The Retreat of Reason by Anthony Browne

Having read only 10 pages of this 121 page pamphlet The Retreat of Reason, by Anthony Browne, I am already able to say that this book is likely to follow The End of Faith in my estimation as the second most important book of our age. Indeed I would go so far as to say that this book summarises and articulates well many of the things I have said on this site, and if there is a book I would like to have written myself,
this is it.

The Retreat of Reason is very well written, in a calm, rational and eloquent tone, and is certainly insightful, but it isn’t, so far, an especially profound book - it isn’t Principia Mathematica. It is simply stating facts - but they are facts that usually dare not speak their name - and that is the point.

The book addresses what is essentially a modern manifestation of fascism (one which is all the more reprehensible for the way it poses as the opposite). One which subverts free speech, truth and even free thought and threatens the very fabric and future of our society. It addresses the insidious march of political correctness. Interestingly, criticism of political correctness is, itself, outlawed by political correctness (the mechanism is self-protecting). This book ignores all that and proceeds to analyse and expose the problem in all its guises with uncompromising truth, concern and accuracy.

I will not quote from the book, because virtually everything I have so far read is worth quoting, but I will strongly recommend it to anybody who cares about the state of their society, and I look forward to reading this one too afterwards.

18th Century romance

Richard Steele, writing to his future wife (thankfully!), in 1707. Somewhat different to the
typical text message of today.

New Graphic site launches

Through my company Orland Media Ltd, I have completed development of the site for Irish design agency New Graphic.

The site was built to specification in ActionScript 3.0 and is entirely XML driven, allowing my client to easily update the site themselves without needing to come back to me. The core architecture of the site is very lightweight (therefore fast loading) at only 75Kb.

As far as the technical details go, my decision to create this project using ActionScript 3.0 yielded the following benefits:

• Ten-fold speed increase
• E4X XML parsing (easier data handling)
• Enhanced drawing API
• Simplified and formalised event handling model
• Correct type objects for the job at hand (i.e. Shapes for shapes, Sprites for one frame clips) == lower overhead
• Use of enhanced third party classes, such as TweenLite AS3

The site was engineered entirely using external ActionScript (.as) files and my editor of choice was FlashDevelop.

Andrea playing the guitar

My lovely girlfriend playing classical guitar, with a copy of The End of Faith to hand!

Note she is wearing a skirt. Women, remember them?

Aric Sigman: Remotely Controlled

I recently read this book and it joins the ranks of some of the best I have ever read. Why? Because Aric Sigman is motivated mainly by respect for truth and a concern for fellow human beings rather than by money. In other words, he has integrity.

In this book he is not afraid to take on the big TV corporations and produces a great deal of research to confirm what, really, should be obvious to all: too much TV, and the kind of TV generally broadcast, is bad for us, and we do watch too much.

Personally I had cancelled my TV license before even reading Mr Sigman’s fine book. There is potentially a danger of him “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” because some TV can be okay, but he does not say people should stop watching it all together, just that they should be more selective and not accept TV as a substitute for real life.

I say that too, and when you consider that you can listen to the radio free of charge and pull down any useful TV from the Internet these days, one might wonder how the broadcasters (especially the BBC) expect to survive at all. They only survive because people don’t read excellent books such as this (because, as Sigman notes - of course - they’re not promoted or even mentioned on TV).

Really the arguments of Remotely Controlled fall into two broad categories: watching TV is actually physically bad for us (which he fully backs up) and the programmes on TV generally promote bad values, which do not have our - but rather the broadcasters’ - interests at heart. This might seem obvious as well, but it is not obvious to everyone and it’s great to see it all written down so clearly.

Finally, Aric Sigman is concerned at the surrogate role TV has - it becomes a surrogate mother, a surrogate teacher, a surrogate friend. It even becomes a surrogate life for many people. Aric Sigman is saying (and I am certainly saying): show it the door. Stop letting it steal your personal relationships and time from you. Stop thinking people have some particular credibility just because they are on TV. Realise what is going on, read this important, excellent book, think for yourself, turn off your TV and take back control of your own life.

Television: Opiate of the Masses

John Humphrys: In God We Doubt

I am absolutely staggered by John Humphrys’ book In God We Doubt. I heard his radio series, but I am sorry to say the book is even worse. Though he plays devil’s advocate to unreasonable extremes sometimes, I actually generally like John Humphrys on Radio 4’s Today Programme. He does press politicians when they refuse to answer simple questions, and he is obviously a nice and well meaning man. But this book, an exercise in fence-sitting, is virtually a non-entity, and it is an inadvertent insult to the public to even expect it to be read.

Humphrys by his own admission doesn’t know where he stands - he calls himself a failed atheist. He repeatedly, wrongly refers to Sam Harris as Sam Smith (I could barely believe my eyes when I saw this). The book is supported by no references or footnotes. He frequently resorts a subjective position (”well, at least to me”). He agrees yet disagrees with Dawkins on the same points. This book is nothing more than an inconclusive musing, lacking intellectual rigour and precision. One wonders if it was released just to make money.

