Two points

1. People tend to speak in inverse proportion to their knowledge. Fortunately they tend to be respected accordingly.
2. There is no evidence to suggest that life is a dress rehearsal, and there is no reason to believe anything except on the basis of evidence.

Platitude of the Day

I was recommended a site yesterday called “Platitude of the Day“. This site “translates” each Thought for the Day, revealing its banality.

A lot of work is clearly going into the site, and what it does is great, but I don’t agree entirely with its manifesto for change, which implies that everybody has an equal grasp and understanding of morality and everybody will be articulate enough and and indeed wise enough to advise others. I have not found this to be the case so far in my life.

The manifesto seems to be egalitarian to the point that it considers your local road sweeper’s grasp of morality and the human condition (or indeed the complex politics of the war in Iraq) to be likely to be as sophisticated as that of, for example, John Stuart Mill, David Hume or, on the latter point, for example, Christopher Hitchens. Now while sweeping roads is a very important job in society and not to be sneered at, there is in fact a low likelihood of this man having considered and researched moral and political issues to the same degree as these figures.

I understand the motivation - to include the man in the street as much as possible - and that’s great. Hearing their views is interesting, but this happens during news reports. “Thought for the Day” is supposed to offer insight into the human condition from a philosophical perspective. It must be a meritocracy if it is on at all, and I don’t have a problem with the “great and the good” providing they really are great and good, and not just religious figures. Any other attitude would, I think, be a little naive, and even smack of relativism.

Skeptics in the Pub

Yesterday I attended a Skeptics in the Pub meeting here in central London, where Terry Sanderson from the NSS was the main speaker. I was pleased to meet Terry, having read many of his excellent newsletters, and I thought he spoke very well (and it it is not at all easy speaking in front of an audience, attempting to answer any questions that come your way). We had a good chat regarding my own proposed campaign to rid the airways of “Thought for the Day”. I also found the presenter of the evening to be an articulate, fair and friendly person.

There was a very good turn-out for the event, but unfortunately, many who speak at Q&As seem to do so because they like the sound of their own voice rather than because they have a concise and interesting point to make. Even at a meeting of supposedly rational people this happens, and is annoying for others present, but this evening questions were of a higher standard than usual and on the whole the event was very enjoyable.

The message was clear: religions have the whip hand. Not enough is being done to fight their influence. The NSS hardly has the funds. British society is too apathetic.

So… let me ask you: do you like the idea of sharia law in the UK? Do you even know what that would mean? Do you want people to be put to death for working on Sundays? Do you want children to be mind-washed with dogma in schools which should be opening their minds, rather than closing them?

If not, you need to the join the NSS. You are needed. Read the Koran, read the Bible, realise what you’re up against, sign up and fight for rational thought. This is not a joke - there is a real threat to you from religion and frankly the cliché has never been more apposite that if you are not part of the solution you’re part of the problem.

Silent majority, cats that won’t be herded: please put your actions where you’re beliefs are. Get up, stand up and be heard. Say that you do not accept the dogma spouted by religion and you will live according to reason and compassion instead. Be proud of living for something really dignified rather than nothing at all. Your voice is not of no consequence, not if you use it. So stand up and use it. Join the NSS.

Peter Gibbons interview

A classic scene from a classic film.

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

Thanks to Łukasz Łakomy.

Government sinks to new levels of political correctness

Awaking to The Today Programme as usual today (but taking care to turn it off during “Thought for the Day“) I heard Hazel Blears (”Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government”) say - not once, but twice:

“Islam is a peaceful religion.”

- Hazel Blears MP

So I have a question. Which part of:

“Disbelievers will be burned with fire.”

- Qur’an 2:39, 2:90

…does she not understand? Or perhaps this quotation is not clear enough. Maybe it’s open to “misinterpretation”. Let’s try another:

“Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don’t kill them.)”

- Qur’an 2:191-2

Just like suicide bombers, there’s always another quotation to replace this one if it doesn’t do the job for you. The Qur’an is full of such sentiments.

