas that I personally find abhorrent. These two views then enable us, and others to discuss what we have said. This is the principal of debate.
If you live in the UK I assume you have already connected this ramble with a certain event at the Oxford Union recently, where Nick Baker of the BNP and holocaust denier David Irving were invited to speak.
I have never been to the Oxford Union, but I imagine that it is a place where the views of these two men, whose thoughts and agendas I don’t agree with, can be challenged in a rigorous and intellectual way. I have no issue with the open discussion of whatever these people believe.
What is abhorrent to me is the protest against these people being allowed to speak. Would they not protest against religious, sexual, racial or any other form of discrimination in a country where this discrimination is the norm? Just because someone has a different view, however much you personally dislike it, does not mean that they do not have the same right to say it as anyone else.
By letting them speak we can find out what they have to say, and then we can make up our own minds. We may agree, or we may decide they are cretins. Freedom of speech then gives us the freedom to say, if we want to, that we totally disagree and give our reasons.
Let’s not be afraid of these people, let’s give them the rope by which they can hang themselves.
Recently, as some of the regular lurkers know (at least according to Google Analytics), I have been having an argument with a guy (pseudonym Aquinas Dad) who has been arguing that atheists have killed more people than religious people. His sole argument centres on the atheist nature of communist organisations (in this case focusing on Shining Path in
Well you’d imagine that Shining Path being a bunch of atheist murderers would make the search “shining path atheism” a good term to Google. Indeed it returns over 360,000 results. However the comments of Aquinas Dad on this blog were ranked 4th in the listings, hardly indicative of a wealth of scholarly study. (I realise this isn’t exactly the best way of rating intellectual ideas but it is indicative of what has been done).
I accept communist organisations, such as the Maoist Shining Path, have committed murder on a large scale. But did they do this because they were atheists? Clearly the answer is no. In the same way that most murders by religious fundamentalists often are not done because people believe in this, that or these gods. The problem is that the religious G3 (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) through their acceptance of horrific Bronze Age texts actually condone these actions.
If the Old Testament or the Koran actually condemned violence then many of the most horrific acts in history would have been avoided. These texts gave, and still give, authority to such actions as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust. (The last one may seem far fetched but I was sent a magazine by the Christadelphians which states clearly that “the Holocaust was an essential part of god’s covenant with
So yes, there are mentally ill individuals (both theist and atheist) who commit murder. The difference is that the religious person has the authority of religious texts, accepted by millions of people worldwide. They act to support an imaginary being that they believe certainly exists and holds the key to their personal afterlife.
Atheism denies the existence of this imaginary deity and, as a consequence, has to accept the delusions of these people for what they are: delusions. It may not be easy, but it’s the truth.
An issue that has been in the news (reasonably) recently in this country is the decision to allow homosexual couples to adopt children. This is the current climax of various ‘gay rights’ legislation, but is, understandably, the most controversial.
Normally I have absolutely no issues with equal rights, but the issue here raises questions that go beyond the rights of minority groups (i.e. they affect the children being adopted). Now I left school in 2004, and to be perfectly honest I wouldn’t want to have been adopted by gay parents. It would be an invitation to regular bullying – even in a school that was far from the decadent inner-city comprehensives that seem to be the worry of many parents. I understand that people have different views, and I know some perfectly normally people who have been bought up (for at least part of their lives) by gay parents. I guess I’m still divided on the matter.
I was wondering the other day what would happen if a similar agenda was laid before the American public?My biggest issue however is the way that minority groups can create their own organisations that exclude, or partially exclude, the majority. The existence of gay nightclubs for me becomes much more sinister when you consider what would happen to somebody who tried to open a heterosexual nightclub. Or what about a white police officers’ association? A male businessmans’ club?
Is this a form of positive discrimination?
Well it seems I’ve been a bit lazy recently. I don’t mean that I’ve not been posting enough, I post as and when I have time and I’ve been exceptionally busy recently. Instead I mean that I have not been covering a wide enough range of topics: most of the posts so far have been based on religion. Whilst I am keen on having discussions about atheism I am also keen to tackle over issues, most notably things that fall under the rather large umbrella of ‘pseudo-science’.
