My Domesticated Palate

My wife, son and I recently attended a family dinner for my mother-in-laws birthday. The main event of the night was a lobster based meal, prepared in advance (drawn and quartered in a manner that would impress the English executioners of old) and to the fervent delights of many of the nights attendees.

Alas poor Lobsterheart, you suffer the same fate as William Wallace.

As my wife and I (and consequentially now our son) are ardent opponents of sea foods, we did not take part in the culinary ordeal.
It is quite a thing to watch from the outside as people who are accustomed to it commence taking apart a lobster. The viscera on display, the crunch of exoskeletons, the sucking of innards, the dead eyes of the creature on display and themselves under threat of being devoured; it is a scene more accustomed to narration by David Attenborough than to be witnessed at a dinner table.

Pictured: David Attenborough, not pictured: acceptable human food

We are evidently much more at ease leaving the face and general form of an animal on display so long as its place on the evolutionary tree is sufficiently to the left of us mammals.
My own dislike for any foods pulled unwillingly from the water can trace its genesis back to my mother, who is deathly allergic to any such foods. This is quite unfortunate for my dad, who loves most of what the sea has to offer, from fish and octopi, to squid and lobsters.
As such growing up in this household of opposing tastes was an interesting experience, where every once in a while my dad was either banished to the outdoors where he and my sister would have a seafood smorgasbord, or else my mother and I would be relegated to some other corner of the house, while the dining room was filled with various marine feasts.
And I don’t care what you say, seafood has quite an intrusive, and unpleasant odour. I don’t think my dislike of this smell can be pinned solely on my dislike for the food, as there is something slightly rotten about the smell in general; something all too easily associated with a particularly dirty beach.

Above: How seafood smells to me

But the main reason I bring this up dear reader is because I had an interesting epiphany about my eating habits as I sat at that table watching carapace being crushed with glee.
I only eat domesticated animals.
Bear in mind that I am not being inclusive of the whole set here; that is to say, I don’t eat all domesticated animals (though I do hear that dog is especially delicious). I just mean that all of the animals that I do eat appear to be of the domesticated variety. Cow, pig, sheep, chicken, turkey; these are all species forged by man from their wild ancestors.

Wild Turkey.... I prefer a nice scotch.

But if you look at the nature of seafood, and the creatures on the menu, you will seldom find anything that can be genuinely called domesticated.
What’s that you say? There are lobster farms. Well yes, you are correct (gold star), but animals can be farmed without being domesticated. Domestication involves artificial selection by humans that results in a genetic change of the population; so that the new animals are fundamentally different from those at the beginning. Animals can be farmed without this selection process influencing the population, and this is what is done with fish, lobsters et cetera.
I mentioned earlier the fact that seafood is generally displayed in a lot more confronting way that its terrestrial counterpart, with heads on display, superfluous body parts remaining unbutchered, and sometime the whole animal remaining on your plate. Now, one of the more obvious properties of an animal domesticated for food is the enlarging of these eatable areas, and the general ‘softening’ or the rest of the animal. Thus we can hack off steaks, and chicken fillets with ease, but perhaps a fish, or lobster are less advantaged by the fact that their physiological structure has not been altered by the thousands of years of animal husbandry that turned the beastly Auroch, into the manageably corpulent Friesian.

I busted out my MS Paint skills to give this comparison of the Auroch's size to that of a modern cow.

Evidently the barrier of water between us and our fishy prey is enough to hold off mans domesticating advances. Sure nowadays we do have fish farms, and a couple of domesticate fish varieties, but these things have a long way to go before they can match the variety and specialisation of our more celebrated domestications.

So I was very interested when I came to note this property of my eating habits. Previously I had maintained that I would only eat an animal that swam solely to escape the water; an animal which if thrown in the water, would not feel at home.
Now I have a slightly better basis to explain my eating habits; I don’t eat wild animals.
This is more likely than not a by-product of my aversion to eating meat at a philosophical level, but my inability to stop eating meat at a “it just tastes so damn good” level.
But what the hell, I am willing to take this explanation at face value, and deal with the further implications another day.

MM

In The Courier

I have been a pretty regular commenter on The Courier's website this past couple of years. It’s a great way to interact with those in your community [I was going to say ‘especially the crazy people in the community', until I saw the double edge to that sword], and I had even managed to have a few of my comments cross over into the physical world when they were published in the Web Words section of the paper, which was nice.

