Quick, when I mention the word Encyclopaedia, what brand springs to mind? Depending on how recently you were born I would wager that you
either said Encyclopaedia Britannica, or else Wikipedia. True there may also
have been some Encartas thrown in there, or if you are like me, a reference to
good old Funk and Wagnall’s. But chances are that Encyclopaedia Britannica, once
considered the epitome of condensed and categorised knowledge, was the first brand to
spring to mind.
It bugs me that this image has disorganised books a little too much....
But the times have changed. To those of you who have only
just discovered the internet and this so-called information revolution (there might be some of you out there), it may
shock you to discover that electronic mediums are slowly replacing many forms
of physical ones. However, to the rest of us living in the modern world, this
has long been an accepted turn of affairs. The latest casualty of this natural
progression is the aforementioned repository of earthly knowledge.
That's right, the last edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, edition 15 which was printed in 2010, will indeed
be just that; the last one ever printed.
2010 took both Britannica and Lost from us; it was a tough year.
I feel a slight pang of nostalgia here, as having hailed
from the days before the internet I fondly remember constantly flicking
through my parents Funk and Wagnall’s encyclopaedias, and searching for answers on a variety of unrelated questions. I
was a very curious child, and had the questionably endearing quality so often prized in
children of asking ‘why, why; why!’ of everyone until invariably I had to move
from reluctant and annoyed people, to amenable and complacent books.
Ah books, you shall never call me annoying, nor implore me to shut up.
But all that being said, any sadness I feel at losing these
old physically bound books pales in comparison to the excitement (and thinly
veiled jealousy) I feel every time my son and I consult the internet, with its
vast catacombs of information, at his persistent (and I wish I could claim genetically inherited) requests of ‘why, why; why!’.
After all, things generally find themselves being replaced by more fitting
alternatives; such is the nature of progress. Who can deny that the new mediums
of computers, the internet, and a multitude of other connectable devices, have
far greater capacity for the advance of knowledge than the still admirable,
though wholly innovation saturated, physical books?
However Britannica lovers out there, do not despair; the
Encyclopaedia bearing its name isn’t disappearing entirely. The company responsible for its creation is simply doing the smart thing and embracing the
online frontier, with their focus now being delivering their lauded product in
the digital arena.
At least the ascension of Wikipedia means that given we are looking at an Americanized (the 'z' in there is on purpose) information source as the go to receptacle for this generation, I won’t have to try and remember which order the 'a's and 'e's go in 'paedia'.
MM
Here at Thoughts From The Antipodes I am rather keen to get
comments, and hear what people think about my posts, or the subjects they deal
with. However up until a while ago comments could only be entered if you had
certain compatible accounts. So once a few people highlighted this restriction
to me I figured out how to enable anonymous and guest comments here on my blog,
and it is already paying off.
During a recent post on a Tolkien themed monogram I
created for myself, I lamented the fact that my research turned up little in
the way of a background for Tolkien’s own symbol. Apparently I am not the only
one interested in such things, as I got the following anonymous comment earlier
in the week:
“I was also doing a little research on that monogram
and I couldn´t ignore the resemblance between that monogram and a chinese
character (i´m studying mandarin) it looks almost the same in my opinion, and
since I heard that Tolkein was fluent in many languages maybe he knew a little
chinese as well and was inspired by this character, this is the one i´m talking
about "束" it means to bind, to restrain to control, makes you
think about the quote: "one ring to rule them all". BEST REGARDS”
This is why I love the internet: there is always someone out
there with similar interests, and generally more capabilities (or at least a
different enough approach to your own).
Upon looking into it, there is quite a curious resemblance between the two
symbols; check it out for yourselves:
The Chinese character shù - 束
Tolkien's monogram -
Then there is the possible connection between the proposed meanings, and Tolkien's work. Shù can mean to bind or control. And as the anonymous commenter pointed out, one of the more famous quotes associated with Tolkiens masterworks reads:
"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."
But then again, what random verb probably couldn't be tenuously linked to something significant in Tolkien's legendarium?
I just wanted an excuse to get this picture in here, so a connection to Gandalf will have to do......
Again though, I find the internet is great at peaking my curiosity, but not so good at sating it. Even with this new possible clue as to the inspiration,
if not origins, of Tolkien’s monogram; I am unable to find any more definite
answers. In fact as far as the resemblance goes, the only other mention I can
find is on a forum discussing the Japanese translation of Tolkien’s works, found here.
Though this is just a quick mention of the similarities
between the two characters, it is also slightly interesting to look over the
rest of the forum page, and to see just how translating a written work from one
language to the next can be so fascinating.
The posters in the forum are correct in that Tolkien was a prodigious learner of languages, and apparently spoke around 12 fluently, and was competent in another 13.
Plus he rocked an awesome pipe.
However if you look at his background in languages, it does
not look as self evident that this would lend credence to him borrowing his monogram from the Chinese character as it initially appears. Tolkien was twice elected to the post of professor of English Language at Oxford; but as the
title suggests, this is specifically relevant to our mother tongue, not languages in general. In
university after he shifted his major from classical studies to the English language, it was a specialty in
Norse languages that defined his time there. This, along with a general
Euro-centric mythological vibe in his fantasy books, seems to highlight his limited scope regarding the languages of the world.