I also realise I have been quite lazy in interacting with other people sharing the ‘blogosphere’. So hopefully I will be having more debates and arguments with more people over the next few weeks and months.
So what has caused this feeling of laziness? Well I’ve realised that I would like to communicate some more ideas to other people, and to engage in discussions with other people. Also one of my friends (Felicity!) seems to be pursuing an interest in combining science and the media in some way, and it seems pretty cool. For several years I have been collecting a variety of newspaper cuttings, radio programmes and TV clips about things that interest me, and to be perfectly honest, it’s about time I started drawing on this resource!
I wonder who many Americans realise that there are a large number of people who look upon them as being religious fundamentalists in a very similar way as they look to countries in the
I’m not sure how many people read what the holocaust deniers have to say. For those that don’t one of the breakdown products of Zyklon B (the gas used in the gas chambers) is the synthetic pigment Prussian Blue. The holocaust deniers claim that there is insufficient residue for the extermination of X number of Jews. What a lovely name for a pop band.
So who is in this duo? Well it’s not the classic neo-Nazi skinhead types, it’s a couple of young teenage girls. As you can probably imagine these views stem mainly from their parents, who are active in the ‘white power’ movement.
Perhaps the best way to expose how sad (and ridiculous) their views are is to let them speak for themselves:
“My racial awareness was always strengthened by my family....and my mom joined the NA when I was 8 years old. I am 12 years old now, I became a White Nationalist when I was 8, but before that I was already racial...."
Lynx Gaede
"I was racially aware ever since I was a baby. The first time Lamb and I saw a black, we were toddlers, and we called him a "Monster Guy". From then on, we called all blacks Monster Guys...of course now, they are known as niggers, but then they were Monster Guys. Anyways, I was racially aware in Kindergarten, I never went near the few blacks that were in my school, I was totally superior towards all of the mexicans, I knew that I was different from them, and that I had more intelligence then they did."
Lynx Gaede on she and Lamb calling black people "Monster Guys"
"I'm a girl! I think the boys should be fighting and the girls stay home!"
Lamb Gaede on fighting in a race war
Cynthia McFadden (ABC News): And what's your opinion on Hitler?
Lamb Gaede: I think that he had ... he wanted to preserve his race.
McFadden: He had 6 million Jews executed.
Lamb: I think that's an exaggeration.
McFadden: You do.
Lamb: Yes.
Lynx Gaede: I hardly believe there are even that many Jews alive back then.
McFadden: Is Hitler someone you admire or someone you don't admire? ... You think he was a great man?
Lynx: Yeah, I think he did a lot -- he had a lot of good ideas.
Well, here it is - the latest issue of Carnival of the Godless. I have had plenty of submissions, and since many arrived at the last minute it has taken a while to put this together. It seemed to me that the fairest way of arranging everything was to have the posts in chronological order of arrival, so here goes.
I must admit to finding Alister McGrath rather annoying, and so, obviously, does Shalini whose post deals with a few examples of the guy's "buffoonery".
Barry Mahfood takes a look at what can be described as miraculous in his post, and what a religious person can take from the fact that they survived a bridge collapse.
I must admit to finding Alister McGrath rather annoying, and so, obviously, does Shalini whose post deals with a few examples of the guy's "buffoonery".
Barry Mahfood takes a look at what can be described as miraculous in his post, and what a religious person can take from the fact that they survived a bridge collapse.
Sometimes the best way to expose somebody as being deluded is just to let them express themselves, and Martin Wagner's discussion in this post shows just how wrong they can be.
BT Murtagh in his post takes a look at the god of both deists and of the Abrahamic faiths and shows that one is false, and the other is useless.
Doug Humphries' post in Eight Hour Lunch hides its moral (albeit loosely) behind a family of Possums. It is amazing how inter-Possum relations can shed light on how pathetic some members of the human race can be!
Chris Flynn-Jones' mini-epic about the meaning of life is certainly worth a read, as is the discussion of homosexuality in Jared's submission. Meanwhile Red Baron uncovers the extremist tendencies of The Sun.
Mike Elias seems to have found something in Buddhism whilst No More Mr Nice Guy is annoyed by the Christian response to the latest Harry Potter offering.