But last week for the first time I noticed as I was typing one of my replies to a particularly inane Letter to the Editor, that its length was growing to well above what would fit in the meagre comment box provided. Rather than trim and cull sections as I usually do, I decided to submit this as my first ever Letter to the Editor.

It got in, despite its lengthy rant, and gave me a warm feeling for the day. I had a couple of people come by my desk at work and mention it, and all seemed to agree with my points, and claimed I wrote a nice piece. I was pretty wrapped, but was disheartened when it failed to appear on the internet as well.

How would I know what the public thought if I didn’t get any comments of my own?

What would the SvetlanaBabe’s, My Thought’s and Clint’s of Ballarat think of my letter?

I was not to know.

As a result I decided to chuck it up here, starting with the letter that was the catalyst for my response, so that at least somewhere there was a sense of continuity.

So here is the post by a Mister Phillip Slade; those of you in the audience who are averse to sloppy arguments, rash generalisations and fuzzy rationale, look away now.

Display of Australian flags disappointing31 Jan, 2012 02:57 PMI MUST say on seeing the omnipresent display of flags in and around Ballarat on Australia Day, I felt a sense of disappointment for the bearers of those flags. 

There was a time when we as a nation did not need to display a flag — other than at ceremonies and sporting events — to affirm our patriotism. 

We should therefore ask ourselves where this sudden inclination to air our nationalistic fervour comes from. 

Could it be a manifestation of John Howard's dog whistle politics? ("We shall decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come ..." — code for we will keep the foreigners out). 

And the multiplication of flags is acknowledgement of a perverted call to arms that still, to this very day, has an odious impact on those not fully sure of who or what they are, and in turn makes all refugees and immigrants feel marginalised. 

Phillip Slade 

Ballarat

I am not sure about you guys, but that post really made me want to say something in return. The article touches on a lot of things as it rambles aimlessly along: the objections people have shown in recent years to Australian flags, hostility toward Australia Day in general, it’s got a hint of conservatism, but also of out of control liberalism, it mentions nationalism, Howard, Refugees, immigrants; enough buzz words to incense someone no matter what quadrant of the political spectrum they find themselves

I don’t feel my reply needs any introduction, as it takes off in direct opposition to the above letter. Enjoy:

Just because our flag can be misappropriated, does not mean it should be hidden.

Phillip Slade’s letter to the editor (Display of Australian flags disappointing,31 Jan) in which he bemoans the ubiquitous Australian flags on Australia Day seems to highlight a man missing the point. 

Australia Day is a day to celebrate your nation, and what better way to display this than with the symbol of our nation; the Australian flag? To do so doesn’t have any underlying isolationist meaning as Phil suggests. 

He says “There was a time when we as a nation did not need to display a flag — other than at ceremonies and sporting events — to affirm our patriotism”. That may well be true, but it doesn’t make it right. How people displayed their love for Australia in the past doesn’t condemn us to the same solemn practises today. 

Contrary to Phil’s assertion, I believe we can safely celebrate Australia without fear of ostracising refugees or immigrants. Indeed I would think it quite the opposite; we should be celebrating Australia and showing these groups the true mettle of our nation. A nation that helps others and that was built by immigrants. 

Remember an immigrant is still an Australian, and if a refugee is successful in their citizenship, then so are they. They should feel no more marginalised by the display of Australian flags, then they do by the existence of an Australia Day. 

Just because some people can take our flag, and drape it over their shoulders whilst they commit crimes in a race riot, does not mean that the flag itself, or the ideals it carries, follow too. The Australian flag can be appropriated by those who think of Australia as ‘theirs’ and not available to outsides. It can be adopted by nationalistic bigots, but it doesn’t belong to them.I personally don’t fly a flag on Australia day, or any other day. I am not an overtly patriotic man, though I love the country I live in, I don’t hold it higher than any other man-made institution. But if others choose to I don’t look down on them, or feel ashamed at their Aussie zeal. 

My son is five and he loves waving a flag on Australia day because he thinks it is a great place to live in, and at the end of the day we shouldn’t take this away from him just because it can be likewise waved by those with more nefarious intent.

So then, what do you think? Yes, a bit of an all over the place rant, but I think I manage to pull off a better letter than Slade did, so I'm happy enough.

Also, as I was reading up on Schopenhauer for my last post, I came across this quote of his dealing with national pride. As is usual for the cranky German, he doesn’t have much nice to say about it, and I don’t quite agree with all its precepts. But it is a nice way to think of how those extreme ‘Australian Pride’ people might be falling back on their nationalistic views in order to make up for what seems to be an obvious faltering of their own character.