But at the end of the day there is no way to know for
certain. After all, history may record our major drives, accomplishments and
influences; but it can’t always be privy to our day to day whims, happenstance
or coincidence. So who is to know if perhaps upon a trip to the university
library, Tolkien happened upon a book of Chinese characters, and noted the
inherent possabilities imbued upon shù, and how its composition managed to draw a rough outline of his initials?
Anyhow, I just thought this little find was a bit interesting, even if it were ultimately not true.
What do you all think? Is this symbol similar enough to Tolkien's to make you think twice about its origins?
Let me know in the comments.
MM
P.b.
Since writing this I also noticed this forum, where the same resemblance with Chinese characters was noticed, however this time there is a different theory offered. However I have been unable to find an example of the character they refer to here:
"The reason for me to post about this subject is related to... chinese characters.
In fact, Tolkien's logo is very similar to a specific chinese character named Haikka.
The meaning of Haikka is "center", "land in the center", "Land in the middle of...".
In resume: it is the chinese symbol to... Middle-Earth.
Well, Tolkien knew it, I think.
So maybe the logo creation is linked to this chinese character."
I have been away for the
Easter holidays (which in some part explains my lack of blogging lately), but
was delighted to find that as I came home Monday night, there was to be a
televised sparring between the venerable Richard Dawkins, and the........ well,
and George Pell.
It is always great to see
Dawkins on the fly. So often news reports depict him as a militant atheist, who
is rude, or arrogant, and attacks religious belief with wanton disregard. Then
when I watch his appearances, I am always reminded of just how polite and
British the man is. His worst retorts after all are generally along the lines
of an Oxfordian “utter nonsense”, or “patently absurd”.
If this is considered the
epitome of a rude atheist, then I must be a positively abhorrent one.
During the show I was
surprised at how flimsy Pell arguments were. No doubt I was always going to
come out in support of Dawkins, but I had expected there to be more formidable
arguments either for religious belief, or else against atheism. Yet I found
myself being able to predict the weak arguments before they were pulled out of
what must be quite a tattered bag of apologist tropes.
Hitler was an atheist, or
social Darwinist; therefore evolution can’t be a good thing. We evolved from
Neanderthals. If there were no justice after death, that would be very nice,
therefore, there must be. Darwin was a theist. And so on.
All in all I had a great
time watching the show, and though I had promised myself that I wouldn’t go
into a twitter overload, I ended up tweeting around 22 times during the
fifty-odd minute show. Not too bad an outcome though, as I managed to get one
of my tweets up on screen to be seen by 863,000 Australians, which is
around 4% of the population, so I am happy with that. It also got me a sizable
new chunk of followers on twitter, and it is always nice to know that your
crazy twitter rants are appreciated.
Then as I decided to
write a blog on this episode of Q&A, I quickly found my initial thoughts on
the program spiralling out of control into an almost blow by blow account of
the interaction. So rather than make this solely a reflective piece, I have
decided to make it a sort of running commentary of my favourite bits of the
night, supplemented with quotes from the transcript.
This ended up running
into around five thousand words (I remember uni days when such a word count
would have killed me), but I hope it is somewhat entertaining for those of you
who watched the show, and perhaps even those who missed it. So yes it is rather longer than my usual posts, and doesn't have as many interesting pictures to look at, but it is just a culmination of a lot of stuff i wanted to get off my chest after watching the show.
Here goes.
The first question was
quite a stock standard one, regarding whether or not an atheist can essentially
be a good person. It is one often brought out in these debates, but also one
that most people know the answer to from either side; yes, but with some
conditions.
Dawkins points his
response that “it is true that
Christianity has adopted many of the best values of humanity but they don't
belong to Christianity or any other religion”, and goes on to point out the
bad things espoused in the Bible, both New Testament and Old. Then Pell
counters with a quote which seems to me a bit too understanding of
Christianity’s nature as a created religion, not a metaphysical truth:
“We’re Christians, we're New Testament
people. There was an evolution in the Old Testament. There are some awful
things there. It developed. The notion of God was purified as it went through
the Old Testament.”
It seems odd for him to
be talking of the notion of God changing, and of parts of the Bibles teachings
being awful.
Now on to audience question
number two, where things start to get moving along quicker:
“Religion is precisely often blamed for
being the root of war and conflict but what about all the good it has done for
society. God-centred religion has been the birth place of schools,
universities, hospitals and countless developments in science. Richard, if you
believe the human drive to seek the truth and to constantly improve ourselves
is merely a mechanism for survival, then what’s the point and why should I
bother? ”
This second question was
a bit all over the place. First it is talking about remembering all the good
things that religion has done rather than focusing on the bad things, then
after simply stating that as if it should be a powerful point, the questioner
quickly darts aside and asks ‘what’s the point’ if we are products of
evolution.
I mean, perhaps a
pertinent question, but where is the lead up, and what’s more; where is the
alternative? It is all well and good to say, ‘what is the point if we are the
product of evolution’, but perhaps if you are arguing for religion as the
alternative, you should at least offer a reason why us originating from a god’s
creation would imbue us with any more purpose, beyond that of merely being
created by a god.
As Dawkins said “We have to find our own purposes in life,
which are not derived directly from our scientific history”, which I agree
with completely because I think that any purpose we want to derive for
ourselves should depend on our own qualities and attributes, not just our physical
origins.