Ryan attacks popular misconceptions about neo-Atheism while Mike Haubrich questions politicians who ask for us to "pray for rain" and John P. asks "Why didn't Jesus Write?".
Ironwolf calls for believers to come clean about the basis of their beliefs. Dikkii has a discussion about cartoon strips and the problems with Pascal's Wager, whereas Cheerful Iconoclast looks at a case where a catholic diocese files for bankruptcy. Barry Leiba has a light-hearted look at the power of prayer.
Andrew Bernardin asks why Christian slaves are to respect their masters; evanescent asks whether believers really believe? The therapydoc looks at the terror of concentration camps.
Hell's Handmaiden writes about de-constructing the works of Stanley Fish. Tobe questions whether the current trend of pro-atheism books is worthwhile or just preaching to the converted, and Phil send us a poem.
Sexy Secularist wonders what can make a new religion while Greta Chrisitina uncovers what Jesus had to say about hell (as well as the bridge collapse). VJack asks the Important Atheism Questions and finally The Skwib looks for further signs of the apocalypse.
I would like to invite you all to vote for this blog on bloginterviewer.com. You can either use the buttons to the right, or click here for a direct link. If you want to leave a comment to say that you have voted then please feel free - it would be good to hear from some of you.
I found today an article that I had missed in the Guardian in January. Apparently secular fundamentalists should now be the number one enemy of the politically correct crowd.
I agree that people should be free to believe what they want. But as the 'big three' religions in this country all advocate violence against against people who believe in other gods then some restrictions should be placed on them. Not 'advertising' by wearing religious jewelry is something that needs to be discussed, as it does not really harm anything, but veils and the like are a symbol of oppression rooted in the bronze age.
As for terrorism not being linked to religion: could there be religious extremists without religions?
There is also an example of what I call 'argument by incredulous substitution':
"Witness, for example, Mary Riddell's astonishing sentence in the Observer last month (try replacing "religion" with "homosexuality" to get the point): "secularists do not wish to harm religion or deny its great cultural influence. They simply want it to know its place." In other words: get back in the closet."
Religion is a set of beliefs, inconsistent across cultures, often internally inconsistent and generally mutual exclusive. Homosexuality is a sexual preference. We could insert a particular religion or even another belief system like racism or liberalism. We cannot insert homosexuality in the same way we cannot insert 'albinism' or 'animals'.
I agree that people should be free to believe what they want. But as the 'big three' religions in this country all advocate violence against against people who believe in other gods then some restrictions should be placed on them. Not 'advertising' by wearing religious jewelry is something that needs to be discussed, as it does not really harm anything, but veils and the like are a symbol of oppression rooted in the bronze age.
As for terrorism not being linked to religion: could there be religious extremists without religions?
There is also an example of what I call 'argument by incredulous substitution':
"Witness, for example, Mary Riddell's astonishing sentence in the Observer last month (try replacing "religion" with "homosexuality" to get the point): "secularists do not wish to harm religion or deny its great cultural influence. They simply want it to know its place." In other words: get back in the closet."
Religion is a set of beliefs, inconsistent across cultures, often internally inconsistent and generally mutual exclusive. Homosexuality is a sexual preference. We could insert a particular religion or even another belief system like racism or liberalism. We cannot insert homosexuality in the same way we cannot insert 'albinism' or 'animals'.
In an article on Christian Post Michelle Vu reports that Anthony Horvath has made a scathing attack on the way the church does little to promote itself to young people. This, he argues, is responsible for the increasing number of atheists.
The report says that the church should do more to explain why it believes things such as Jesus rising from the dead. Just how this will make Christianity more believable is beyond me. Roll on the next and larger generation of atheists!
The report says that the church should do more to explain why it believes things such as Jesus rising from the dead. Just how this will make Christianity more believable is beyond me. Roll on the next and larger generation of atheists!
Well, once again it's been a while since I have posted here. The excuse this time is moving house, and other commitments I have had with various organisations and people.
I will now be able to return to something at least resembling normal service. On the 18th of August I will be hosting Carnival of the Godless here - so it would be good to get everything back to normal by then!
I have also had a few contributions from some other people, who although they do not want to contribute regularly have generously offered me a contribution or two. If anybody else wants to send me any then please feel free to either send it, or if you'd prefer we can discuss it first.