“The cheapest form of pride however is national pride. For it betrays in the one thus afflicted the lack of individual qualities of which he could be proud, while he would not otherwise reach for what he shares with so many millions. He who possesses significant personal merits will rather recognise the defects of his own nation, as he has them constantly before his eyes, most clearly. But that poor beggar who has nothing in the world of which he can be proud, latches onto the last means of being proud, the nation to which he belongs to. Thus he recovers and is now in gratitude ready to defend with hands and feet all errors and follies which are its own.” - Arthur Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer: it surprises me not that he was convicted for battering an old lady once....

It’s funny; first of all I was intent with my comments making it on to The Courier’s website simply under the articles I was commenting on, then I became excited when they were taken from the net and printed in the paper as Web Words. But now I find myself slightly annoyed that what I wrote made it straight into the paper, bypassing the electronic world I had originally resided in!

Anyhow, now I have that off my chest, I think this post has come to an end.

Let me know what you think in the comments, cheers.

MM

Wednesday's Words - Week 2

Second installment of Wednesdays Words and I already find myself running behind! Its barely still Wednesday, and I have no post on the go. I shall blame this on the pitiful quotes to choose from (“Buildings should be good neighbours” – Paul Thiry; really? Should cars be pen pals as well?).

Anyhow, I have found one worthy quote from the list that I will do my best to write a quick spiel on before the p.m. moves to a.m.

“Newspapers are the second hand of history. This hand, however, is usually not only of inferior metal to the other hands, it also seldom works properly.” - Arthur Schopenhauer

Meet Arthur Schopenhauer. For those of you who don’t know him, he is the pessimistic philosopher who gave us such gems as “Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex”, “ If we were not all so interested in ourselves, life would be so uninteresting that none of us would be able to endure it”, and "Almost all of our sorrows spring out of our relations with other people".
But as grim and sexist as some of his thoughts may be, the man did have a keen mind when it was employed in more rationale pursuits, and his philosophical writing (though over 152 years old), is refreshingly easy to read. Especially for a philosopher.

His above quote I like good enough as it is, but I also think the thought behind it would go well updated a bit for our modern era.
Newspapers, though they aren’t dead yet, have definitely been overtaken in terms of currency as a source of projecting the news of the day. Indeed, its no longer sufficient to have our news delivered daily, we need it hourly, by the minute, or updated by the second. This is the age of Twitter after all, and if you lumber behind, saving your well thought out articles for 24 hour increments, you are sure to be scooped.

Perhaps the quote is best altered by a quick reallocation of positions. Lets call newspapers the minute hand of history; slow enough to appear immobile at times, yet quick enough to notice as events move on. Perhaps the hour hand would be symbolised by more permanent and steadfast forms of the written word; by books.
So now we find the second hand of history moving much closer in sync with the flow of time in the real world; where news can be read pretty much as it happens. Whether it be the instant dissemination of recent deaths, the ability to run revolutions on the ground, or even the inadvertent tweeting of significant world events; we don't wait to hear about things the next day.

But this rapid news hand of the metaphorical clock has its faults still, and as Schopenhauer mentioned, its metal is hardly the metal of its fellow hands. As the ability to report things moves into the hands of everyday people, its quality is likewise diluted (if you don't believe me, just look at the blog you are reading; written by a man with no discernible qualifications).
Sometimes I cant help but feel that the tendency of news and events to form a self perpetuating loop these days is all the more increased as the spread of information becomes easier, and more wide-spread. News is news simply because it is news. The more people report on speculation, the more weight that the speculation seems to have. It is a worry when things can become so distorted, where news and information can spread so fast and unverified, whilst our mindsets are still set in days where we put stock in such things.
How often do you hear of Twitter and 'social media' being quoted on the news, or of the number of hits a YouTube video received, without any proper context being given (is a million hits really lending credibility here?).
The new second hand of history moves so fast and so erratically that people confuse it with the more steady motions of the minute hand. But at the end of the day, I am still much more entertained by the history this clock reveals, that I was before it developed.


Anyhow, this post didn't really have much of a point, nor much of an end; I just thought it an interesting concept.
Good night all.
MM

Censorship Rumblings in the World’s Biggest Democracy

Worrying and disappointing news from the sub-continent today.

It appears that a court in New Delhi has given 22 internet based companies (including heavyweights such as Google, Facebook, YouTube and Blogspot) two weeks to present plans for policing their various networks for photographs, videos or text that they deem to be “anti-religious or anti-social”.

Google India already began their cull of sites on Monday, not citing any specific examples of what was taken down, but asserting that it would be “willing to go after anything that violated local law or its own standards”.

India has always been a somewhat conservative country, so it isn't surprising to see its official’s religious views finding their way into their professional duties. But for a country that is hoping to use the information technology boon to help raise the living standards of its 1.2 billion strong population, such conservative religious views are invariably going to become a hindrance.

But it isn’t just the idea of censorship that gets me worried when reading about this latest development, but rather the odd rationale those in support of it employ and the dangerous arguments that are used to justify it.

Rationale such as this:

“Indian political leaders in support of the new rules say that their socially-conservative country has a long history of religious division and that publishing offensive material online presents a public danger.”

Now hang on here. Surely the greater public danger is the fact that such ‘religious division’ can be so readily counted upon as a source for reliable future violence. You shouldn’t seek to combat violent religious retaliations toward freedom of expression by halting the expression; you do it by countering those who not only silence people by force and the threat of violence, but who also seek to forestall anything that may offend their religious sensibilities from ever seeing the light of day.

This is the kind of dangerous argument and rationale that I am referring to; focusing not on the cause of the problem, but on seeking to avoid the problem by placating those who so readily turn to violence.

It’s like telling your kid not to behave a certain way, because then bullies will pick on them. No. You behave how you want to (provided it doesn’t hurt others), and be damned the consequences! It is the bullies who need to be confronted, and their way of behaving changed.

Unfortunately for us, the bullies in this real life example won’t change, and their claim to injury is purely in their minds. Injuries like this can be as capricious as they like, because they cause no real tangible harm, and they have no way of being quantified, so that those who claim to suffer for it, can do so with impunity and vigour.

Such claims should not only not be taken seriously, but also put under scrutiny as their origin is generally a hidden motivation, and not just a response to outside influence (as real injuries are).

Internet access in India is relatively uncensored, especially in contrast to its northern neighbour China. But the Indian Communications Minister Sachin Pilot, displayed a worrying understanding of what censorship entails when he sought to assure people that "there is no question of any censorship" relating to this new court decision, but that at any rate all internet companies “have to operate within the laws of the country”.

So there is no question of censorship, you just have to obey the laws that detail what you can, and cannot display on the internet in that country. So while the internet is relatively uncensored, the groundwork is being laid for a form of censorship to be enacted.

Further justifying the new rulings, the Communications Minister said “Anyone hurt by online content should be able to seek legal redress”. Really?

The idea of being hurt by online content sounds remarkably like a category mistake to me. The form of hurt he refers to here is simply that of sensibilities, and isn’t something that the state need to be in charge of policing.

The government however further claims that it has evidence regarding 21 sites it plans on prosecuting for the rather dubious offenses of “promoting enmity between classes and causing prejudice to national integration”.

Again, they are treating the wrong thing here when they focus on sites that promote enmity between classes, but in this case they should be looking at why class warfare in India remains at the state it is in.

"We must stop people being offended by this caste problem. Perhaps if we censor the sign......."  - Faulty rationale

One wonders what this same style of online censorship would yield in Australia. Perhaps if I took enough offense, I wouldn't have to see Facebook pages exclaiming “Refugees go Home”, or other such xenophobic nonsense. Though I don’t think I would be so lucky, as no doubt the conservative religious forces in Australia would outdo me in their ability to be offended by things that don’t affect them directly (like perhaps gay people being married or the ridicule of mythical Bible characters).

Ouch! Can you feel the hurt that this offensive images exudes?

In case you were wondering what (beyond the mere possibility of offending sensitive people) has spurred on this recent move by the Indian Government, take a look at the examples that were recently brought to its attention.

The Associated Press reported that “Indian officials have been incensed by material insulting to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, ruling Congress party leader Sonia Gandhi and religious groups, including illustrations showing Singh and Gandhi in compromising positions and pigs running through Mecca, Islam's holiest city”.

Shocking stuff indeed! Insulting politicians; how dare they.

The thought bubble octopus really makes me wish I read Hindi.

We should be worried when those in the public eye, in particular elected individuals, seek to be excised as a target for public satire, criticism and ridicule. But then again this same tactic was used for centuries to ensure that religions, in particular their adherents and their earthly institutions, were rendered immune to criticism; so perhaps we should not be so surprised.


These new capitulations by the government of India to those who seek offense (and I say seek, because offense seldom forces your participation) are already being capitalised upon by some Indian Muslims, who show the lengths they are willing to go to in order to try and stifle any opposition to their authoritarian worldview. Take a look at this quote from the same article mentioned above:

“Prosecutors, who sued on behalf of a Muslim religious leader who accused companies of hosting pages that disparage Islam, said they would provide the companies with all relevant documents. The court gave the companies 15 more days to report back”

So not only are the sites offensive, but those hosting them will find themselves squarely in the crosshairs of intolerance. This form of multilevel oppression is not uncommon from fundamentalist Muslims who find offense in the most banal of places. Just look at the furore that surroundedthe release of Salmon Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses in 1988, not only was the author himself threatened (and driven underground for years), but so to were “all those involved in its publication”. In the end this resulted in the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher.

For a more contemporary example, witness the anger that accompanied the printing of cartoons involving Mohammed in an obscure Danish newspaper, way back in 2005; you will see that thought the times change, the mindsets of those stuck in the Middle Ages remain steadfast.

Commenting on Islam’s prohibition of picturing Mohammed in their art, and their abstinence of things like pork, alcohol and in some cases music and dancing, Christopher Hitchens remarked “Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent.”

The Hitch may be dead, but his awesome words remain.

Surrendering to the possible offense of others isn’t just a slippery slope; it is an invitation for further advance. After all how can you be certain to remove all possible offensive actions? The only way to make certain that you will not offend others is to become what they want you to be. The only way to not offend a fundamentalist Christian is to believe in their version of the Bible, and attest as they do. The only human that would not offend a fundamentalist Muslim is one that adheres to their faith, and follows the rules they believe.

There is a simple solution to those who are offended by things they see on the internet, and it isn’t to sue the individuals who put it there, nor is it to block the apparently offensive materials, or kill those responsible.
It is to simply not look at it.

Your offense, as I have mentioned in previous posts, is your own personal thing to deal with. It’s not something people have to surrender to without recourse to rational debate.

Sure there might be examples of things we want to ban from the internet without it necessarily turning into censorship. We should do all we can to eliminate the perfusion of child porn on the internet for instance.

But to ban things from the internet just because they might cause offense to others goes one step too far. It concedes a fight with the very people we should be glad to fight against. It is a step back against the forces of intolerance that will never reciprocate for us any form of concession on their behalf.

Rant complete, let me know what you think in the comments below.

MM

No Weakening on the New Atheism Front

I have been following the development over at Russell Blackford's blog Metamagician and the Hellfire Club (easily one of the best blog names I have come across) of an argument taking places at various places across the net about how the 'New Atheists' present themselves, specifically how they are thought of as shrill, strident and unwavering.
In particular today I was directed towards this particular article in the Daily Mail online.
Reading over the article by this George Pitcher guy, I can’t help but notice the same mistakes in reasoning that are made so often by people that are tackling atheists, but don’t seem to understand them.
I am going to go through this article with my objections as they appear in the order they are presented, as there seem to be a few I have noticed upon a quick scan of the piece.
Let the rant begin!

“Just before he died, Christopher Hitchens expressed some generous sympathy for the Christian worldview, much to the evident frustration of his interlocutor Richard Dawkins.”

First of all, let's dispel anything akin to a deathbed confession right now. He did not express this form of sentiment, nor did Dawkins express a sense of frustration. This one is just a downright lie, as Hitchens himself was not only an atheist, but a proud anti-theist; not to mention that Dawkins refuted his supposed frustration on his own website.
Next Pitcher mentions the recently prominent views of philosopher Alain de Botton who he says “had his own transfiguration moment the other day when he proposed a "temple to atheism", because (I think) he acknowledges a human capacity for transcendance.”
De Botton is copping a lot of flak due to his recent calls for a ‘religion of Atheism’, or as he calls it, Atheism 2.0. I seen his book in a shop today, titled Religion for Atheists, and was tempted to buy it, were it not for the $35 price tag. Usually this wouldn’t deter me from a book I want, though in this case as my desire stems not from wanting to read it, but rather wanting to disagree with it; I decided to keep my money for the time being.

His next book, 'Sex Positions for the Celibate'.

I could rant about this guy’s ideas for ages, but I will try and give a quick digest in order to thin this post a bit. Basically de Botton seems to think that us atheists shouldn’t dismiss the virtues of religions, but rather that we need to adopt the better of them in order to fit our atheism. This is why he suggests the creation of an atheist temple, and atheist rituals; as he believes that such congregations and pointless ceremonies are an undeniable human need, or have benefits that override their downfalls. I on the other hand think that us godless few can handle a bit of socialising on our own accords and prefer my secular ‘rituals’ to be a by-product of my personality, rather than any pre-scripted nonsense.

A simple ritual, but I am quite devout in this sense.

But beyond my disagreements with de Botton’s religious atheism, I also don’t like the way that his views are presented in the article I am discussing.
Pitcher seems to suggest that he is acknowledging something that is inherent to theism, or at any rate antithetical to atheism, when he says that “he [de Botton] acknowledges a human capacity for transcendance”. Not only is this an ill-defined term, but it is something which if looked at from an atheists point of view, can be explained rationally without recourse for supernatural beings, or platitudes towards religions seemingly inexplicable ‘ownership’ of transcendence.
I think, as is often the case, that our vocabulary is filled with many religious sounding terms that can easily be related to secular counterparts, without the godlessness losing any of its validity.
For instance I can use the word soul in conversation without needing to concede that this falls from the purview of an atheists worldview. I can say that in my soul I know something, or that someone else has a gentle soul, and still sit firmly in the material world, describing purely naturalistic phenomena.
So I don’t see why someone accepting the human capacity for transcendence in is any way a kowtow to religion. Indeed Sam Harris is quite the proponent of transcendence, or spirituality, whilst remaining a strident atheist. Even Hitchens himself speaks of the numinous without it retaining any theistic flair.

"If we could find a way of enforcing the distinction between the numinous and the superstitious, we would be doing something culturally quite important." 

Moving on.
The article then turns to Sir David Attenborough, who was recently quoted as saying that “I don't think an understanding and an acceptance of the four billion-year-long history of life is any way inconsistent with a belief in a supreme being”. A statement which I agree with, but only on the grounds of the words being used in specific circumstances. The author however takes things a few steps further, in suggesting that by this admission he is conceding that “that there might, after all, be a God”. There is even a caption of the venerable naturalist which reads: “broadcaster David Attenborough told Kirsty Young that a belief in evolution is not incompatible with religion”.
Now my problem with this sloppy bit of reasoning is that it makes unwarranted leaps from supreme beings, to God (note the capital ‘G’ there), and then from there on to religion.
To say that the acceptance of the four billion-year-long history of life isn’t inconsistent with a belief in a supreme being is not a direct reference to religion, nor is it speaking of the Christian God. I would agree that there are forms of religion out there that can easily fit the current model of evolution as we know it, but they are hardly the main stream brand. For instance Attenborough only applies this compatibility with a supreme being; he doesn’t state what supreme being, or what properties they have.
For instance, the history of evolution as we know it today could be explained by a creator god who started life of billions of years ago, and just let things be. A deist god if you will. But this would seemingly be inconsistent with a personal god, who loves people, and abhors suffering; as this way of life is precisely what the natural world excels in (“Nature, red in tooth and claw” - Tennyson).
For a better understanding of how Attenborough feels when people posit the idea of a loving god, I would refer to this quote of his:

“I often get letters, quite frequently, from people who say how they like the programmes a lot, but I never give credit to the almighty power that created nature. To which I reply and say, "Well, it's funny that the people, when they say that this is evidence of the Almighty, always quote beautiful things. They always quote orchids and hummingbirds and butterflies and roses." But I always have to think too of a little boy sitting on the banks of a river in west Africa who has a worm boring through his eyeball, turning him blind before he's five years old. And I reply and say, "Well, presumably the God you speak about created the worm as well," and now, I find that baffling to credit a merciful God with that action. And therefore it seems to me safer to show things that I know to be truth, truthful and factual, and allow people to make up their own minds about the moralities of this thing, or indeed the theology of this thing.”

Bam!

This over liberal linkage of supreme being, God and religion is a sign of a very sloppy understanding of the debates atheists face every day. An atheist doesn't simply face down a religion, or one particular god (in this case, the capital ‘G’ one). Rather we have to deal with every religion, and every god, we have to have arguments that explain why we don’t believe in the Christian god who created the earth 6000 years ago, but also why we lack belief in the Christian god whose hand merely guided evolution to bring us about. We have to deal with concepts of supreme beings, omniscient beings, and more importantly for this example, omni-benevolent beings; of which Attenborough clearly believes is inconsistent with the past four billion years of life on earth.

“Those of us of religious faith need to concede that atheists might be right, however much we believe that they are not. And, by the same token, unbelievers, such as Attenborough and de Botton, need to affirm that we might be right - and they variously and increasingly are, by their words and deeds”

This paragraph highlights an interesting point that needs to be understood by those entering the theism/atheism debate. Namely the degrees of certainty that people claim to have. I am an agnostic-atheist, because as suggested above; I don’t know that there is no god, but I don’t believe there is. Likewise there are gnostic-atheists, who claim to ‘know’ there is no god; gnostic-theists, who ‘know’ there is one; and agnostic-theists, who don’t know for certain, but believe there is (as Pitcher seems to be). However in the article he seems to be suggesting that until now, atheists like Dawkins, with their ‘militant’ brand of 'in-your-face atheism', have been somehow driving forward the view that gnostic-atheism is the only way to go.
Anyone who had actually read Dawkins book on atheism would know that he doesn’t claim to know that there is no god, and is himself a form of agnostic-atheist (he even delineated a scale asserting such in the book). Indeed I would wager that any atheist worth their salt, or of a scientific or philosophical background, would attest similar.
Just because we need to concede that theists ‘might’ be right, does not mean that we need to declare the fact ad nauseum. After all if we needed to argue in such a way about other things we believed, we would need to accept the possibility that man didn’t land on the moon, that JFK was killed by a time travelling version of himself (thank you Red Dwarf), that the world is flat, et cetrera. After all, these claims cant be known to a 100% certainty if we are to accept the possibilities that things like inference aren’t reliable, and our senses cant be trusted.
We could do all this, but then we would hardly find the time to argue anything.

“The narrow and rather meaningless argument to which Dawkins confines himself is the incessant charge that there is no "evidence" for God. And evidence, of course, is defined only within the strictures of his own empirical scientism. The problem is that faith isn't primarily evidential, as he demands it to be, but revelatory - and we would claim no less true for all that in explaining the human condition.”

I had a nice rant in store for this, but then I decided to save some space by putting this somewhat ironic quote from Nietzsche instead:

“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Pitcher closes off his article with what I assume he thinks is a positive note, as he welcomes the supposed emergence of a 'New Atheists Lite'.

“The shrill voice of Dawkins is gradually being marginalised by those of no more faith than him, but who nevertheless perceive mystery in humanity and, while not accepting the presence of God in the world, are prepared to face in the same direction as the rest of us and stand in awe and wonder.”

I often wonder if the religious people who deride Dawkins for his ‘shrill’ demeanour have ever heard the man talk at length, or read his books. He is after all quite a gentle sounding man, who goes out of his way to be polite to those who generally don’t extend the same courtesy his way. Indeed I think if you applied his way of arguing against religion to other topics, would would see how much people want to afford their faith a higher standing than other topics on offer.

At the end of the day I think that though atheism has a much more public image than it did in previous decades, it nevertheless remains quite misunderstood by those who seek to combat it. There is a difference between arguing your atheism adamantly, and asserting its truth. I am an atheist, and will talk your ear off for ages if you let me about why this is, why I think religions are wrong, and hurtful or whatever. But I am not claiming that I know for certain these things are true, any more than I claim to know anything with 100% certainty. Indeed all I can claim in this regard are my beliefs, which is why I feel secure calling myself an atheist, and not trying to hide behind the label of agnostic.

Anyhow, it is getting well into the morning here, and i need to cut this rant off before it consumes too much of my sleep time.
I hope it was somewhat enjoyable.
Good night.
MM

Junk Food, Kids and Junk TV

I read an article at Lifehacker recently about a Cancer Council website which ranks the shows on television using a 'junk meter' that purports to categorise how much junk food is advertised in association with these shows.
Here is a screengrab of the worst contenders:

I don't know the methodology behind the 'Junk Rating', but surely they could have gone up to ten?

I must say I am not surprised at the way this looks. I asked my wife to have a guess at what the worst ones were, and she guessed correctly that reality shows would make a decent showing on the list, along with sports. Its not really shocking to note that kids movies also fare about the same (Kung Fu Panda and The Simpsons Movie are the ones mentioned up there^).
One thing that did surprise me a little (or at least would have if I wasn't already suspicious of their motivations), was Sunrise's inclusion in the worst offenders group. Sunrise which so often positions itself as a respectful commenter on such issues as childhood obesity, or undesirable things happening in our society. David Koch and Melissa Doyle like to hold themselves up pretty high as crusaders against the more nefarious and undesirable things out there at work against their idea of a more wholesome lifestyle. Yet here we see that given their prominent placing in the time-slot likely to catch kids on their way to school, they are far from living up to this ideal.
One would also think that the kids watching Sunrise are also a somewhat begrudging audience, having to put up with this at the imposition of their parents. I too remember similar forced news consumption as a kid; but at least back then it was news, and not whatever it is you call these morning shows.
Anyhow, that mini-rant aside, I actually like the idea behind this site; to help raise awareness of junk food advertising is I think a good thing. But I worry that doing so justifies the view that junk food advertising is one of the main problems associated with childhood obesity, when surely the parents letting their kids have junk food should be cited as a major contributing factor. At the end of the day, you are responsible for what your kid eats.