Pell isn’t brought into
the debate here, which was a pity if we wanted to hear an alternative purpose
of life. But nonetheless, the third question quickly followed as a bit of an
extension of this:
“Okay, my question for you today is:
without religion, where is the basis of our values and in time, will we perhaps
revert back to Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest? ”
Having read a lot of
Dawkins writings, I knew he would have an answer for this which really seems
like common sense to anyone who understands science’s place in our lives. That
answer is simply that Darwinian principles explain how we got here; they are a
physical law and shouldn’t be used to determine how we run our society any more
than the theory of gravity should. Dawkins says this, and states emphatically
that he would definitely not like to live by Darwinian principles.
The discussion then went
towards science, and how it can tell us about why we are here. Pell, being a
self stylised authority on why we are here, leapt on this chance, which lead to
this little exchange:
GEORGE PELL: Well, it’s interest because I
think in the space of about two minutes, Richard has said two different things,
one of which is that science can't tell us why we're here and then in the next
minute, trying to say that it does.
RICHARD DAWKINS: No. No. I said it can tell us why we're here.
GEORGE PELL: It can't.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, I simply contradict you in that case.
Here we begin to see the
germ of a core misunderstanding between Pell and Dawkins as one talks about why
we are here in a sense of ‘what is our purpose’, and the other talks about why
we are here in a sense of ‘what caused us to be’.
Dawkins put it nicely,
and with his trademark scientific air:
“Why we exist, you're playing with the word
“why” there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that
lead to our existence. Now, “why” in any further sense than that, why in the
sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question. You cannot ask a
question like “Why do mountains exist?” as though mountains have some kind of
purpose. What you can say is what are the causal factors that lead to the
existence of mountains and the same with life and the same with the universe.”
This is the age old ‘science
can answer how, but not why’ argument, where those in favour of this rhetorical
side step fail to elucidate why there must be a why, as opposed to simply just a how.
Then, at around the 9
minute mark I believe it was, Pell proved himself to be quite a premature
invoker of Godwin’s Law when he took what is considered a fatal step in
internet arguments, and committed a Redictio Ad Hitlerum:
“[...] it’s not Maggie Thatcher who was in
the epitome or the personification of social Darwinism. It’s Hitler and
Stalin. [........] Because it is the struggle for survival, the strong
take what they can and the weak give what they must and there is nothing to
restrain them and we have seen that in the two great atheist movements of the
last century.”
Not only is this a
premature appeal to Hitler, but also the classic mistake of counting him, and
his Nazi cronies, as vanguards for atheism. Dawkins of course being a veteran
of these unctuous arguments was quick to label this as ridiculous and again pointed
out that:
“That’s exactly why I said that I despise
Darwinian natural selection as a motto for how we should live. I tried to say
we should not live by Darwinian principles but Darwinian principles explain how
we got here and why we exist in the scientific sense”
At this point we reach
the first of a few instances where a group of the audience flat out laughed at sporadic
points during Dawkins explanations, to which he would ask the audience ‘Why is
that funny?’ but never got a direct response. The laughter in this case was
caused by the statement from Dawkins:
“Now, Cardinal, you said it’s part of human
nature to want to ask the question why in the sense of purpose. It may very
well be part of human nature but that doesn't make it a valid question.”
They laughed, Dawkins
asked why, but I don’t think he got a response.
As this went further, and
Dawkins further explained why he believes that a question like “What is the
purpose of the universe?” is a silly question, Pell interjected to say “I think it’s a very poignant and real
question to ask, “Why is there suffering?””.
Well it may be poignant,
and real; but it has nothing to do with the question they were talking about!
On talking about
suffering Dawkins later pointed out that “it
is a natural part of the living condition. It is a natural part of Darwinian
natural selection, which is one of the reasons why I was so keen to say that I
didn't want to live by Darwinian principles.”
Again a clear explanation
of what he believes to be the place of science and evolution in human affairs,
but one which is constantly ignored by his detractors.
Next a question was
directed toward Dawkins about his use of the label ‘atheist’ despite the fact
that he has self-identified as being an agnostic in the past. Even Tony Jones
seemed uncharacteristically uninformed about this distinction, but Dawkins
seemed to explain it rather succinctly (with examples from his book The God
Delusion), and a nice reference to the Easter season we find ourselves in:
“I live my life as though there is no God
but any scientist of any sense will not say that they positively can disprove
the existence of anything. I cannot disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny
and so I am agnostic about the Easter Bunny. It’s in the same respect that I am
agnostic about God”
Though I was happy to see
the whole agnostic/atheist thing brought up with regard to Dawkins beliefs, I
couldn’t help but think it could have been handled a bit better. I am of the
ilk that describes ourselves as agnostic-atheists; we don’t believe in god, but
we also don’t claim to know that there is no god. The label agnostic can be
applied to any number of propositions, as Dawkins points out, as it deals with
claims of knowledge. Atheist however can only be applied to one proposition, namely
ones beliefs regarding deities. It deals only with these beliefs, and not the
nature of whether or not the validity of such beliefs can be known with
absolute certainty.
It is in this way that I
think it is pertinent that we use the label atheist to describe ourselves,
rather than just agnostic, as it gives a true indication of what our beliefs
are, not just how certain we can claim to be regarding them.
