In a conversation with the Priest-Chieftain last night, the Pagan comedian said: “Christians we might see as people like those who deny global warming.  You might defend their choice to believe that as freedom of speech – but if they are wrong, and people must die in combat to reach Valhalla, it could be disastrous for millions of people.

“Christianity is a threat to the salvation of millions,” he said.  ”With no mighty warriors to help him, Odin won’t have a hope at Ragnarök!”

Sørensen told the Priest-Chieftain the viking people had given too much ground to this new fashionable ‘monotheism’.  He said: “There’s too much apologising – making concessions on things like, Thor throwing lightning bolts or Frigg being Odin’s wife.  Don’t give in to them!

“If you believe in the gods all bets are off.  Odin can throw Gungnir and never miss.  There’s a temptation to give a bit of ground to their ‘messiah’.  But if you believe the gods, why shouldn’t there be valkyries?”

“People call it ‘Thursday’ out of a sense of duty, so maybe goðar don’t have to try hard enough.”

Sørensen said that it was no longer fashionable to be a pagan. “In modern civilisation, it’s incredibly cool to be a monotheist.”

Read more at Chortle.co.uk.

Franz Sørensen is currently appearing in Only One God? You’re Kidding Right? at the Oslo Playhouse.

I don’t think that giving a description of ‘what skepticism is’ is going to help illuminate someone who is coming to this cold, if only because I don’t think people come to skepticism cold. They come to it gradually, absorbing it piece by piece through a kind of osmosis. Then one day they realise that their vaguely connected interests and questions have led them into a particular area of thought and activism called skepticism, like walking down a cul-de-sac to find a party at the bottom. Then they find they have to put up with people asking them ‘what skepticism is’ and are reduced to writing amateurish blogposts like this one in order to avoid giving an answer…

What I thought I would do instead is go through a selection of some of the books/podcasts/programs that formed my skeptical education – for want of a better term. All of these things opened up my mind in some way, either teaching me something I didn’t know, portraying the things I already knew in a fresh light, or both. They cleared away some of the mental fog that surrounded me, and simultaneously made me realise how much I didn’t know and how much there was to learn. In short, they woke me up a little. I list them here as suggestions for those new to skepticism, in the hope that the effect they had on me may be replicated for them. Even if only one person is inspired, that is still worth the attempt. I’m probably not suggesting anything here most skeptics haven’t already heard of, as I won’t be going far from the beaten track so to speak, but you may get something from my tuppence-worth of thoughts on them regardless. It’s not an exhaustive list, just a list of books I’ve read essentially, and of other things aside from books, too. This is basically my attempt to justify all those hours of my life spent absorbing knowledge that has basically sat in my head all this time with nowhere to go. Validate me, oh wonderful blogosphere!

Books:

The Bible – my first exercise in skepticism, when I wasn’t even aware what it was. You often hear from theists turned atheists that reading the bible from beginning to end with an open and critical mind was the turning point in their journey away from belief. I can completely understand why. Although I have always been atheist, I have also always had an interest in religions themselves, and a few years ago while on hard times and unemployed with lots of spare time I decided to read the Bible right through, in as objective a way as possible. What you get, divorced from the highly selective quotes priests throw out of pulpits like m & ms designed to lead you, ET-like, up the garden path of belief, is a fascinating collection of historical texts from many different periods of time, that give a huge insight into what people have believed in over the years, their intentions and their dreams, their preferred reading materials, their rituals, way of life: everything. It is a great historical compendium. It is also an extremely unpleasant book, filled with the worst kinds of disgusting violence, racial hatred and misogyny, just to list a few of its repellent peccadilloes. However, what you receive overall is a sense of how building a narrow religious worldview around a book such as this is in reality a rather daft and thankless task. You wonder why they bother; but then, maybe the main lesson to be learnt here is that most Christians don’t read the whole Bible. They should, because by doing so, you realise that believing in God isn’t quite the sane idea it may have once seemed. If you read the Bible objectively, it becomes much more difficult to argue the case for God without running into all kinds of complications, some linguistic (we’re talking translations of translations of translations here: of texts written by people who often disagreed with each other in the first place), some historical (it could after all, just be made up: the archaeological evidence is sketchy at best for most biblical events), some rational (donkeys and snakes don’t speak; the Noah’s ark story stretches science into the realm of fantasy), and some philosophical (is God love, or is he an utter bastard?). At the end of the matter, it just boils down to applying your own judgement. You should never beleive in God because of someone else’s interpretation of a book you’ve not fully read or understood. You have to do that yourself. That is Skepticism.

For the record, I skimmed a lot of the prophets, and the psalms. This was for my own sanity. My favourite book of the Bible was Ecclesiastes. You don’t need to know this, but now you do.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. This book is famous more for the responses to it than for anything actually in the book itself. It annoyed a lot of Christians. It probably also annoyed a lot of those ghostwriters for shit celebrity ‘auto’biographies who were kept off the number one spot in the bestseller lists. It could also be argued that it didn’t do any favours for the perception of atheists in the media either, and this could be down to what a lot of people saw as Dawkins’ holier-than-thou tone in the book, sometimes adopted by slavish fans of the book who just want to get one up on the creationists. Dawkins maintains his writing is simply passionate, and that the accusations say more about religion’s easily bruised sense of blasphemy. Anyway, all this would be to miss the point. I read the book to see what all the fuss was about, and it was quite easy to see why it has become such a touchstone book for many atheists. It really is one of the best argued cases against the idea of a God: well constructed, and extremely well-informed and presented. Dawkins knows his stuff, and knows how to write. The tone can occasionally grate, but it’s worth it. Read the Bible and then this and you’ll feel like a professor.