So what on earth is going on here? It is easy to snipe from the sidelines, but the government certainly has a difficult job on its hands. We have a rapidly growing population of Muslims in the UK (the government here pays people to have children, whoever they are, and Islam instructs prolific childbirth - a perfect vicious circle) and they are following a superstition which is in many ways primitive and encourages violence. As the population grows, the government wants its votes. It also probably secretly wants this population to stop being so damned religious, but most of all it wants to avoid “offending” it.

So what can they do?  Once answer is to try to “rewrite the truth” and hope no-one will notice. Simply assert that black is actually white, and hope that your mere assertion of it will cause people to believe it. This is what Hazel Blears is trying, but even the Muslims (in fact especially the Muslims) know it’s not true. I dislike this approach because it is for a short term selfish goal (the party staying in government) and it is disingenuous. And nobody likes to wake up to lies on the radio.

The other option would be for the government to to try to encourage an understanding of humanism and encourage everyone to place less emphasis on the Qur’an. That is to say, for the government to stop pandering to Islam. They’d better hurry up with this, because no-one likes their attitude currently, not rational people in the UK (who are rapidly leaving the country) and not even the Muslims themselves.

Robert Wright on feminism

Not all of the tenets of feminism were misguided and damaging to society, but Robert Wright lays into one that certainly was here in “The Moral Animal“, which I’m thoroughly enjoying…

“One long-standard and utterly non-Darwinian doctrine of psychology - that there are no important innate mental differences between men and women bearing on courtship and sex [q.f. Germaine Greer] - seems to have caused a fair amount of suffering over the past few decades. And it depended on the lowest imaginable “standards of evidence” - no real evidence whatsoever, not to mention the blatant and arrogant disregard of folk wisdom in every culture on the planet.”

I find it insulting to women and blatantly anti-feminist that such an absurd theory was ever advanced in the first place. The differences between men and women should be celebrated, not denied, and oddities shouldn’t be presented as the norm. I suggest that if this idiocy of the 1970s had not occurred, society would not be in the state it finds itself now.

Campaign to abolish “Thought for the Day”

The problem

“Thought for the Day” (even the title seems patronising) is a slot on BBC Radio 4 during which religious commentators are given airtime to try to interpret world events in the context of their texts and bestow their wisdom upon us all.

The fact that this interruption occurs during the BBC’s flagship radio news programme (The Today Programme), which is otherwise supposed to apply exacting standards of evidence, makes it totally and utterly incongruous - and it would be comical, were it not so very annoying and patronising. Not only is “Thought for the Day” on during this programme, but it is given absolute peak time - approximately 7.47am, just as many people are waiting for the 8am headlines and getting ready to leave for work.

In the modern age this is a disgrace and an insult to intelligent listeners and it is high time there was a new concerted campaign to get this clueless, backward musing off the air.

Past campaigns

In 2002 a letter of protest about “Thought for the Day” was drawn up by the British Humanist Association, the National Secular Society, and the Rationalist Press Association. This was signed by 102 notable people and sent to the BBC Governors, and it resulted in Richard Dawkins being given a single chance to promote rational thought instead, in his “Atheist Thought for the Day”, which was written and delivered with his usual clarity and humanism.

This was not to be allowed to continue though, of course, and even on the BBC site I am unable to get to hear it: the relevant page has not been included in the site re-design and the link to the recording itself insteads offers to download a “.pl” file. Indeed the BBC, forever politically correct, seem to actively censor rational people who dare to speak out against religion, with that brave hero of clear thinking Pat Condell (he of 44,000 YouTube subscribers), for example, not to my knowledge having even been mentioned on the network, never mind allowed to speak. This is a disgrace.