The discussion then went
towards what proofs would sway Dawkins mind, to which he had no direct answer,
and was open in admitting this and the questions tricky nature. Tony then asked
Pell whether he would be able to provide Dawkins with some of the proof he
would require, to which Pell replied:
“No, because I think he only accepts proof
that is rooted in sense experience. In other words he excludes the world of
metaphysics, say the principle of contradiction, and he excludes the
possibility of arguments that don't go against reason but go beyond it.”
Arguments that go beyond
reason....... I don’t know what to make of this.
Tony then presses Pell a
bit further with a great question regarding why this god would choose a small
group of Jews 2,000 years ago, and make no subsequent proof after that. George
Pell then digs himself a nice little hole to sit in when he remarked that the
Jews were intellectual inferiors to their contemporaries, which led to a bit of
ribbing by the host:
GEORGE PELL: They weren't intellectually
the equal of either the Egyptians or the...
TONY JONES: Intellectually?
GEORGE PELL: Intellectually, morally...
TONY JONES: How can you know intellectually?
GEORGE PELL: Because you see the fruits of their civilisation. Egypt was the
great power for thousands of years before Christianity. Persia was a great
power, Caldia. The poor - the little Jewish people, they were originally
shepherds. They were stuck. They’re still stuck between these great powers.
TONY JONES: But that’s not a reflection of your intellectual capacity, is it,
whether or not you're a shepherd?
GEORGE PELL: Well, no it’s not but it is a recognition it is a reflection of
your intellectual development, be it like many, many people are very, very
clever and not highly intellectual but my point is...
TONY JONES: I’m sorry, can I just interrupt? Are you including Jesus in that,
who was obviously Jewish and was of that community?
GEORGE PELL: Exactly.
TONY JONES: So intellectually not up to it?
The next viewer question
was my favourite, so I shall show it in its entirety, as well as link to it:
“Question for Richard Dawkins. The big
bangers believe that once there was nothing, then suddenly, poof, the universe
was created from a big bang. If I have nothing in the palm of my hand, close my
fingers, speak the word bang, then open my fingers again, still I find there is
nothing there. I ask you to explain to us in layman's terms how it is that
something as enormous at the universes came from nothing? ”
First of all, Big
Bangers; I love this label.
I like his little
experiment, and the challenge he puts forth as if he has shook the foundations
of the Big Bang theory, but at the end of the day this guys argument about
closing and opening his hand is as laughable as the old ‘Peanut butter proves
that there can be no abiogenesis’ argument.
I still cant believe this guy is serious.....
I also have to ponder why
it is he thinks that the enormity of the universe would impact on its ability
to come from nothing. This is particularly important to note as after all, the
Big Bang theory tells us that the universe was once super condensed, and as
such was not all that enormous (though still contained all the energy/mater we
have today apparently).
People want a simple
answer for the beginning of the universe, and then balk at the mention of
anything that might sound a bit beyond their understanding. If an answer cannot
be understood by them intuitively, then they don’t believe it has any weight as
an explanation, This may well be a good argument if you think you live in a
world where such explanation usually are intuitive. But talk to any physicist
and you will soon find that much of the way the world works isn’t intuitive;
just Google quantum mechanics and you will see how far the rabbit hole goes.
When the discussion
continues and talk of new theories regarding the appearance of the
universe gets moving, Pell attacks some of Dawkins arguments, and invokes what
must be one of the biggest cop out arguments in the arsenal of the Christian
apologist:
“he dumbs down God and he soups up nothing.
He continually talks as though God is some sort of upmarket figure within space
and time”
‘Within Space and time’
is the important part there. You will constantly hear people saying that their
god is outside of space and time, and thus not subject to its ways, but you
never hear an explanation of what this means, and how it can be reconciled with
other forms of thinking prevalent in their theology. For instance, if this god
is outside of space and time, how can he create a universe? The very act of
creation requires time to already exist, after all you can’t have a ‘before and
after’ the universe, without having time. And you can’t have a universe,
without having space-time.
Regarding the outside of
space and time excuse, Dawkins replied:
“it is no good invoking Thomas Aquinis and
saying that God is defined as outside time and space. That’s just a cop out.”
FYI, I didn’t realise
Dawkins phrased this almost exactly as I did above, but I am nonetheless pleased
by it.
I think some more direct
audience participation with Dawkins would have been good. After all, so many
times when the audience laughed at something he said, Dawkins wanted to know why
it was funny, but received no explanation. It made him seem more offended by
their laughter rather than genuinely curious and ready to engage, as I believe
he was.
This second bit of
audience participation was spurred on by this remark:
RICHARD DAWKINS: You can dispute exactly
what is meant by nothing but whatever it is it’s very, very simple.
(AUDIENCE LAUGH)
RICHARD DAWKINS: Why is that funny?
GEORGE PELL: Well, I think it’s a bit funny
to be trying to define nothing.
Of course you do George,
because you are not a philosopher or a scientist, so you don’t have to define
or describe things; you are a theologian, and as such simply have to interpret
things within your own stationary worldview. The Cardinal talks as if
definitions in a philosophical or rational debate aren’t worth ruminating over.