On a side note, I can sometimes get frustrated by what comes across like a skeptical obsession with evolution. It used to seem strange to me that nearly all the science focus in skepticism was around evolution. It’s extremely important, yes, but science is a huge and fascinating arena full of many other ideas we can focus on. The problem is that skepticism hasn’t really had any choice, given the rise of creationism over the last few decades (particularly in America, but also to a lesser extent in Britain). I am frustrated by the impression sometimes given that we are some kind of Darwin cult, but if science education is constantly getting attacked by fundamentalists who object to the theory of evolution because it disagrees with their favourite book, then I’m not sure that skeptics have had much choice other than to go on and on about evolution. We go on about it because there is a genuine attempt to confuse people about what it is, and to damage the education of children. There is a genuine fear that if we don’t do our best to convey why evolution is true then science education will just slide backwards until we’re really in trouble. I wish we could shut up about Darwin for a while, but we can’t.

Anyway, it’s a good book. Unlike ‘The’ Good Book.

Bad Science: this book is simply a great reference tool (aswell as funny). It highlights another area where woolly thinking and credulity can be dangerous, that of public health. The world of medicine is constantly undermined by the halfbaked claims and sometimes outright fraud of people who claim to be offering viable ‘alternatives’. Names such as Patrick Holford, Gillian McKeith and Matthias Rath will no longer sound innocuous after reading this book. This doesn’t mean the book is character assassination. It is never anything but fair and accurate. The book is ruthlessly researched and reasoned, and is simply one of the best books on the subject, if not the best. If you have any doubts about the latest alternative medicine fad, Goldacre is the man to read.

I would add that while in America religious fundamentalism seems to be the bigger threat in society, here in Britain alternative medicine is the more accepted form of muddy thinking and falsehood. This is why the book is important. Both are dangerous in different but no less important ways. This book helps to show how skepticism can be part of a truly righteous fight in the real world, not just a personal exercise in self growth.

Programs/Podcasts:

TED talks. These lectures from the annual Technology, Entertainment and Design conference woke up my science brain. This was before I got into skepticism, but was a major step on my way to that destination. The actual conference itself is something of an elitist and expensive backpatting session for smart people, but the lectures are published online for free, and they are great (but short) lectures by leading figures in many areas of research. For me, they reinvigorated the sheer joy of ideas, and experimentation, and finding out about the world. Sometimes, there just doesn’t seem to be enough of that in our everyday lives: the joy of simply knowing stuff.

There’s not just TED: there are science lectures and programs all over the net. They’re even on tv. Carl Sagan’s lectures are highly regarded, though I have yet to see them myself. These days, most science lectures or programs seem to presented by Brian Cox. He doesn’t sleep, I think.

Skeptoid: the first podcast I ever listened to, and the first self-described skeptical product I ever exposed myself to. Each week, Brian Dunning takes a well researched skeptical look at some aspect of pop phenomena. It could be anything from the city of Atlantis to UFOs. I don’t always agree with his conclusions, but that’s fine, because that’s part of skepticism. The research is always thoroughly done, and the show always interesting. The first episode to really impress me was the one which completely debunked the conspiracy theories surrounding Roswell in New Mexico. There is research in that episode which I have never seen or heard on any other show purporting to get to the facts regarding the Roswell ‘incident’. That fact alone has caused me to never take any statements regarding unusual theories at face value. I will find as much research as possible via my own initiative, striving for objectivity, and keep a closer eye on those who I know are doing the same. The world of UFO research all too often resembles an echoing chamber, in which only a couple of choice selections of data can be heard, rebounding constantly from researcher to researcher… If you’re interested in getting as close as you can to the truth regarding strange claims, then Skeptoid is a great place to start. Websites by lone bigfoot hunters and UFO enthusiasts who only reference those who only reference them, are not… Skeptoid was good for my skeptical side in that I stopped reading a lot of bullshit which was simply wasting my time.

Podcasts are a huge part of organised skepticism. Essentially web-based radio shows, they can be a great disseminator of skeptical material, and can be instrumental in bringing people together. Indeed, a mutual liking for Skeptoid was one of the catalysts which led to the first stirrings of what became the MSS. Two years later and the MSS now has a well established Skeptics in The Pub night every month, two podcasts and an international conference under its belt. The conference was organised in conjunction with the Greater Manchester Skeptics, who formed themselves after seeing what was going on just down the motorway in Liverpool, and who also now have a very well established Skeptics in The Pub night and a podcast. And all in the space of a couple of years. Check out the list on the right hand side of this webpage for a good introductory starting point in skeptical podcasting.

Skeptics in The Pub:

Skeptics in the pub! That great informer, entertainer, friendship creator, skeptical haven and supplier of food and drink. Skeptics in The Pub is one of the great inventions in skepticism. All the other stuff is made up of things you can do on your own, but if you want to meet other self-described skeptics and/or curious people like yourself, SitP nights are the place to go, and they’re all over the place! Go to one near you. You won’t regret it.

This list attempts to cover all the SitP groups of the British Isles. It probably doesn’t, so if anyone knows of any that I’ve missed, please let me know and I’ll include them in the list below. For now, however, this is more than a good start. Most of these groups either have their own website (a quick google should find it), twitter feed or facebook page:

Aberdeen, Aberystwyth, Bath, Belfast, Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Cork, Cheltenham, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Guildford, Hampshire, Kent, Lancaster, Leeds, Leicester, Lewes, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Milton Keynes, Newcastle, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, The Peak District, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Reading, St Andrews, Sheffield, Swansea, Westminster and Winchester.