I will be placing these submitted articles up over the next month or so - and I hope you enjoy them. They are of topics that I have no or little direct experience of - and should help to broaden the themes of this blog.
I will now be able to return to something at least resembling normal service. On the 18th of August I will be hosting Carnival of the Godless here - so it would be good to get everything back to normal by then!
I have also had a few contributions from some other people, who although they do not want to contribute regularly have generously offered me a contribution or two. If anybody else wants to send me any then please feel free to either send it, or if you'd prefer we can discuss it first.
I will be placing these submitted articles up over the next month or so - and I hope you enjoy them. They are of topics that I have no or little direct experience of - and should help to broaden the themes of this blog.
It is the afternoon of September 25, 2000, and Jonathan Edwards is making his way to the triple jump final at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney. In his kitbag are some shirts, spikes, towels – and a tin of sardines.
Why the sardines? They have been chosen by Edwards to symbolise the fish that Jesus used in the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. They are, if you like, the physical manifestation of his faith in God.
As he enters the stadium, he offers a silent prayer: “I place my destiny in Your hands. Do with me as You will.” A few hours later he has captured the gold medal, securing his status as one of Britain’s greatest athletes.
Edwards’s faith was never an optional add-on. It has been fundamental to his identity – something that has permeated every fibre of his being – since his trips to Sunday school in the company of his devout parents; since he went to a Christian youth camp in North Devon and devoted his life to Jesus, tears streaming down his cheeks and his face glowing with divine revelation. Since he decided to risk everything to follow God’s revealed path, moving to Newcastle in 1987 to become a full-time athlete in the belief that his preordained success would enable him to evangelise to an unbelieving world; since he withdrew from the World Championships in Tokyo in 1991 because his event was scheduled for the Sabbath.
By the time Edwards retired from athletics in 2003, he had established himself as one of Britain’s most prominent born-again Christians. He soon landed the job of fronting a landmark documentary on the life of St Paul and also secured the presenting role on the BBC’s flagship religious programme, Songs of Praise. He looked to have made the transition to life after sport with a sureness of touch that eludes so many professional athletes. Perhaps this was another advantage of his bedrock faith in God.
But even as he toured the nation’s churches with his BBC crew, Edwards was confronting an apocalyptic realisation: that it was all a grand mistake; that his epiphany was nothing more than self-delusion; that his inner sense of God’s presence was fictitious; that the decisions he had taken in life were based on a false premise; that the Bible is not literal truth but literal falsehood; that life is not something imbued with meaning from on high but, possibly, a purposeless accident in an unfeeling universe.
Having left his sport as a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical, Edwards is now, to all intents and purposes, an atheist. But why? It is a question that has reverberated around the Christian community since the rumours began to circulate when Edwards resigned from Songs of Praise in February. Edwards a backslider? Impossible.
I am sitting opposite Edwards, 41, in the garden of his large home in Gosforth on the outskirts of Newcastle, but he does not resemble a man whose world has been turned upside down. His boyish face, cropped with sparkling, silver-grey strands, is alert and alive. One gets the impression that he is looking forward to the ordeal of a lengthy interview. Perhaps he regards it as a kind of confessional, an opportunity to bare all and be done.
“I never doubted my belief in God for a single moment until I retired from sport,” he says. “Faith was the reason that I decided to become a professional athlete, in the same way that it was fundamental to every decision I made. It was the foundation of my existence, the thing that made everything else make sense. It was not a sacrifice to refuse to compete on Sundays during my early career because that would imply that athletics was important in and of itself. It was not. It was always a means to an end: glorifying God.
“But when I retired, something happened that took me by complete surprise. I quickly realised that athletics was more important to my identity than I believed possible. I was the best in the world at what I did and suddenly that was not true any more. With one facet of my identity stripped away, I began to question the others and, from there, there was no stopping. The foundations of my world were slowly crumbling.”
Edwards retains the earnest intensity that was his hallmark when he gave talks and sermons at churches up and down the country. He is a serious person who regards life as a serious business, even if he is now unsure of its deeper meaning. But why did someone with such a penetrating intellect leave it so long to question the beliefs upon which he had constructed his life? “It was as if during my 20-plus-year career in athletics, I had been suspended in time,” he says.