The audience members who
were snickered here no doubt consider such things equally absurd, because like
most philosophical debates worth having, there is an instinctive answer that
some are just willing to accept. We think it is silly to try and define
nothing, because we have our own understanding of the word built up since we
were a child. Much like if people are asked to define what happy is, or sad,
they will probably shy from the task, because rather than question their own
personal understanding of the concepts, it is easier to treat them as
self-evident truths and be done with it. Perhaps more pragmatic, but by no
means philosophically satisfying.
Next came one of Pell’s
biggest slip-ups which unfortunately I believe wasn’t properly debunked. That
is Pell’s insistence that Charles Darwin was a theist.
The exchange went like
this:
GEORGE PELL: Darwin was a theist because he
said he couldn’t believe that the immense cosmos and all the beautiful things
in the world came about either by chance or out of necessity. He said, “I have
to be ranked as a theist.
RICHARD DAWKINS: That just not true.
GEORGE PELL: Excuse me it’s...
RICHARD DAWKINS: It’s just plain not true.
GEORGE PELL: It’s on page 92 of his auto
biography. Go and have a look.
Dawkins displays his
incredulity at this falsehood, but as the discussion is quickly moved along by
Jones; there is no real room for rebuttal. But there is room on this blog for
all manner of things I would wish to rant about, and so here I shall!
In a sense Pell is right
about Darwin having been a theist, however not in the sense he actually wants
people to believe. Darwin was a
theist, much like he was a baby: but
then he grew up. He was a theist, but then he lost this faith, and the quote in
his autobiography as reference by George was clearly talking about beliefs
Darwin had had, not ones he maintained at the time of writing. In fact if he
had only read a few pages further, to page
94, he would have read Darwin affirming himself as an agnostic, and then elucidating
just how one can go about living according to this, without recourse for a god
to explain things.
The night of the show I
looked up page 92 of his autobiography and got a nice link to Darwin’s online
writings. However if you search for a similar thing today, you will find links
to heaps of blogs discussing the very thing I am discussing now; the use of
this by Pell on Q&A. The misinformation patrols are quick at work for our
religious friends however, as one Catholic site is already exclaiming “Cardinal Pell shows up Richard
Dawkins ignorance about Charles Darwin”.
Then, having failed to
understand the history of Darwin’s religious beliefs despite the fact that he
was claiming to have read his autobiography (which is a nice read and like all of Darwin's work, available for free online), Pell exposed his lack of
understanding with regard to mankind’s evolutionary history with this startling
exchange, which seemed to enliven Dawkins from his jetlag:
TONY JONES: Sorry, can I just bring you, in
a sense, to the point of the question? Do you accept that humans evolved from
apes?
GEORGE PELL: Yeah, probably. From
Neanderthals, yes. Whether...
RICHARD DAWKINS: From Neanderthals?
GEORGE PELL: Probably.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Why from Neanderthals?
GEORGE PELL: Well, who else would you
suggest?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Neanderthals were our
cousins. We’re not descended from them and we’re both descended from...
GEORGE PELL: These are extant cousins?
Where will I find a Neanderthal today if they're my cousins?
RICHARD DAWKINS: They’re not extant,
they’re extinct.
GEORGE PELL: Exactly. That’s my point.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Your point is that because
they're extinct they can't be our cousins?
GEORGE PELL: I really am not much fussed.
RICHARD DAWKINS: That’s very clear.
GEORGE PELL: Something in the evolutionary
story seems to have come before humans. A lot of people say it’s the
Neanderthal.
Sure perhaps it is a bit
much to attack the Bishop for this mistake; after all he has no expertise in
the matter whatsoever. But nevertheless, Pell should have just pushed it aside
by saying, ‘oh well, I don’t really know much about mans evolutionary history’,
rather than trying to argue about the relevance of this other species of human
being extant, or cousins. He even goes on to state how Neanderthals weren’t the
equivalent of humans because they didn’t draw on cave walls, even though there
is new
evidence that they in fact did do just that.
As the discussion
continued about mans evolution and the implications of this toward those religions
that believe man in unique and has a soul, I think there was further evidence showing
Pell’s ignorance of modern evolutionary theory. For example he shows a
misunderstanding of the continuous nature of species here:
“so we can't say exactly when there was a
first human but we have to say if there are humans there must have been a first
one”
There doesn’t have to be
a first human at all, just because there is a human now. There is gradual
change, so that no parent and offspring would be so dissimilar as to be
labelled members of different species, yet these gradual changes would nevertheless
compound over time to inevitably change the species (Dawkins in fact goes over
this briefly, but adroitly, in a later segment, to which Pell inanely replies “if
there is no first person we’re not humans”).
In talking about these
‘first people’ Pell made some headlines (virtual ones at least) in this article when he referred to Adam and Eve as mythology, and not fact.
When he started going
over this mythology, Pell highlighted one of the things that I believe is a
major difference between a theist’s mindset versus that of an atheist’s:
“[...] the key to the whole of universe,
the really significant thing, are humans”
A very self centred view
of the nature of existence I would think. What do you know, it is all about me
after all. It’s like Phillip J Fry once said: “So I really am important? How I
feel when I'm drunk is correct?“
“and, [...], it is a very sophisticated
mythology to try to explain the evil and suffering in the world.”
I will just say quickly
about the above that I don’t believe it is very sophisticated to assert that
sins can be inherited, and that people are born, as Hitchens used to quote "created
sick, commanded to be well”.
A while later when the
talk again moves towards Richard’s expertise in science my favourite moment of
the night appears. Take a look:
George
Pell: You have to reason about the facts of science, ask whether you
believe the suggestion that, you know, random selection is sufficient and also
most evolutionary biologists today don't believe that.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Don't believe what?
GEORGE PELL: They don't believe in random
so this crude fundamentalist version of random selection that you propose
RICHARD DAWKINS: I do not propose it and I
strongly deny that evolution is random selection. Evolution is non-random
selection. Non-random.
GEORGE PELL: So there is a purpose to it is
there?
RICHARD DAWKINS: No.
GEORGE PELL: Could you explain what non-random
means?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes, of course I could.
It’s my life's work!
I love it, especially because so many religious apologists
seem to forget that these scientists do have a whole lot of research behind
what they are doing, and unlike a lifetime built up on theological ideas, they
can explain them with due recourse to facts and observations. It just goes to
show how much of religious disapproval of evolutionary theory is based on an
unchanging image of the science as constructed by apologists, rather than an
active understanding of the theory. That evolution is still considered by many
who don’t understand it as a random process, is something which must infuriate
Dawkins, and other evolutionary biologists, to no end.
Dawkins great strength is
how he can explain something so well, in so few words. Take for example the explanation
of evolution’s non-random nature which he gives to Pell:
“There is random genetic variation and
non-random survival and non-random reproduction which is why, as the
generations go by, animals get better at doing what they do. That is
quintessentially non-random.”
Next, an atheist asks a
question about what will happen when he [the atheist] dies and we get a long
response from Pell (prodded by Tony of course) which goes into some of the
intricacies of the Christian mythology, but again I like the concise and
rational nature of Dawkins response:
“Well, the answer to the question of what’s
going to happen when we die depends on whether we're buried, cremated or give
our bodies to science.”
Bam, done.
As the discussion delved
into more Christian mythology, and Pell defended such things as bodily
resurrection and transubstantiation, he again hinted toward the mortal origins
of Christianity upon acknowledging the adoption of yet more Greek culture and
thinking into the Christian ethos:
“I understand it [edit: transubstantiation],
according to a system of metaphysics. It was spelled out by the Greeks before
Christ came, which we have adopted [......]”
Though I suppose it could
be said that the referrals back to a previous culture don’t just show the human
origins of religion, but rather that it may reflect a universal truth not quite
grasped correctly by the Greeks. But honestly; which is the simpler
explanation?
Dawkins calls out another
tricky tactic of the religious apologist when he continually tries to get Pell
to explain how some of the language he is using actually applies to real world
usage, and our way of employing the English language. When Pell tries to
explain how the wafer does become the body of Christ via transubstantiation,
but remains as a wafer for all intents and purposes, Dawkins retorts:
“I mean I use - English is my native
language. The wafer does not become the body of anybody in the English
language.”
However as Pell had
previously said:
“I believe it because I believe the man who
told us that was also the son of God. He says, “This is my body. This is my
blood,” and I’d much prefer to listen to him and take his word than yours.”
It is clear that a
rational discussion about language and how it should be employed (with common
definitions and syntax) is useless against someone who defines words by divine
fiat, not in any proper linguistic fashion.
Seeing that this
discussion was going nowhere, Tony interjected with a new, and refreshingly
brief, question from the audience:
“Is it okay to tell a child that God
doesn't exist? ”
This is one I have
thought about a lot as my son is growing up in a culture that frequently talks
of God, gods and heaven, albeit generally in a metaphorical or profane (“God
damn it!”) sense. Dawkins does well, saying that he would prefer for her to
figure it out based on the evidence [he has a great open letter to his
daughter, hence the ‘her’, that can be found over here]. After all, he is
an agnostic atheist, and would not be willing to tell his child that a god
doesn’t exist with 100% certainty anyhow.
Then when Pell was
starting his response to this question, he unintentionally got the biggest
laugh of the night with this statement, which were it not coming from a member
of the catholic church, would barely have registered a stifled giggle:
“I remember when I was in England we were
preparing some young English boys”
I smell a meme on the
way!
Thank you Sam Dekok for being so on the ball making this
Some people have said that it was a bit crass of Dawkins to
laugh when the audience took amusement from Pell reminiscing about ‘preparing’
some English boys, but I think that given the Catholic Church’s history in this
regard, it is hardly an unwarranted jest.
Then when the laughter
dies down, and he finally gets it out, Pell’s self styled ‘simple’ answer to
the question of whether kids should be told they are going to hell is this:
"Hitler. You think Hitler might be in
hell? Started the Second World War, caused the death of 50 million or would you
prefer a system where Hitler got away with it for free?"
Would you prefer it? As
if preference has a bearing upon reality. I am sure the kid would prefer a
universe where suffering such as the like committed by Hitler, was simply not
possible.
This personal drive for
justice to be handed out even after the grave is brought home when Jones
presses him further (as he is sooooo good at doing):
TONY JONES: What about a system where he
was obliterated and didn't exist anymore?
GEORGE PELL: Well, he would have got away with too much, as far as I am
concerned.
But Pell doesn’t give up,
he is determined to show that simply wanting the universe to be a preferable
and just one is somehow an argument for it actually being such a universe.
“But I believe on behalf of the innocent
victims in history that the scales of justice should work out. And if they
don't, life is radically unjust, the law of the jungle prevails.”