Aswell as SitP, there are also various other skeptical organisations, such as Grassroots Skeptics and Ladies Who Do Skepticism, plus other similar groups outside the skeptical umbrella that do the same kind of thing, such as Cafe Scientifique and SciBar. Whatever it is you want in a skeptical community, it is out there waiting for you.

So, what are you waiting for?

On Friday 11 March 2011, a dreadful earthquake struck Japan.

The scale of the disaster was shocking and disturbing.  Perhaps equally disturbing, however, were the messages which appeared on Facebook and twitter in the aftermath of the earthquake, suggesting it was ‘payback’ or some kind of karmic reaction to the Japanese alliance with Nazi germany during World War II. Specifically, they claimed, it was due to the unprovoked Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

My initial response to this, and this is meant sincerely, is “fuck you, you obnoxious pig fucker”.

For one thing, there is no such thing as ‘karma’.   For another, even if there were such a thing as ‘karma’, as described by the Buddhist tradition – it doesn’t work like that. And even if there were such a thing as ‘karma’, and even if it did work like that, the people injured and killed in the Tōhoku earthquake are not the same people who attacked Pearl Harbor.  They merely happened to have been born in the same country, some decades later.

To punish the people who live in Japan today for war crimes committed by their forefathers is not only unjust, it’s nonsensical, unless you subscribe to some kind of “the sins of the father shall be visited on the son” bullshit.  In which case, fuck you. Oh, and fuck you, you fucking pig-fucking, dick-fuck, fuck face.

Other messages were more positive, but equally as useless, such as #prayforjapan posts which appeared Facebook and Twitter. While this undoubtably represents a more positive sentiment, sentiment is unfortunately all it offers. You cannot clear debris, or cool nuclear fuel rods, with prayers.  This unfortunately exposes the impotence of Christianity. Faced with tragedy on this scale, they hit their knees and clasp their hands, begging their imaginary friend to intercede.  That intercession, if it comes at all, always seems to take the form of real people getting in there, and getting their hands dirty.  Though He was quite hands-on in the Old Testament, God likes to take a bit of a backseat these days.  He could, any time he chose, wave His giant hand and stabilise the nuclear reactors, clear the debris, resurrect the dead and give everyone their lives and homes back.  But He hasn’t done that.

Maybe God thinks this is payback for Pearl Harbor too.

It was while reading around this notion of “Pray for Japan” that I came across the website of a Christian Apologist named Kevin Childs.  Kevin published a blogpost on March 15 titled “God and Japan“, asking where God was during the Tōhoku earthquake.

Who ISN’T asking “Where was God when tragedy struck Japan?”

I’m not.

I’ll be honest: Any attempt to offer comments, spiritual insight, or anything else seems cheap and intrusive. It’s a little like passing out church brochures to weeping families you don’t know at the ER. It doesn’t feel right. Thank the Lord that Pat Robertson hasn’t said anything stupid… so far. And I don’t want to do so either. A tragedy on this scale shouldn’t be used just to “make a point.” But here are some thoughts.

No comment.

Pray for Japan. If you’re like me, I’m not exactly sure HOW to pray. What do you pray for those who have literally lost everything, and don’t even know if their family is at the bottom of the ocean, or under mountains of debris, or anonymously cremated, or taking shelter?

Fortunately, Childs has some suggestions on what to pray for.

Pray that God would comfort them and find ways to provide for their needs. Pray that those in authority would make the best possible decisions about relief and rebuilding.

I’m fairly sure that those things are best achieved by people – who definitely do exist – and not a God – which may or may not. Real people should be in there, providing support and comfort, catering for the needs of those unfortunate enough to have been caught up in this.  And the decisions made by those in authority in Japan are their own decisions.  To suggest that any good decision is actually guided by God, or that without God’s help they may come to some sub-optimal decision, is a grave insult.

Pray that God would use EVEN this for His glory. Pray that Christians would shine in all this, and Japanese people would be brought to Christ through it.

This comment actually made me sick to my stomach. “Pray that God uses this event to glorify Himself.” Presumably He will do this by absolving Himself of responsibility for those injured and killed, claiming credit for the survival of the rest, while also claiming credit for any good decisions made by those in power.

Childs also asks that Christians should “wrestle with the deep questions”. He says:

Where was God? On His throne where He always is, ruling the world. The twitterverse and blogosphere are buzzing with the told-you-so’s of skeptics. Many of them seem delighted to insist that if there WAS a loving God, such things couldn’t happen.

I can honestly say that I didn’t see a single skeptic or atheist take delight in insisting that, if there were a loving God, such things wouldn’t happen.  I’m not saying those comments weren’t made, only that to use the word “buzzing” may be overstating it somewhat.

It is a long-standing philosophical problem, known as the Problem of Evil. The argument runs along the lines of: God is all loving; God is all powerful; God is all knowing; Shit happens.  These four statements cannot logically exist within the same universe. Either God didn’t know shit was going to happen – in which case He can’t be all knowing. Or God did know shit was going to happen, but did not have the ability to stop it – in which case He can’t be all powerful.  Or God knew shit was going to happen, could have done something to stop it, but neglected to.  In which case, He cannot be all loving.

Childs says:

My response: WE are the ones who brought sin into this world, and wrecked it. No sin: no tsumani.

Again, I find this to be an abhorrant view, not too dissimilar to those of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.  Although Phelps and his ilk hang their hats on homosexuality being Root of all Evil™, and therefore the root of all tragedy, Childs takes a wider, though philosophically identical view.  The people of Japan – and presumably of the world – brought this upon themselves. Somehow this was just or right, because they were “sinners”. Whatever the fuck that means.

Childs admits:

And for those who reject God in favor of only “natural” explanations, some questions of my own:  Why do you care about this at all?

Me, personally?  I care because of this thing called “empathy”.  Innocent people are suffering and dying – an idea I find distressing.   I wouldn’t like that to happen to me, and if I were caught in a similar situation, I would like to think other people would care enough to help me.  It makes sense to foster an empathetic culture, where we look out for each other. It works out better for everyone.

Isn’t this just evolution culling the herd?

By “evolution” I assume Childs is referring to natural selection.  And to some extent, that argument could be made. The people of Japan will survive if they’re strong enough to survive, etc. But while natural selection does accurately describe the diversity of life on the planet, that doesn’t mean that it’s a sensible philosophy to live by. “Is” does not imply “ought”, and just because I accept that natural selection is the most likely mechanism to explain the diversity of life on our planet, that doesn’t mean that I think it should be applied as a social or foreign aid policy.

Alternatively, it could be argued that the very empathy and social nature of our species is in itself a phenotype, albeit one which is perhaps partly memetic rather than purely genetic. The fact that our species expresses empathy is one of the reasons that we have survived, and continue to survive. We help each other out. Human instinct and empathy are just as much a a part of natural selection as tsunamis and earthquakes. If we survive because we help each other survive, there is nothing anti-evolutionary about that.

In a purely materialistic universe, there is no meaning or purpose. Even love and grief are sentimental illusions resulting from chemical processes. Right?

Wrong.  In a purely materialistic universe (which, incidentally, I don’t claim to be the case — the most I would claim is that the material universe is all we can demonstrate to exist), there is perhaps no “ultimate” meaning or purpose; and no meaning or purpose imposed upon us by some external entity.  However, we bring our own meaning and purpose to our own lives.

My purpose, right now, is to try and contribute in some positive fashion to the world we live in. In whatever small ways I can, I want to make this a better world for everyone. Not because I think there is some ultimate purpose or ultimate reward, or even some ultimate punishment if I don’t. I just think its the right thing to do.

I was once asked – specifically of the 10:23 Campaign – “Why do you do it? What’s the point?”.

“Because people are dying,” I replied.

“Yes,” she said “but aside from that?”

I was stunned. “There’s an aside from that?!”

What more reason do you want? People are suffering and dying, and maybe I can do something about it. So I’m going to try.

Leaving that to one side, however, even just recording our podcast is a contribution. I shouldn’t think that we change many minds on the show, or save any lives.  It’s a skeptical show aimed at a skeptical audience, and most of the audience will already agree with everything we’re saying.  Maybe we will tell them something they didn’t know.   Maybe next time they encounter some quack or some religious evangelist, they’ll have just a slightly better grasp of the arguments they’re likely to encounter. Maybe some people will have their ideas challenged.  Maybe I’ll challenge a few of my own. But even if all we can do is make some people laugh every couple of weeks, even if all we’re capable of is brightening someone’s day by talking bollocks about bullshit, that’s something positive that we’re contributing.

That is the meaning and purpose that I bring to my life. It might not be good enough for Kevin Childs and his friend Jesus. But it’s enough for me.

Please take a few moments to make your own positive contribution, by donating to the Japan Tsunami Relief Fund.

Definitely JC

Here’s a classic staple skeptical game for you – ‘Where’s Jesus this week?‘ People with relatively good memories for this type of inane nonsense – and I assume at least 80% of you readers could well be in that category – may be aware of the fact that the Messiah has been popping up in some pretty unusual places of late. We all remember the classic cheese toastie, but who remembers where he was in 2006? Besides, you know, in the innocent laughter of every child, obviously.

That’s right – a terrier’s arse. The terrier, Angus, played host the the pareidolia-tastic depiction of the deity on his rump 4 years ago, but, it seems, being at the arse-end of a mutt wasn’t all it cracked up to be for our Lord and Saviour, and he’s recently been doing a tour of the kind of locations the Pope can expect to appear at if the UK government decide to withdraw the £100million his visit is purported to cost us. That’s £100million, or 10 years of state-funded homeopathy, if you like to think of it that way. (In other news, the government just cut a scheme which would help pay for the refurbishment of rundown schools in deprived areas. Just sayin’).

So, having put his days as a terrier’s anus well and truly, well, behind him, I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear he’s moving up in the world – having been spotted adorning the drainpipe of Coventry couple Alex and Nick Cotton. No, not THE Nick Cotton, aka Nasty Nick Cotton from Eastenders. Although Jesus did like to hang around the worst of us, and from what I remember Nasty Nick was among the worst actors I’ve ever seen. But no, this Nick Cotton lives in Coventry, which might go some way towards explaining why he was in need of a visit from the Son of God. I hear Coventry’s pretty boring, the last thing of note to happen there being a bombing raid from the Lufftewaffe.

As the Coventry Telegtaph reports:

Alex Cotton and her partner, were with a few friends at their home in Heartland Avenue after getting back from watching a football match when they spotted the Messiah’s image.

Alex’s friend Graham Morriss said: “We were just sitting around, having a good old chinwag at about 10pm and suddenly Alex’s partner Nick said ‘there’s Jesus on the drainpipe’.

“No one believed her and we all started crouching down around the drainpipe and having a look. I got quite excited anyway.

“We’re all quite amazed about it really, although Alex says he’s been there for quite some time. We were just chewing the fat a bit, as you do, and then the Messiah turned up.”

As, indeed, you do.

The Coventry Telegraph also goes on to report other sightings of Jesus, including the aforementioned terrier, the time when Jesus appeared in a bacon-filled frying pan in what has to be one of the lamest acts of fakery ever, and – as the paper reports – that nicely specific time when Jesus was spotted ‘on a banana, near Sydney’. They give you the fruit and the vague sense of geographic location, what more do you want?