“I was so preoccupied with training and competing that I did not have the time or emotional inclination to question my beliefs. Sport is simple, with simple goals and a simple lifestyle. I was quite happy in a world populated by my family and close friends, people who shared my belief system. Leaving that world to get involved with television and other projects gave me the freedom to question everything.”
“Once you start asking yourself questions like, ‘How do I really know there is a God?’ you are already on the path to unbelief,” Edwards says. “During my documentary on St Paul, some experts raised the possibility that his spectacular conversion on the road to Damascus might have been caused by an epileptic fit. It made me realise that I had taken things for granted that were taught to me as a child without subjecting them to any kind of analysis. When you think about it rationally, it does seem incredibly improbable that there is a God.”
Would Edwards have been as successful a sportsman had he been assailed by such doubts? It is a question that the world record-holder confronts with bracing candour. “Looking back now, I can see that my faith was not only pivotal to my decision to take up sport but also my success,” he says. “I was always dismissive of sports psychology when I was competing, but I now realise that my belief in God was sports psychology in all but name.”
Muhammad Ali once asked: “How can I lose when I have Allah on my side?” Edwards understands the potency of such beliefs, even as he questions their philosophical legitimacy.
“Believing in something beyond the self can have a hugely beneficial psychological impact, even if the belief is fallacious,” he says. “It provided a profound sense of reassurance for me because I took the view that the result was in God’s hands. He would love me, win, lose or draw. The tin of sardines I took to the Olympic final in Sydney was a tangible reminder of that.”
The upheaval of recent months has not left Edwards emotionally scarred, at least not visibly. “I am not unhappy about the fact that there might not be a God,” he says. “I don’t feel that my life has a big, gaping hole in it. In some ways I feel more human than I ever have. There is more reality in my existence than when I was full-on as a believer. It is a completely different world to the one I inhabited for 37 years, so there are feelings of unfamiliarity.
“There have also been issues to address in terms of my relationships with family and friends, many of whom are Christians. But I feel internally happier than at any time of my life, more content within my own skin. Maybe it is because I am not viewing the world through a specific set of spectacles.”
“The only inner problem that I face now is a philosophical one,” Edwards says. “If there is no God, does that mean that life has no purpose? Does it mean that personal existence ends at death? They are thoughts that do my head in. One thing that I can say, however, is that even if I am unable to discover some fundamental purpose to life, this will not give me a reason to return to Christianity. Just because something is unpalatable does not mean that it is not true.”
His crisis of faith offers a metaphysical dimension to the inner turmoil that afflicts so many sportsmen on their retirement. Some will say he has journeyed from light into darkness, others that he has journeyed from darkness into light – but none could doubt the honesty with which he has travelled. The Eric Liddell of his generation has sacrificed his religious beliefs on the altar of intellectual honesty, a martyr of a kind.
World of his own
— A committed Christian, Edwards refused to compete on a Sunday until 1993, most notably missing the 1991 World Championships in Tokyo. “It is an outward sign that God comes first in my life,” he said at the time.
— Contested the World Championships for the first time in 1993, the first of five successive appearances, winning a medal at each one, including gold in 1995 and 2001.
— There was little hint of his 12 months to come in 1995 when, the previous year, he finished sixth at the European Championships, second at the Commonwealth Games and was ranked No 9 in the world.
— Edwards’s life changed in 1995, when he set three world and seven British records, achieving the unprecedented feat of two world records in his first two jumps of the final of the World Championships in Gothenburg. His 18.29 metres that day remains the world record. His wind-assisted 18.43, to win the European Cup in Lille, is the longest triple jump on record.
— A run of 22 consecutive victories ended when he finished second to Kenny Harrison, of the United States, at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. Edwards had finished 23rd and 35th in his two previous Olympics and finished second and third at the World Championships between Atlanta and the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, where he took gold.
Original ArticleThis should provide hope to all of us! Hopefully this story will become widely talked about, and encourage other people to cast a critical eye over their beliefs.
Unfortunately some people still feel that this isn't a good thing! But this is one, rather public, addition to the free thought cause.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription