Sidebar Links (4)

For a number of reasons I'm going to take a short break from the whole "Science vs Spirituality" issue. I've just re-loaned "The God Delusion" from the library as it obviously forms a central part in what I'm trying to get across. I intend reading it again so that I have a more fresh and imminent perspective which should allow me to be more poignant in my argument. Also, I've recently (and with reasonable justification) had my own objectivity on this matter impugned whilst I was engaging in some Dawkins bashing on Derren Brown's blog over at "All Your Minds Are Belong To Us". If anyone wants to see me having my arse partially handed to me by "flapjack" then you can click through and see it here. Rest assured that I haven't finished with this blog topic yet, not by a long way.

So, back to the point. I've finally added a positive link in the sidebar over there at last. Whoo! It's not exactly a world saving one necessarily but hey ... who knows? =D

Before singing the praises of this weekly web-radio show, let me just say a little more about why I'm so cautious about committing to singular causes or organisations. It's my experience that as soon as you commit to any one thing (be it an ideology or an organisation) then you generally have to accept everything that comes along with it. I rarely find that I can agree 100% with anything to be honest and this can be problematical ... especially in the world of idealistic revolutionary types. There are always fundamentalists (embarrassingly so in regards to anarchists and politicos unfortunately) who will have nothing to do with you unless you accept hook, line and sinker every single fucking dogma which they will insist on ramming down your throat. In worse case scenarios they will actively attack and ostracise you if you disagree with them, garnering support for themselves from other like-minded fundie asshats. I don't deal with that kind of shit. I don't deal with that very well at all. So to a large extent this is why there is such a famine of links over there. I'm working on that though.

So anyway, The Authority Smashing Hour IS something I can get involved with because basically it's run by some really nice guys. This doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with everything on the show but I can say with clarity that I at least rarely disagree to any great extent with the views put forward. Another great thing about the show is that it is participatory, partially through the live chat room where listeners can comment while the show is on air and also through the comments section after each show (which is archived week by week) where you can offer feedback and even suggestions for future shows and discussions. It's exactly this form of free association which I can most heartily endorse.

As I said, this is made possible only by the inclusive attitudes of the guys who've organised and run the show. If I may refer to them by their YouTube names (click 'em to go to their channels) we have Buddhagem, Chomskyan and Mr1001Nights. Sterling chaps all three of them. If only they weren't so far away across the big pond. I'd love to spend a night getting shit-faced with them over a bottle of Jack Daniels. Or even better, Cuervo Gold Tequila.

I must give fair warning that it's not a show for the politically faint of heart. For one thing, us anarchists tend to almost have our own language. Some of the ideas are also very complex and it can be hard to follow for the uninitiated. But if you have any interest at all in the principals of anarchy, freedom and voluntarism then I'd encourage you to come along and listen with us. Join in with the chat room and have your say or ask any questions you might have. Bring your own Tequila though.

The show goes out over the interwebs every Tuesday night at 11pm BST (or 6pm EST if you live in America). Smash some authority next Tuesday.

Science v Spirituality (2)

Of all Richard Dawkins' many and numerous straw-man arguments, his finest surely has to be his "purple teapot circling Uranus" routine. For those unfamiliar with it, it goes something like this ...

"Agnostics are merely closet atheists. Why, you might just as well be agnostic about the existence of a large purple teapot orbiting Uranus. Lots of love. Dicky Dawkins."

Now, I'm agnostic about the existence of "dark matter", I'm agnostic about the existence of free will, I'm agnostic about human-induced global warming and I'm also agnostic about the existence of the Higgs Boson. I'm also (for the record) agnostic about fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, trolls and purple teapots whizzing around Uranus.

So. Fucking. What?

A literal translation of the word "agnostic" might be expressed as "no knowledge" or "without knowledge". This is integral and central to pure agnosticism, or at least to my understanding and application of it. It's merely a recognition of the fact that, at present, there may well be no meaningful and conclusive knowledge or evidences available to us with which to prove or disprove some things. We might obtain such knowledge tomorrow, or the knowledge may even already exist but hasn't been recognised or applied correctly yet. But unless and until you can show me some hard evidences then I'm afraid that all of your so-called "proofs" are in point of fact merely opinions and "beliefs" ... and I'll remain agnostic thank-you very much. So, I'm agnostic about the existence of a higher being and I'm also agnostic about the existence of extra-terrestrial teapots. Big deal!