Bacon Jesus

The frying pan one has to be my favourite – apparently toby Elles, a 22-year old wanker… sorry, banker… fell asleep while cooking a late night bacon sandwich, and when he awoke the house was filled with smoke. Showing the kind of foolhardy bravery from a banker that got this country into the mess it’s in in the first place, Toby rushed in the kitchen to… turn off the hob. High drama indeed. What was left in the pan shocked and amazed him, he claims, as it so stunningly resembled Jesus.

Nobody seems to have thought to comment on the insensitivity of using bacon to depict history’s most famous Jew, of course, so I’ll scoot on. Toby said of his pan of God:

I’m not going to scrub it clean though, just in case I get struck by lightning, it’s going to take pride of place on a wall instead,’ he said. It’s become quite a talking point for people who come round to the house .

Presumably the topic of conversation being, “Why have you so blatantly drawn a picture of Jesus on that old frying pan, Toby?”

I really can’t get to grips with the psychology at work here. Maybe the newspapers just get bored:

Journo 1: I’m sick of this abuse stuff…

Journo 2: Let’s drown the readership in a load of inane crap about a civil service memo then instead!

Journo 1: Yeah! Woohh! *types on keyboard enthusiastically*

This kind of thing pisses me off. Now, my lack of knowledge about newspaper offices aside, something dodgy is going on here. I don’t care who is responsible, but all I know is that right at the moment when something serious and important is happening in this country, right when popular opinion finally comes into line with reality, suddenly everyone seems to take a left turn and run down the “I can’t cope with this serious stuff anymore” alley of shite:

Citizen 1: Wow, the Catholic Church is really fucked up and corrupt isn’t it? I am so disgusted and angry. They need to do something about it.

Citizen 2: I agree. It is an ancient and unaccountable institution that is completely morally bankrupt, and it is about time that society as a whole woke up to the situation and did something about it.

[pause]

Citizen 1: Being serious has made me tired and uncomfortable.

Citizen 2: Hey, some civil servant made a rude joke about the Pope!

Citizen 1: What a fucker! Someone should do something about this disgusting event!

Citizen 2: I’m going to write an obnoxious letter to the Telegraph… *types on keyboard enthusiastically*

It depresses me, it really does.

For those who don’t know, this “disgusting” memo was circulated through Whitehall by a group of civil servants brainstorming ideas for the Pope’s upcoming four day visit. To me, it seems like a tongue-in-cheek joke, but it could be a genuine result of a “blue-sky thinking” session, where they were trying to come up with as many off-the-wall ideas as possible. Either way, to take genuine offence at the memo requires a serious dysfunction in the reality centre of the brain. And the humour centre. Hell, it requires a serious dysfunction in the brain in general. (I feel I’m really nailing my colours to the mast in this one)

Here’s some of the suggestions in the memo for your reading pleasure:

1 – Starting a helpline for abused children

2 – Opening an abortion ward

3 – Sack ‘dodgy’ bishops

4 – Preside over a civil partnership ceremony

5 – Perform forward rolls with children (?!?)

6 – Apologise for the Spanish Armada

7 – Meet Susan Boyle

8 – Start up his own range of Benedict-brand condoms

9 – Sing a song with the Queen for charity

Now, as I’ve already indicated, the main problem with this whole debacle is that the memo is obviously silly. There should be no “disgusted” response. Even for those suggestions which people may feel skim too close to the Catholic bone, if you look at them objectively without the Catholic overtones they’re quite reasonable suggestions for a high profile and supposedly moral figure such as the Pope: starting helplines for the abused, raising money for charity, preventing unwanted pregnancies… All good things. They’re only bad to the warped priorities of the institution of the Catholic Church. We don’t have to kowtow to those priorities, even if we’re Catholic. Reality is outside the window. Let it in.

I am just angry at the level of offence some people seem to take at this memo, like they’ve forgotten the last few months of abuse revelations. This is not a serious issue: this is diplomats making a gaffe. They didn’t firebomb the popemobile, just their careers. I can understand the Foreign Office making an official apology after the memo was leaked, which they did, but beyond that it’s simply shrug your shoulders time as far as I’m concerned.

But no: Malcolm McMahon, bishop of Nottingham, said the memo reflected: “appalling manners… I think it’s bad that we invite someone into this country – a person like the Pope – and then he’s treated this way.”

What way? The Pope was never supposed to read the memo. Plus, I’m sure he’s got a thick skin. He’s still coming to Britain for his visit, anyway.

Jim Murphy, the cabinet minister overseeing the Pope’s visit, and a practising Catholic, said the memo was: “absolutely despicable. It’s vile, it’s insulting, it’s an embarrassment.”

No, it isn’t. It’s a joke. I think Mr Murphy seems to be confusing irony about an institution’s pisspoor response to the systematic abuse of children with the abuse itself. Even if the letter was meant seriously, there’s nothing remotely at the level of “vile” or “despicable” there. Get a grip. Opening a childline for abused victims of the organisation you are supposedly the figurehead of is “vile”? It’s the least he could do! Especially as he’s done fuck all so far except write an insultingly weak letter which did nothing to address the reality of the children raped under the care of his Church. If the Pope had been the head of a company or a government minister, he would have had to resign by now as a matter of course, as a symbol of the organisation’s shame and its willingness to do something in response to a serious situation. No-one would dispute that decision to resign.

