For apparent legal reasons, the article:  ’How to spot a hidden religious agenda’ I linked to in this post has been pulled by New Scientist.  This is very odd. 

They wrote this on the link to the article:

New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience.

So, who has complained and why? I shall try to find out….

(It was also published in the magazine, where I first spotted it).

The article is down-loadable at Wiki-leaks, here.

Somebody asked me in a forum somewhere:

If there is no scientific proof for the non-existence of God, then surely atheism is a belief?

My answer:

There is absence of belief on the existence of aliens but we don’t ask for evidence for the non-existence of aliens, do we?  I’ve never known anyone to seriously ask for non evidence of aliens – that would just be nuts, right?!  There is absence of belief on the existence of God and we don’t ask for evidence, because there can’t be any evidence, for the non-existence of God.  It is logically impossible – can’t prove a negative.

The meaning of theism is defined as ‘the belief in god or gods’.

The ‘a’, which is the prefix, means ‘without’ in the same way the ‘a’ is used when describing “without morals” for ‘amoral’.  So atheism literally means without belief in theism.  In other words, it is the absence of belief  in theism.

Atheism is not a faith position or a belief system. Atheism, in its basic meaning, is not a belief – it is the lack of belief.  Further, there are only atheists because there are theists. Without theists, the term atheism would be unnecessary.

Atheism, as with theism, are descriptive terms.  In other words, they specify the presence or the absence of belief with regards to God, gods or the super-natural.

For someone who has never been introduced to the concept of God/gods/theism, they are by default without belief, ergo default atheists only from the theists’ point of view (the atheist, though he/she doesn’t know it, is indifferent, or without opinion on the matter). It is only when presented with theism does their status on the position need to be declared.  Further, atheism is an adjective, but is often used as a pejorative.  Some theists say that atheism takes more faith than theism, but here they have misunderstood what atheism actually means in its proper sense and hence this is a pejorative use of the word by them.

Over at New Scientist by Amanda Gefter:

As a book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to… well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I’d share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science’s clothing.

Red flag number one: the term “scientific materialism”. “Materialism” is most often used in contrast to something else – something non-material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.

Full article here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126975.800-how-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda.html

Just came across this:

http://religious-tolerance.blogspot.com/2008/08/relationship-between-time-and_05.html

The author is all over the place, but I thought I’d take him on to see where he goes with my challenges. 

He wrote:

That timelessness exists is evident from the nature of time. The notion that time had a beginning is now scientifically comprehensible if not provable – since it fits in complex ways with the best explanations for the nature and origin of space and matter itself. Since time as we experience it, had a beginning then timelessness once existed and if timelessness existed once, then it follows that it continues to exist because it is timeless.
Thus we have the notion that time and timelessness co-exist.

(I’ve snipped the rest of the article)

My response:

Mike, you are all over the place with this!  Plus, you hit a paradox.  If there was a before time, which is a temporal notion, then you pull back time a little further.

It is like this.  What is North of England?  Scotland. 

What is North of Scotland?  Arctic Circle.

What is North of the Arctic Circle?  North Pole.

What is North of North Pole?  Nothing.  You cannot go further north than north.

In the same way, you cannot go before time because that is like saying that there is something further North than North.

To say you can is paradoxical.

So any subsequent claims you make has no foundation for validity because your starting ground cannot be granted.

 Adam

Last year I did these things:

Got married.

Completed a philosophy course (OU – A211: Philosophy and the Human Situation).

Trained for and completed the Wessex 100 mile cycle event for charity.

And a few weeks ago became a father!

So, I’ve had good reason not to update my site.

I recently started (and currently behind on!) another philosphy course – OU AA311 – Reading political philosophy: Machiavelli to Mill.

Life for me is busy!

Adam

Capitalism creates injustice

I guess one must have just landed from Mars to miss what has been said by the Archbishop this Thursday.

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/02/has-the-archbis.html

Williams has a track record of putting his foot in it, and I, as a secularist (I’ve been a paid up member of the National Secular Society for years) am thankful for it! It’s the bringing the debate to the table I’m thankful for, as it awakens people to the role of religion in public life. The NSS newsletter would be quite dull without his antics, I reckon.