‘On behalf of the innocent
victims’, implicitly suggesting that those atheists who don’t believe there is
justice in the universe from some divine after death source, are somehow not on
the side of the victims.
True, a world where the Hitler’s and Mengele’s can simply
die and escape justice may not be a just world at all. However saying this
doesn’t really add weight to the argument to that your idea of what the world
could be like is nicer than an alternative, and therefore that it must be true.
I believe that the world is essentially an indifferent
place, which is why I don’t think that justice is something to be doled out
from beyond the grave, but rather that justice, like ethics and happiness; is
an entirely human affair.
Dawkins likewise is
having none of this, and simply responds to the question of which reality is
more preferential with this little nugget of rationality:
“I’m more interested, however, in what’s
true than in what I would like to be true.”
Any talk of suffering or
justice in regard to a religious worldview is bound to ask the question of why
an omnipotent god would allow such things to happen. Pell offers up the same
‘free will’ argument so often employed, yet very rarely explained:
“That’s a very good question but if God is
going to allow us to be good he’s got to give us freedom.”
Freedom perhaps, but
ability; no. We can easily be given the freedom to do things, without making
every possible action available to be done. For example, we have the ability to
kill, and maim; but is this physical reality required in order for our will to
be truly free? I don’t think so. We could have bodies incapable of feeling
pain, or being killed, whilst retaining our free will, so this reality still
needs to be accounted for.
As the night quickly came
to an end, I think Pell was beginning to lose interest in the whole affair. He
had shot himself in the foot a few times along the way, and then added this
nice snafu to the mix when talking about secondary causes in regard to how a perfect
god would design a just universe:
GEORGE PELL: It is interesting through
these secondary causes probably no people in history have been punished the way
the Germans were. It is a terrible mystery.
TONY JONES: There would be a very strong argument saying that the Jews of
Europe suffered worse than the Germans.
George Pell, you have
been Tony Jones’d.
As if that weren’t enough
to highlight Pell’s mounting disinterest in his side of the exchange, his final
words for the night consisted of this exchange:
GEORGE PELL: [...] my life would be much
simpler and much easier if I didn't have to go to bat for a number of Christian
principles.
TONY JONES: Have you ever regretted that you do?
GEORGE PELL: Sometimes I wonder.
TONY JONES: Seriously?
GEORGE PELL: No. No. No.
Ah yes, if only it was
the good old days, when Catholic Cardinals didn’t have to try and explain
themselves to the people, and could just force through their will with divine
right.
Anyhow, that is my
commentary on the Dawkins v Pell episode of Q and A. I hope it was enjoyable.
MM
Oh, and one quick last minute mention of another meme created after George Pell replied to a question about the existence of gays within his god's master plan in this exchange:
TONY JONES: Can I just interpose a quick question on this. We are running out of time. I mean do you believe that homosexuality, since it’s not a question of choice, is part of God's natural order? GEORGE PELL: Creation is messy. I think it’s the oriental carpet makers always leave a little flaw in their carpet because only God is perfect.
“Once one is caught up into the material world not one
person in ten thousand finds the time to form literary taste, to examine the
validity of philosophic concepts for himself, or to form what, for lack of a
better phrase, I might call the wise and tragic sense of life.” - F. Scott
Fitzgerald
I like this quote, and unfortunately feel that it describes
me to a great degree. I haven’t taken the time to properly develop myself as a
person to the extent that I would like to have if my situation had been ideal
(read: was a millionaire with time to spare). I don’t know all the things I
would like to know, I haven’t read the books I know I should have read, and I
don’t fully understand my own views about the world I live in. I feel like I am
making do with a minimal set of the information I would like to have in order
to be content with my own personal sphere of knowledge.
Case in point: this very quote itself. I know of F. Scott
Fitzgerald, but I don’t know much about him. He was a writer I believe, active around
the twenties, but I couldn’t name a book he was responsible for, and I know
that there was a Zelda involved, but that this has nothing to do with Link.
This Zelda though, I know quite well
I find that rather than knowing important things, I know of important things. It is like my
previous post on how I just don’t get poetry, yet I still have a tacit
acceptance that it must be a worthwhile thing to know.
Literary taste is likewise something I have failed to
cultivate. Though I possess an extensive knowledge of book titles which I
should have read, or which nonetheless have some sort of literary significance;
I have yet to move very far along my list of ‘books I need to read’. Brideshead
Revisted, Wuthering Heights, anything by Hemingway, anything by suitably long deadRussians; the list goes on.
I know of these books, but I haven’t the slightest idea why
they are important, or what the overall gist of their respective stories are.
Is it just me, or has this title always sounded more like a B-grade horror sequel than a literary work?
But the way that the modern world can overtake you is
evident all over the place. I love chess, but I don’t play chess much anymore;
I haven’t cultivated that part of my life anywhere near as much as I would
want. I play with my son occasionally, but in order to fully embrace the game,
I would have to devote far too much time to it. Let’s face it, in these days
where a half hour of chess playing could be replaced with a scroll through
Facebook activities, a read of my Twitter feed, a glance at the latest blog
entries via RSS, a few informative and hilarious videos on YouTube, insightful
commentary from Al-Jazerra or any other activities on the web; the ancient Indian game all but certainly loses the bet.