Another thing about purple teapots. I really don't give a damn if there is one mindlessly circling Uranus. So what? It's of practically no benefit to me to know if there's one there or not. Does it contain loose tea, or teabags? Does it even have any tea in it at all? How big might it be? Do I give a shit? No. I don't. Much the same goes for fairies, trolls, unicorns and Santa Claus. However, I am most profoundly interested in the possible existence of "God", whatever it may (or may not) be. Does it exist? Is it aware of us? Does it have some purpose, some aim? Do I give a shit? Yes, actually I do. So, we can see that it's quite reasonable and possible to be agnostic about stupid things like purple teapots or ghosts and at the same time be agnostic about important things like the nature of free will or the possible existence of some higher being. The difference lies in whether you actually give a shit about getting an answer or not.

And for another thing ... I have absolutely NO reason to believe that there's a flying teapot out there doing it's thing. I can, however, think of quite a few perfectly reasonable things that may lead me to ask if there's a God or not. Whether there fucking is one or not is irrelevant! I think I'll leave that little argument right there as it plainly speaks for itself.

So ... I repeat, I don't care whether it's about the tooth fairy, the Higgs boson or the Almighty himself. If you have no hard evidence to back up a claim then it's deceitful, closed minded and ultimately downright dangerous to claim that science can provide an unequivocal "answer". Here's a quote from a scientist who I consider to be infinitely more worthy of the respect that Dawkins could only dream of demanding:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
Arthur C Clarke.

I hope I've gone some way here to exposing just one of Dicky's straw-man-isms for what it actually is. Questionable. Hollow. Full of piss and wind. Churlishly subjective ...

... and very, very unscientific.

------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT - 18.06.09 - It has been pointed out to me that the Teapot quote should actually be attributed to Bertrand Russell. Fair enough. However, it's still true to say that Dicky uses and endorses this spurious argument (at least when looked at scientifically) extensively in his "book" so it makes little to no real difference to the point I'm making.

This bits going to sting. It has also been pointed out to me that in my zeal to reveal Dicky's strawman argumentation, I may have committed the very same crime myself. Although I do point out that Dicky rates himself as a 6 (later he said in an interview 6.9) on Dicky Dawkins' Scale of Atheism, I may have not been very fair or specific (I was right, that stings like fuck). My point remains however that the teapot analogy only stands up within the context of belief systems. It is NOT a scientific refutation of the possible existence of a higher being in any way shape or form (stinging a bit less now =P). I consider my moral obligation to fairness and honesty now discharged. *still smarting just a bit*

Science v Spirituality (1)

Thanks to the likes of Richard "I'm a conceited and fundamentalist twat" Dawkins, anyone who holds any belief in any form of spiritual existence is perceived to be in direct contradiction to that other great deity ... the almighty God of Science. According to Dicky (in his wad of toilet paper entitled "The God Delusion"), by applying the omnipotent scientific method and the omniscient Occam's Razor we can prove ... yes by God, PROVE that atheism is an infallible doctrine. What a knob!

Let's look at the concept of atheism. I've interacted with a number of so-called atheists and it would appear that the vast majority of them don't even understand what the term means. "Atheism" literally means "NO gods". None. Zero. Zilch. Now that's a pretty big claim to make isn't it. I mean here we are, a species that has practically just dragged itself out of the primordial soup and we have people like Dicky with the unmitigated gall to think that we now have the intellectual balls to make such grandiose pronouncements. That's a level of small minded pomposity that even the most fundamental evangelical preacher would struggle to achieve. If you push an atheist hard enough what you'll actually find is someone who merely despises religion, in all it's forms. I don't think they realise that they aren't really atheists at all, they're actually "anti-theists". If only they were honest enough to say so and identify themselves as such I could respect them a whole lot more. Disproving Christian claims is one thing (and so easy to do) but to claim to know that there is NO god whatsoever is a little ... batshit crazy?

Now that whole Occam's Razor thing. I don't think Dicky and his rabid crowd of supporters understands the limits of this basically philosophical "tool". For those who aren't familiar with it, Occam's Razor is a principal which basically states that the most straight forward and uncomplicated solution to any problem is almost certainly the correct solution. What atheists tend to not realise is that you can only apply this principal correctly if you have sufficient knowledge and understanding. To explain, imagine you're back in medieval times and someone told you that the Earth was a globe. Well, you could easily use Occam's Razor to show that this is nonsense. The simplest scenario that matches observation would be that the Earth is flat. Pah ... so much for the glorious and omniscient Occam's Razor.