Clearly, I’m for a truly secular society, which, I believe, is about equality for all, regardless if one has a Faith or not. Quite often us secularists are accused of being anti-religious. Whilst this might be the case for some of us, the majority of us don’t take that position.  Personally, I’m not against anyone having a Faith, as long as though they keep it within the private sphere. Of course, I’m not saying that religious folk shouldn’t be allowed to express their faith, what I’m saying is that they shouldn’t be permitted to discriminate against others because of their Faith, or try and push it onto others (such as faith schools, etc.) because they feel they hold a superior belief system.

Williams is, however, a serious academic as well as a Bishop. It’s very probably his thinking aloud that has got him into the mess he’s in now.  But still, he is proving that he’s not very politically savvy in this respect, especially given the tensions of ‘multiculturalism’.

Disestablishment, anyone?

Adam

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli is this week’s (7^th Jan to 11^th Jan) feature on the BBC’s Radio 4 Book of the Week. Get it here BBC Book of the Week.

“Machiavelli served the Florentine Republic as a secretary and second chancellor at the turn of the 16th century, but was expelled from public life when the Medici family returned to power in 1512. He wrote The Prince in 1513.”

Wiki article on Machiavelli here.

The Prince is something I’m yet to study, on my ever increasing study list…

This post is a line in my weblog sand.  I’ve had this weblog for just over a year and I’ve completely lost focus on why I even started it.  So, looking forwards rather than backwards, I’ve decided to give weblogging (I prefer the word ‘weblogging’ to ‘blogging’ for purely pretentious reasons) a proper go.   Plus, given the fact that I’m starting another philosophy course in a few weeks, I thought I’d better pull my socks up.

So, rather than make the same mistakes as before, I’ve bought a copy of Clear Blogging by Bob Walsh (thanks to Nigel Warburton’s advice) to get some pointers.
 
Also, I’ve decided that focusing on Philosophy of Religion is becoming a bit tedious.  I’m going to branch out into other matters that keep me awake at night, such as:

- Virtual Reality and Life 2.0
- Philosophy of Mind
- Economics, capitalism and current affairs
- Privacy, Data Protection and life in the Digital Age (by profession I’m a technical consultant)
- And other ramblings that take my fancy

So, a new year (though a bit late with it) and a new start, with more frequent updates, shorter posts and a lighter tone.  I hope…

…here goes!

There’s a very good discussion going on over at Stephen Law’s blog on religious education.   The discussion began when Law quoted Ibrahim Lawson (IL (a Muslim)), who used to be (I think) headteacher of Nottingham Islamia School, in a post on the dangers of religion.  Below is an extract of Law’s post:

“When I spoke about the potential dangers of faith schools on Radio 4’s Today programme, a member of one of the Standing Advisory Comms. on Religious Education contacted me to say, “Thank goodness you’re bringing this up.” He regularly goes into schools and is horrified by what he sees. And he’s a Christian. If you’re not worried about what’s going on in some religious schools, you should be. Here’s a brief excerpt from a Radio 4 interview with Ibrahim Lawson, head of an Islamic school:

[t]he essential purpose of the Islamia school as with all Islamic schools is to inculcate profound religious belief in the children.

ER: You use the word “inculcate”: does that mean you are in the business of indoctrination?
IL: I would say so, yes; I mean we are quite unashamed about that really…
ER: Does that mean that Islam is a given and is never challenged?
IL: That’s right…One of the key safeguards religious schools need to have in place is a critical culture. My own view is schools like Ibrahim Lawson’s should no longer be tolerated, let alone be state funded.”

What I find shocking here is that Lawson is really quite comfortable with the idea that children should be indoctrinate into Islam and without question.  Of course, Lawson isn’t the first religious person to hold this view and probably won’t be the last.  This is yet another reason why education should be secularised. 

Anyway, Ibrahaim Lawson replied to Stephen Law on Law’s blog and the debate is developing right now.  Check it out here.  Get Stephen Law’s book The War For Children’s Minds here (UK) or here (US).