Or perhaps I can kill two birds with one stone?
On the other hand, if we are to look at Fitz’s quote from a
more modern perspective we might be tempted to dismiss it, or at least diminish
its accusations, as somewhat anachronistic.
After all while it is no doubt true that the majority of the
population will not form a literary taste as such, these days literature is not the only
medium with which people can form a personal philosophical viewpoint.
Nowadays we can devote our attention to the multitude of movies out there, and slowly cultivate a unique cinematic taste, which may very
well help us to plumb the depths of the human condition as much as any literary
viewpoint would. We can similarly turn our attention to the small screen, which
these days exhibits works of such complexity and daring that it is hardly
worthy of the scorn so often associated with devoting time to watching the box.
But if there is any one tool which has emerged out of the
past century as the superlative force in cultivating our own personal beliefs,
tastes and philosophical development, it has to be the Internet.
And it's useful for pictures of people lying face down in various situations......
Nothing else can compare to the net’s ability to pervade
every instance of our personality. You can read books online, turn to articles about
them, read a blog, or take part in a discussion with people from across the
globe. But considering the medium I am using for this message, this should be of no
doubt to anyone reading.
Perhaps this widening of the information sphere is the
reason for my thoughts regarding my own apparent lack in refinement. As there is so
much more available to us in this information age, and our attention spans have been stretched much further
than ever before, we in a sense dilute our tastes over a variety of knowledge
sources never before experienced by anyone at any point in history. In this
sense, a short attention span isn’t the worst thing in the world, for while it
may result in a less thorough approach to whatever is being analysed at the
time, it nevertheless allows for rapid transitions from one source of
attention, knowledge or amusement, to another.
I mean sure I may not have much of an understanding of the great
Russian authors, or the popular British novelists of the past few hundred
years, but thanks to the internet I know such obscure things as the amazing abilities of animal penises, the curious nature of infinite numbers that differ in size and how to make a trebuchet out of office supplies. And this is only a small subset of the much larger experiences I
have garnered from the venerable World Wide Web.
So while Fitzgerald may have been lamenting modern mans aversion to literary and philosophical development and self determination, I think it is somewhat encouraging that today we have a lot more tools available to the everyday man to help them in their quest through life.
That's all for this late night rant dear reader. I hope this makes up for the missed Wednesdays Words last week; whats more I hope someone noticed it was missing.
Good night all.
MM
Oh and on a quick wiki, I see that F. Scott wrote The Great Gatsby. I haven't read it, but luckily come December this year I might not have to...
If there is anything that might top the easy access of information as my main love of the internet, it would have to be the fact that it exposes you to just how freaking hilarious mankind can be. Stroll through any center on the internet that allows commenting and discussion and I bet more than once you will find a little comedy gem slipped in there by some anonymous or obscure user. Here is a nice little comment I stumbled upon years ago when I was looking at an Instructable for building a small origami box (this one I believe). I remember saving the image, and its discovery on an old USB was the catalyst for this mini post.
That was the question put to me by a friend the
other night. There were a few attempts at a jocular answer, but we didn’t take
it very far as we were ourselves in the midst of battle; situated in our own
virtual cockpits in Battlefield 3.
But the question stuck with me, and I had to
find the answer. Luckily the Internet was there to serve as my guide into this
words etymology, so I soon had an answer; and it seemed an answer worth
sharing.
As with many English words, the history of
‘cockpit’ goes back further than you would think, and comes from an origin that
is at the same time odd, but somewhat logical. After all what is the first
thing you think of when you look at the word objectively? It’s made up of cock, and pit; and that’s precisely what the word described back when it was
coined 1580, as a translation from Chinese; a pit that cocks fight in.
Now this might present some odd images when you
consider the cockpits of today, but the world had a few slight twists in
meaning before it arrived where we find it in the dictionary today.
Right between cockle and cockroach.
I have never seen a true cockfight, only
dramatisations on shows like Seinfeld, Family Guy, Samurai Jack and others;
and this is a fact I am quite glad of. I would be happy if I never saw one from
this day on, and the rest of the planet shared in my moratorium, as I hear they
are a dreadful thing to watch if you are a person with a scrap of humanity.
On the lighter side; I am surprised how many quality shows I am able to reference here
But despite my inexperience with these
spectacles in person, I know enough about the bouts to understand why by the
1700’s the term cockpit had evolved to describe not only the bloody arenas
where fowl battled to the death, but also any scene of combat.
It originally found purchase in naval lingo as
the name for the area below decks on a man-o-war where the wounded were
evacuated during battle. Two hundred years later the word would again be
appropriated by a group of military pioneers, this time as aviators in World
War I used it to describe the cramped places these men conducted their portion
of the war effort from. Since then the name has stuck, and thanks to the
commercialisation of air travel and its place within the everyman’s sphere of
knowledge, the word cockpit is now a part of the common vocabulary.
"That's the way to fight a war. Tasty tuck, soft beds and a uniform so smart it's got a PhD from Cambridge" - Lord Flashheart
Just goes to show you that even the most
mundane of things can lead to some pretty interesting revelations now that we
live in the age of instant information.
Hope this tickled your trivia bone just a tad.
If it did, rest assured there will be scads more to come on this blog in the
future.
Hmmmm, I wonder where the word scads came
from.........