In my oh-so-important opinion, the only rational stance to take on the question of the existence of any form of "God" or higher being is pure agnosticism. All that means is that at our current state of evolution and development, I believe that it's impossible to know if there is such a higher being or not. Thanks to Dicky though, agnosticism is now considered to be a dirty word used by "pussy atheists". What a great disservice to true science and spirituality this man has done. I'm sure he's the man when it comes to evolutionary biology but when it comes to religion and matters of a spiritual nature the man's a small minded wind bag.

I have a fair bit more to say on this whole issue of "science v spirituality" (and it'll probably involve a whole lot more Dawkins bashing) but in the interests of keeping my entries short(ish) I'll continue with this subject in my next post.

Namaste :P

Hypocrisy 101

The astute amongst you will already have realised what a raving hypocrite I am.

In one post I make reference to the BBC's "Have Your Say" message board and in another I state that I'm unwilling to be forced into funding them. So whilst chastising politicians for claiming expenses that were "within the rules", at the very same time I've been watching the BBC's iPlayer, using their news website and posting on their "Have Your Say" section. All for free and gratis, paid for by those who cough up for a TV licence ... because "it's within the rules guv don'tcha know".

Damn! I hate catching myself out in hypocrisy ... especially when I'm stupid enough to do it on-line. Well it stops right now. As of today I'm now boycotting ALL things to do with the BBC. The only exception I'm willing to make is that I will look at a BBC website if someone sends me a news link to look at (etc).

Maybe I'll be able to sleep better tonight now that's off my chest. I'm going to miss Patrick Moore and "The Sky at Night" though. *cries*

Sidebar Links (3)

In the second of two entries explaining why I've put certain links in the sidebar, I'll try and demonstrate that there can be no justification for the "entertainment tax" which UK residents have to pay to the BBC in the form of a TV licence fee.

There are so many ways of demonstrating that the TV licensing system here in the UK is unwarranted and immoral that, to be honest, it's difficult to know where to start. There really is quite an embarrassment of evidence. The argument for licensing generally involves a presumption of excellence in the BBC's programming and hence also presumes that the BBC are therefore providing incredible value for money. Well, okay, lets go along with that (questionable) assumption and then go right ahead and assume that the BBC does represent the pinnacle of broadcasting quality and value. Does that justify enforced licence fees? Of course not. When I go to the supermarket I'm presented with literally hundreds of bargains, each representing value for money to some degree or other. However, at no point am I forced to take advantage of any of them. I have full freedom of choice.

Which leads to another of my fundamental objections to TV licensing. Purely because I have decided that I will not be forced into funding the BBC, I am now prevented, by law, from watching any television broadcasts whatsoever. So then, not only has my freedom of choice been taken away, but now, the very choices themselves have been placed entirely out of my reach. ITV, Channel 4, Five, Sky, cable, satellite ... any and all forms of broadcast television are now by law denied to me. Just because I've decided that I won't be forced into funding one? This obviously can not be justified.

Much, much more could be said in the argument against TV licensing. The heavy handed collection methods employed by the BBC, the victimisation of licence abstainers, the fact that the BBC's "enforcement officers" get paid bonuses for every successful conviction for evasion ... the list goes on and on. But, as I said similarly in my previous post about identity cards, these other points are secondary and to a degree superfluous.

I haven't paid the TV license fee since the winter of 2001. I've therefore been denied access to all forms of broadcast TV during that 8 year period. Since 2001 I've received literally countless demands for payment from the BBC for their product, which I do not consume. These demands have all come with threats of legal action, fines and police involvement. More recently I've also had the pleasure of a BBC "enforcement officer" knocking on my door, no doubt eager to get a possible bonus in his wage packet. I am unwilling to allow this to continue. I have written to the BBC/TV Licensing and I have given them due notice that, under common law, I am legally denying them (and any of their representatives) the implied right of access to my property. That's a legally enforceable version of "get off my lawn!" It's possible that this action has bumped me up the list of households that the BBC will seek to obtain a search warrant for from the courts. Yes, a bloody search warrant! Well so be it.