Speaking of the Pope’s letter – a far more “disgusting” document than the memo – in that letter the Pope suggested that the victims of the abuse should seek the comfort of Jesus. That’s all the response he bothers to give them, other than “well, we at the Catholic church will try to do better in the future, honest, guv, we feel really bad about the whole thing… ” The abused children didn’t find the comfort of Jesus in the Church where it’s supposed to be mediated, so how are they going to find it elsewhere? Passing the buck much, Pope Benedict? The letter also makes no suggestion of the abuse victims who killed themselves. Presumably as suicide victims they’re not eligible for Jesus’ love. Now, I think it’s worth pointing out that the Pope is quite literally supposed to be Jesus’ representative on Earth. So shouldn’t he be comforting them himself to start with? Or is he just going to sit there?

I wonder.

The Pope could actually step down if he wanted. There’s nothing in the Church’s rules that says he can’t. No Pope has stepped down in 300 years, but that would just make it a more profound gesture. Considering the gravity of the situation, it would be perfectly appropriate. Any gesture would do, really, considering the lack of them so far. To go back to the memo’s suggestions, opening a childline would be a minor act of kindness, not something “vile”. It would be a charitable act. It would make Jesus proud. Maybe the Pope could man the line himself, being Jesus’ representative.

To me, the daftest thing to have come out of all this is the Foreign Office’s response to the staff involved in writing the memo. It sent them on ‘diversity training’. Diversity training. What for?

A Foreign Office spokesperson said:

“The idea is to instill in people the need to treat others with respect, whatever their background.”

This isn’t about background, it’s about ideologies. The memo took the piss out of  what are dangerous and morally bankrupt views held by the Catholic Church. It did not disrespect the Pope’s background. If this is an issue about background, then so is any joke about anyone ever: everyone with an opinion has a background.

Ultimately, my concern is with perspective. If something so serious can be deflected by something so trivial, then something is very wrong with our collective sense of perspective. Hopefully, the real issues will come back to the forefront and not just float away. I don’t know, but I hope.

Seventies rocker Gary Glitter yesterday spoke out against the ‘petty gossip’ surrounding his convictions for child molestation, while announcing his surprise conversion to Catholicism.

Speaking at a lavish baptism ceremony, the paedophile singer decried the idle chitchat regarding his many proven offences against children from the UK, Cambodia and Vietnam.

“It saddens me that my critics feel the need to tarnish my name with this petty, entirely-accurate and demonstrably-true gossip regarding my repeated crimes against children.”

“Just because something terrible definitely happened, doesn’t give you the right to go on and on about it all the bloody time.”

Conversion

The announcement of Glitter’s new-found devotion to the Pope and all things ‘Catholic’ may come as something of a surprise to his legions of fans.

Having already been found guilty of abusing minors, a religious conversion appears to make almost no sense at all to those who have followed his career.

But, as the singer explains, the more he read about the modern Catholic Church, the more he knew it was the one for him.

Glitter explained to waiting reporters, “I’ve never really been a religious man, because I’ve never before felt that religion really gets my way of life and who I am.”

“But now, I realise what I’ve been missing: the peace, the love, and – above all – the no-questions-asked protection the Catholic Church can offer.”

Glitter, who sought refuge in Asia following discovery of his extensive child pornography collection in 1999, also took time out from the baptism ceremony to formally confirm details of an upcoming comeback tour.

“Having been off the tour circuit for a while, a comeback is long overdue. I’m thinking Germany, Ireland, Austria, Italy, Malta and the US before ending with a spectacular finale in Vatican City.”

“From what I’ve read, I think I’ll be welcomed with open arms, not least by the leaders of my new faith. Pope Benedict – I definitely want to be in YOUR gang,” concluded Glitter.

This article also appears on the excellent satirical news source NewsArse.

Your New Facebook Profile Photo

With the coming of a very low-key, very gentle pro-atheism awareness campaign on facebook in ‘A’ week (http://www.aweekonfacebook.com/, Facebook event, #aweek Twittertag ), I’ve been reminded of the hesitation that many atheists feel towards the promotion of atheism in any way. Talking about any type of promotion or advocacy in favour of atheism as annoying because “this is the sort of thing that X-, Y- or Z-ians/-ists/ers do” may not be exactly how the majority of atheists feel, but I’d say, and only from my own feeling (not very skeptical, but still), that a large majority of atheists either couldn’t care less in trying to spread ideas and grow our mostly merry, but sometimes quite grumpy band of disbelievers, or are very uncomfortable with the thought of trying to actively or passively win people over to the idea that, maybe, they should give up the idea of an invisible Daddy In The Sky who grants wishes a little less frequently than you see the evil evidence of His Divine, or more humanly – if not humanely – divined, Will

But when you see the damage that religion does, and the toxic effect that a supreme, unquestionable authority and unquestioned afterlife can bring – from the banality and stupidity of the penny candle, crap wine and drain-filtering devices (pieces of The Christ’s Holy, suspiciously bread-like, Flesh must be saved from the insult of the sewers) of Catholicism (though after 2000 years on a bread and wine diet, I’m certain Jesus could make excellent use of modern facilities) to the horrendous tradition of wife-burning in Hindu ‘Sati’, thankfully both illegal and much reduced in modern India, or the unholy union of extreme Christianity in demonising a contraceptive layer of latex that could do so much to help the AIDS crisis – doesn’t this, shouldn’t this drive anyone with a rational bent and compassion for humanity towards doing what we can to reduce the influence of The Beast, even to simply kick the giant’s toe?

I can understand that being an atheist-in-practise and technical agnostic in a theist or desperately-wanting-to-believe world soaked in a steady stream of pap-filled, infuriating pamphlets, preaching and priests can be a frustrating existence, but to turn around from this and in that frustration deny to rationalism in general, or your rationalism in particular, the weapons of the battleground of ideas, the modern tools of marketing and persuasion, and give all the ground to fight for over to theists is to stop kicking the giant’s toe and take a gun to your own.

The argument that people should be left alone to find their own path, free to decide without coercion is, firstly, to deny that massive pro-theist coercion is out there, all day every day, not to fight against that tide is to resign the game. Secondly, it strikes of a high-handedness that’s quite prevalent in Buddhism, in my opinion, but without the necessary element in Buddhism of what is called ‘skilful means’, the art of manipulation over the long-term…

It’s with this in mind that I offer you, gentle reader, this parody of a pretty famous anecdote in the world of Zen:

A: Tell me, B, of this Atheism, this acceptance of the overwhelming probability that there is no supreme creator, no divinely-ordained purpose to the existence of every particle and person, no will to bend our souls to…

B: I know not of this Atheism. I cannot breathe of what I accept as truth, for this will inevitably influence your biases towards what would be your own internal outcomes… Yay, I decry the Dawkins and the Sagans of this world for their petty, insolent meddling in the minds of others. There should be those things left to monks and priests and dress-wearing men of every shade or stripe, every colour and complexion. We, WE have a very, VERY high horse upon which we sit and cannot be seen to enter into the arena of ideas with those of such trivial notions of idealistic fancy. Truly, it is a shame we cannot live without air and alimentation, for the foul believers indulge in these earthly, despoiling pursuits also.

A: But B! I’ve seen you chuckle at the Holy Men! I’ve seen you! You mock them! You do not go to the temples as other men, you prefer to sit with Dostoevsky, or a little light Kafka splayed upon your lap! Tell me! Show me the way that you take!

B: I cannot behave as the priests do. They take your hunger and feed you themselves… I leave you to feast upon yourself. Let your chips fall where they may.

A: Please! I beseech you! In the name of Pedagogy!

B: No.

A: An idea! A sign! A Symbol! Anything!!!

B: Have you finished your porridge?

A: I have. I HAVE!

B: Then wash your bowl.

–

Easter is based on a beautiful, empirical, scientific scheme – The first Sunday after the full moon (The Paschal Moon) following the Vernal Equinox – and is a picture of the lack of divine influence in the universe. Why not take this event, this year as the chance to express to the people who know you, the people who may be vulnerable at the moment, to say to the people who may be tempted (link NSFW: Swearing) to celebrate the death and resurrection of a Jewish Carpenter by telling children that a giant bunny left chocolate eggs in the night, to tell the people who will be influenced to even a tiny degree by your choices that you choose reason, you choose a life without a manic-depressive divinity pouring over every detail of you life – especially your sex life and pig-eating habits – and that you openly, unashamedly, staunchly reject giant bunny rabbits with the lock-picking skills of a cat burglar bringing chocolate eggs to the bedrooms of our children in the night.

Don’t get me started on Santa.

Come on!

Go get the A.

Upload and set it to your profile picture.

Post a status update: “rejects giant bunny rabbits with the lock-picking skills of a cat burglar bringing chocolate eggs to the bedrooms of our children in the night.” (or something similar)

Tweet your support!

Pop Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill

The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK’s Equality Bill with “missionary zeal”. – Source: BBC Online

Yep, the Holy One believes that a bill aimed at protecting people from discrimination based on sexuality and gender is an evil law that must be fought with the kind of zeal missionaries have. I’m not 100% sure what missionary zeal is – I think it’s where the zealot is on top and the infidel is underneath, thus allowing the zealot to look the infidel in the eyes while he fucks them (metaphorically speaking). I do think it worth pointing out that had a leading figure in the Muslim faith uttered the phrase ‘fight with missionary zeal’ we’d be talking terrorism – but because the only people the Pope is condemning to death are countless Africans (more of that later) we see him as something of a weird but harmless old man. Go figure.

What’s more, the Pope has said the legislation “violates natural law” – a pretty clear reference to the fact that it would allow homosexuals more freedom from discrimination from, say, religious organisations. The very use of the phrase ‘violates natural law’ is immensely telling, if you ask me – it’s so homophobic I’m surprised Jan Moir hasn’t had it tattooed across her forehead.

In a speech he made in Rome, Bene/Ratzy told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales:

“Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. 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.

“In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”

The statements have rightly caused an uproar, as has the planned official 4-day visit the Holy Father intends to make to our unGodly and equality-seeking land. At a cost of £20million of tax-payers money. That’s £20million that could be better spent… on homeopathy, bankers’ bonuses or MPs expenses, for example. It’s certainly £20million too much – a view shared by over 12,000 protesters, who’ve signed a petition to appeal to the Prime Minister to have the Pope’s club (worldwide Catholicism) to foot the bill, rather than the UK Government. The petition states:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ask the Catholic Church to pay for the proposed visit of the Pope to the UK and relieve the taxpayer of the estimated £20 million cost. We accept the right of the Pope to visit his followers in Britain, but public money would be better spent on hard-pressed schools, hospitals and social services which are facing cuts.

If you agree with the cause, feel free to sign the petition online.

This isn’t the first outrageous statement God’s representative on Earth has made of late. On March 17, 2009, Pope Benedict flew to Africa to visit Cameroon and Angola. During the flight, he was asked about the Catholic Church’s stance on AIDS in Africa.

Pope Benedict gave a lengthy response, detailing many of the Church’s humanitarian efforts to help people with AIDS in Africa.

“I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is. If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behavior], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it.”

That’s right – condoms help spread AIDS, says the leader of the Catholic Church.