On 9th May 2008 Richard Dawkins was, incredibly, allowed on The Today Programme briefly (a surprising exception merely proving the rule), and he took his chance to point out the double standard of selectively requesting evidence, achieving the rare feat of totally defeating John Humphrys in argument. As one commentator later wrote:

“Humphrys? Pwned. Well done there, Richard. You nailed him with that line about the difference in his approach to politicians. He said he wished he had more time at the end but you could tell he was glad he didn’t!”

There have been many letters of complaint to the BBC from the public regarding Thought for the Day. I wrote my own on 10th Februrary 2007:

“I’d just like to add my voice to the many thousands who are fed up with having to turn off The Today Programme at 7.50am when “Thought for the Day” comes on. It is an affront to have people who are prepared to believe things without the slightest evidence (in fact contrary to evidence), pontificating through the radio, uninvited, foisting their views on a public who are attracted to The Today Programme precisely because they value rational argument.

Ethics is not an exclusive realm of religion (in fact the opposite often seems to be true). Where religions are ethical this is merely an overlap, and it’s high time the BBC abolished this incongruous slot or at the very least allowed humanist ethicists to contribute too.

I hope one day you will begin to give e-mails such as this the consideration they deserve. Thank you.”

I received a reply to the mail, as follows:

“Thank you for your e-mail regarding ‘Thought For The Day’. It is important to note that ‘Thought for the Day’ has the remit of commenting from a religious perspective on a current news issue.  We feel that it is appropriate to devote a few minutes each day to hear a faith perspective on current affairs.

It follows therefore that it is supposed to say something of substance, and that its contributors - speaking from a variety of distinctive faith positions - can stimulate, challenge, provoke, irritate, and sometimes comfort.

Please be assured that your comments have been fully registered on our daily audience log.  This internal document will be made available to the ‘Thought for the Day’ production team and Senior BBC Management.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.”

- Dermot Lynn, BBC Information

This reply did nothing to detract from my points. While the contributors do certainly irritate, they rarely say anything of substance, and I feel it is important to say nothing from a “faith perspective”. It is, rather, important to only to speak from a perspective of evidence and truth, and to reveal to people that morality has nothing to do with faith. As long as people continue to confuse the two there will be little chance of harmony in the world.

Getting rid of “Thought for the Day”

The double standards applied right in the heart of the Today Programme (those of insisting upon reason and evidence one minute, and literally the next minute giving licence to muddy, backward thinking based on mythical texts that no-one in their right mind would follow) - these have to stop. They have to be stopped. The public need to speak out.

These double standards are seeming even more ridiculous as the Church of England descends into in-fighting with - for example - its confusion over whether or not it likes gays and women, and as the agenda of Islam becomes more better known by all. The British public will not stand for being told how they should live by such people, and nor should they.

I will shortly be initiating a campaign to, possibly in association with the British Humanist Association, and another attempt will be made to get the BBC Governors to see reason and remove the offensive, utterly incongruous “Thought for the Day” from The Today Programme and consign it to the past, where it belongs. It is high time reason began to triumph over the shameful irrationality of faith on our airwaves, and this will be a start. The result, if we are successful, will undoubtedly come as a relief to The Today Programme’s presenters (except Edward Sturton, of course), who often sound embarrassed even when introducing the slot, and it will surely also come as a relief to the listening public. Let our petition be evidence of that.

Robert Wright on social decay

I’m reading “The Moral Animal“, by Robert Wright - a Darwinian book in the field of evolutionary psychology. It’s stating a lot of obvious truths with no regard for political correctness, so I’m generally liking it. Here is an excellent passage which I have just read:

“One can imagine arguments among reasonable and humane people over whether a strongly monogamous society is better then a strongly polygynous one. But this much seems less controversial: whenever martital institutions - in either kind of society - are allowed to dissolve, so that divorce and unwed motherhood are rampant, and many children no longer live with both natural parents, there will ensue a massive waste of the most precious evolutionary resource: love. Whatever the relative merits of monogamy and polygyny, what we have now - serial monogamy, de facto polygyny - is, in an important sense, the worst of all worlds.”

- Robert Wright, in “The Moral Animal”