Right then. I think that's the sidebar links covered. Back to saving the world in my next post.

Sidebar Links (2)

In the first of two entries explaining why I have put certain links in the sidebar, I will set out my position against the government's determined efforts to introduce national ID cards and the database state which it will inevitably create.

The vast majority of people that I have spoken to about the proposed national ID card scheme are profoundly and resolutely against it's introduction. In fact, I don't know a single person who welcomes this measure in any way, shape or form. This would appear to contradict statements made by this Labour government who, in their efforts to force through this piece of legislation, maintain that the majority of people in the UK welcome their introduction. That's odd isn't it? In fact, the only time I see anyone singing the praises of ID cards is on the internet, where the most commonly rolled out justification for such support almost invariably goes along the lines of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear."

In a perfect world, with a perfect government operating a perfect IT solution, employing perfect people to administer, access and monitor the scheme, I might agree. However, we evidently do not enjoy such perfect conditions. Quite the opposite. Furthermore, even if we did live in such a perfect utopia, there are no guarantees that such conditions would persist. In ten years time we could all be labouring under a more openly fascist regime (and if you think that's impossible then I respectfully suggest that you are deluded).

So, here in a nutshell is my main objection to ID cards. The scheme could never be implemented in such a way that prevents it from being subject to gross mistakes and even *gasp* corruption and misuse, the effects and fallout of which would lead to disaster and turmoil in the lives of the unfortunate innocent people who fall victim to "the system". I refuse to accept that such people should be considered as "acceptable collateral damage" in this war on personal privacy.

I could leave it there really. As far as I'm concerned all other objections to the scheme are moot and redundant. Not that they are invalid, they simply become superfluous when the question of a just, fair and safe implementation of the scheme itself can not be adequately addressed.

I'll just round this entry up by saying that I've recently joined the newly founded NO2ID action group in Newport. We met for the first time on Monday (with the organiser providing a delicious bowl of lamb cawl) and the group should prove to be active and effective in bringing the concerns about the ID card scheme to the population in our area. We will be organising and utilising a travelling "stall" which will seek to raise public awareness of this issue while at the same time collecting signatures for the NO2ID petition. We plan to run our first "practise" stall in Newport's John Frost Square on Saturday 20th June and I'll let you know how that goes. The group has a great mix of members, skills, experience and enthusiasm including an experienced organiser, an IT professional, members of the public and local councillors from various parties.

Oh ... and also a certain rather outspoken anarchist.

Sidebar Links (1)

Before launching into more posts outlining the evils of capitalism in our modern society and going on to laying out my plans on how to save humanity and the world, I'd like to take a moment to explain my reasons for putting up the two links that currently reside in the sidebar over there. As I will no doubt add more over time, for the historical record the two current links are for NO2ID, an organisation dedicated to preventing the introduction of national identity cards in the UK and BBCresistance, an organisation which opposes the television licensing laws here.

The purists among you will realise that these two organisations aren't really all that radical. Oh, I know they may be perceived as such by the majority of mainstream society but come on, let's face it, these two organisations are hardly going to bring an end to capitalism and usher in a new world of peace and anarchic voluntarism, let alone save humanity and the world ... at least I don't think so. They are, however, both issues that I care about because they intimately affect me and also (more importantly) because I feel that I can take simple and direct action to do something about them. World capitalism hardly falls into that category. As yet I know of no organisation that can effectively achieve my aims listed above. I've tried to find just such an organisation, I really have. In fact I'm still looking ... but so far I've come up with nada. If I ever find one then you people will be among the first to know ... but don't hold your breath.

Also, the "spiritual" among you will notice that both links are concerned with negative issues and that (as yet) there are no "happy happy joy joy" links there to balance things out. I'm fully aware of this and I'd love to be able to put a link to a more positive organisation over there. I've tried to find just such an organisation, I really have. In fact I'm still looking ... but so far I've come up with nada. If I ever find one then you people will be among the first to know ... but don't hold your breath (did anyone else just get a really bad case of deja vu?).

So, having said all that, in my next post I'll just give a short exposition about the "raison d'etre" for each link and then I can get back to my real goal of enlightening the masses, bringing down our corporate masters and subsequently saving humanity, the world and probably the whales and tuna fish while I'm at it (strikes a superhero pose).

Now, where did I leave my cape?