Obviously, this stance from the head of the Catholic Church has been met with unprecedented levels of condemnation – most recently by Harry Knox, who serves on President Barack Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. On Tuesday of last week Knox reiterated his stance that Pope Benedict XVI is “hurting people in the name of Jesus.”

“The Pope’s statement that condoms don’t help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus.

On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods. The Pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community. Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further.”

Condemning the third world to an AIDS epidemic isn’t the only blotch on the past record of il Papa. In May 2001, Ratzinger issued an order ensuring church investigations into child abuse by members of the clergy would be conducted in private. The letter from the then-Cardinal stated that the church has jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been ‘perpetrated with a minor by a cleric’, and stressed a policy of ‘strictest’ secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse, threatening those who speak out with excommunication.

The order also calls for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials.

The victim.

Just to be completely clear, the current Pope specified that an abused child must take an oath of secrecy, lasting until 10 years after the child turns 18. Breach of that secrecy is met with excommunication.

I’m going to talk about football.

I know, I know, IknowIknowIknow. You guys, our lovely readers, are scientists, science fans, and generally science types. As am I. But when I’m not talking Cold Reading with psychics, organising mass non-suicide or generally being a good-for-nothing skeptic, there are few things I love more than settling down to a good match. The poetry of movement, the grit of teamwork, the drama, the excitement, the cliches.

Oh, and the batshit lunacy.

I’ve spoken elsewhere about the superstition rife in football (it was my handy hook to hang the story of Arsenal striker Robin Van Persie’s horse placenta treatment on, you may recall. If you can’t recall, please head over and have a read. Horse placentas. Lol. Etc.), but this time I’m bringing things back home. We are, after all, the Merseyside Skeptics Society, and no amount of International campaign-running (yes, I’m going to milk 10:23 for all of the kudos I can get, what of it?) will change that. Which is why when I was sent this article by a listener to our podcast, I just had to take a look at it.

A struggling football club has resorted to asking a priest to bless its pitch in a bid to stop a run of bad luck

Yep, this is 2010 and we’re still asking the clergy to bless this mess and give us good luck. So, what kind of demonic bad luck have the Marine boys been having? Did centre forward Liam Rushton get tripped over by a ghost when clean through on goal, without so much as an indirect free-kick? Did ‘keeper Tim Dittmer get distracted by a succubus during a crucial counter-attack? Did centre back Michael Jackson (no, not THAT Michael Jackson) turn green, rotate his head 306 degrees and do unspeakable things with a crucifix? Well, as the BBC puts it, not quite:

So far this season three Marine FC players have hobbled off the pitch with broken bones.

And during a game which Marine were winning 2-1 at their stadium in Crosby, Merseyside, the floodlights died – cancelling the match.

Ah, so it was pretty standard footballing fare, then. Still, having a priest come over and do his whole il nomine thingummy bit could only improve matters…

Father John Ealey, of St Aloysius in Roby, said a prayer and poured holy water on the turf on Tuesday… Chairman Paul Leary said if it took banishing demons to improve their season, he was willing to give it a go.

Personally, I’m a big fan of the Football Manager series, which strives at every turn to replicate every subtle nuance of the Beautiful Game (TM). I therefore can’t wait for the option in FM 2011 to invite a local priest over for a spot of chanting and splashing.

Manager Kevin Lynch spoke to the club’s website about the helping hand of God:

Our form has not been great at home and we have had an horrendous injury list – I just feel that there are a couple of demons out there we need to get rid of.

I have known Father Ealey a long time, and for me personally, I will feel better that the pitch has had the blessing of God. It makes me feel a lot better in terms of my own faith.

Since the blessing, Marine FC have suffered defeats at the hands of Retford United and Bradford Park Avenue. I guess God really is a Red around these parts.

However, this year, one advert in particular is causing a real storm – the ad (or ‘commercial’ as those other-side of the road, elevators and sidewalkers like to call them) is a short ad from the evangelical Christian organisation ‘Focus on the Family’, showing one of the teams’ star quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother Pam. The ad in particular focuses on Pam’s decision to ignore medical advice to have an abortion – stressing the anti-abortion message of the religious far right in America.

Aside from stirring up the obvious anti-abortion debate that’s been raging in the US for years, the affair has surprised many, and the controversy has been summed up well by Clay Travis, an author who has written extensively about Tebow:

“It’s such a flashpoint subject and I’m surprised that CBS would go there after the fuss that was caused by Janet Jackson’s nipple. It’s not even a matter of whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, I think most people would find an advert dealing with abortion to be out of place during the Super Bowl,”

The star of the ad, Tebow, is a home-schooled son of missionaries who takes his religion seriously enough to go as far as wearing black make-up with references to biblical passages during games. He’s also repeatedly talked about his “mission”, noting that football enables him to spread “God’s word” and making it clear that his talent at the sport is secondary to his religious beliefs. Hard to see how a bastardised form of Rugby interrupted every 5 seconds for adverts enables God’s word, but He of mysterious ways etc etc.

The Superbowl has a history of being the target of controversial adverts, with advocacy groups and religious groups aiming to cash in on the wide audience to spread their messages. Previous ads that were rejected include an anti-abortion ad showing President Obama alongside the slogan ‘Life. imagine the Potential’, as well as ads by Animal rights extremists PeTA and other religious affiliations. Those ads were rejected due to the policy of CBS to refuse advertising that “touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance”.

This also isn’t the first time Focus on the Family Action have been in the headlines, having run an ad on its website last year calling on members to pray for “a rain of biblical proportions” during Barack Obama’s acceptance speech. The rain – biblical proportions or otherwise- didn’t come. Perhaps God’s a Democrat.