I repeat, I generally like John Humphrys (and share his concern over poor use of English), but this book is not fit for release to the general public, and to think he could have written it is almost enough to put me off listening to him on The Today Programme.

For fuller reviews of the book see the last one on this page and the first one here - and for a really serious analysis of this whole subject, of course see here.

Christopher Hitchens speaks reason again

I was most alarmed to see Mr Hitchens not in his usual ivory suit but here’s a great round of eloquent reason from him again as he debates a rabbi who confuses being ethical with being religious and who possesses a remarkable ability to construct entire sentences full of falsehoods. I couldn’t help but smile when Mr Hitchens came to the defence of the arm-waving rabbi with the line “He’s answered the question as best he can”!

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

Government’s response to petition to ban faith schools

No. 10 Downing Street has responded to a petition to ban faith schools, which I (and 19,000 others) signed. The petition’s text went like this:

“Faith schools remove the rights of children to choose their own religious, philosophical and ethical beliefs. They also sanction ethnic segregation and create tension and divisiveness within society. Schools should be places where children are given a free education, not centres for indoctrination. Creationism and other religious myths should not be taught as fact regardless of the funding status of a school. Abolishing faith schools will provide children with more freedom of choice and help to promote a fully multi-cultural, peaceful society.”

The response from the government is appalling and does not negate any of the well made points above, but it is little more than one would expect from a government which wants to retain the votes of as many people as possible in order to remain in power and (on this issue at least) does not care about principle or truth. Their text goes like this - I will break it up and comment throughout as to why it is wrong (it’s not hard to see):

“The Government remains committed to a diverse range of schools for parents to choose from, including schools with a religious character or “faith schools” as they are commonly known.”

They’re saying they haven’t listened to any of the points above.

“Religious Education (RE) in all schools, including faith schools, is aimed at developing pupils’ knowledge, understanding and awareness of the major religions represented in the country.”

They’re missing that faith schools do not teach equally about all faiths (all of which are rubbish anyway) but rather mindwash children with bias towards a particular faith.

“It encourages respect for those holding different beliefs…”

It doesn’t encourage respect for those holding different beliefs (on the contrary - see above) and more to the point respect should not be automatically given to those who hold different beliefs. This is a disgrace, especially in a school. Respect should be shown only for beliefs which are properly supported by evidence, and if someone believes something they cannot substantiate then they do not deserve your respect - this applies as much in the field of religion as in any other.

“…and helps promote pupils’ moral, cultural and mental development.”

If pupils use the Bible as their moral guide this can only serve to retard their moral development, as anyone who has actually read the book knows.

“In partnership with national faith and belief organisations we have introduced a national framework for RE.”

In other words, “we’re too frightened to face them”.

“In February 2006, the faith communities affirmed their support for the framework in a joint statement making it clear that all children should be given the opportunity to receive inclusive religious education…”

Of course - obviously - they support their own cause. That’s begging the question and doesn’t make it right.

“…and that they are committed to making sure the framework is used in the development of religious education in all their schools and colleges.”

All begging the question. There should be no framework, that is the point of this petition.

“The Churches have a long history of providing education in this country…”

This almost made me laugh out loud! The churches actually have a long history of inhibiting education and executing those who make discoveries which threaten to expose the writings in the bible as the baseless myths they are. The Enlightenment movement had to fight against the churches! Have government ministers not even read basic history these days?

“…and have confirmed their commitment to community cohesion. Faith schools have an excellent record in providing high-quality education…”

Then work harder on the other schools. Whatever good aspects there might be to these schools, the fact they are centred upon faith is not one of them and it is certainly not a necessary condition for excellence.

“…and serving disadvantaged communities and are some of the most ethnically and socially diverse in the country.”

So what? They are missing the point again.

“Many parents who are not members of a particular faith value the structured environment provided by schools with a religious character.”

I’d like to see the evidence for all these sweeping claims. Many of these parents probably have no choice but to send their children to faith schools, much to their annoyance, and anyway a “structured environment” can of course be had without the confines of faith.

All in all, this is a totally unsatisfactory response from the government, which completely fails to address any of the very strong points made by Nicola Holt, who brought the petition. Whoever wrote it should be ashamed of themselves: they have helped to deny a free and fair education to thousands of children. Even worse, and wider, than this: they have colluded in obstructing the progress of civilisation.

Some useful programming principles

• KISS
• Hollywood
• DRY

Happy Valentine’s Day Andrea!

It’s February 14th - Valentine’s Day, and I would like to headline my site with this tribute that I created in Flash (ActionScript 3.0) for my lovely girlfriend Andrea, who has her own site here, and whose stunning picture you can see here. Her many qualities include beauty, intelligence and integrity.

I often thought I would have to go back in time to meet such a lady, but I ended up having to go to sunny Florida. She has enhanced my life tremendously and I am continually flattered by her interest in me.

I have written many articles not only in support of rational thought but also in support of a return to chivalry and romance, so I will link to a few of these today too:

• North & South: a call to romance
• How to entertain ladies
• The lost art of chivalry
• The death of the English lady

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

Andrea, if you don’t feel loved after seeing the above, I don’t know what’ll do it.
But I know you do, and I will be with you soon..!