I was going to add an amusing picture of an obese child here, until I realised that I couldn't find such a thing, only tragic ones.

The site for instance says that if junk food advertising wasn't bombarding our kids during their favourite shows then "A trip to the supermarket wouldn’t be a battle between parents and kids who want the latest snack or the free toy that was advertised during their favourite show". And then there is this slightly dubious claim; "Parents have the right to know what TV is feeding their kids so that they can make the best decisions for their family". I mean I get it, but this kind of a tool would only really be useful for the kind of parent who lets their children be the primary provider of their own sustenance. And lets face it, if you cant override your child in the supermarket, then what choice do you have overriding them in what television shows they watch?

Though if the did do their own shopping, it would be pretty cute...

Then purpose of the guide is given as: "So you can [...] find out what your kids are consuming on TV and make healthier viewing choices". Again, I can see good intentions, and benefits in the site, but I think it is being presented in the wrong manner. You shouldn't use this information to just make people watch a different show, but in order to affect changes in the programming more directly, whether it be through government regulation or some other (nicer) means. But to just try and get your kids to watch different shows, when you cant even stop them from haranguing you at the supermarket, seems a bit futile.

That website again was: http://www.fatfreetv.com.au/

Wednesday's Words - Week 1

Welcome to the first installment of my hopefully weekly Wednesdays Words. The basic aim here is to spur me on in my blogging with a weekly commitment, based around my thoughts of one of the weeks daily quotes supplied dutifully by my trusty desk calendar.
So then, here goes......

“When the time is right, the answers will come” – P.K. Shaw

I chose this inaugural quote out of the seven available to me this week not because I agree with it, but because of the rant which it inspired.
I am not a fan of this quote, as I don’t like mysterious agents being invoked that ensure everything will be ‘just fine’. To say that answers will come at some mystically appointed right time doesn’t gel with me as I don’t believe there is any all powerful being at work putting our lives together. To believe such a thing raises some seriously disturbing questions regarding people whose lives were lived in less than desirable circumstances.

Destiny either isn't real, or its indifferent

But I do see the benefits in getting people to be positive about the future, particularly when it comes to the uneasy fact that it is full of unknowns. However rather than invoking some predestined path set out for you in an uncertain future, I prefer to look at the possibilities inherent in this seemingly random future.
The late founder of Apple, Steve Jobs, once gave a commencement speech to a group of students beginning their tenure at university which I previously blogged on here. In it he goes over a similar concept to that which I have been discussing (unknown paths leading into the future), that I think really hits the nail on the head.
First a little background.
After officially dropping out of his university course, the young Steve Jobs decided to hang around campus for a bit and take part in things that he was previously unable to, due to course commitments. Reed College apparently had the best calligraphy instruction available in the United States at the time, and the beautifully scripted labels and posters around the college grounds piqued Jobs’ interest. He enrolled in the class and developed an appreciation for the importance of typography in graphical representation. His early exposure to things like font families, serif versus sans-serif and proportional spacing was something that Jobs would later draw upon when developing the early Apple computers, which were among the first personal computers to display text in anything other than a monospaced, generic font.

Yes that's right, its an apple.....

Jobs mentioned this in his address to those students’ years ago to help highlight the uncertainty of our future, but also the importance of what we are doing, and of not disregarding where we are just because we don’t know where it will take us. He summed up the crux of his argument in the closing statement of this portion of his speech.

“Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college, but it was very, very clear looking backwards 10 years later. Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward. You can only connect them looking backwards, so you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something--your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever--because believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart, even when it leads you off the well-worn path, and that will make all the difference.”

You need to trust in something, not because there is something out there working for you (as in karma, destiny, gods, or whatever), but because in trusting that there is something out there for you, you are implicitly trusting in yourself. Jobs mentioned it himself when he says that such trust in the future gives you confidence, regardless of what you ground it in. I would go a step further and say it is better to place your trust in yourself, and your own faculties, rather than in some possibly existent third party.
Don’t just trust in the future because you believe it has been laid out before you; trust in yourself because you are the one who will actually do it!
If the future were fixed, if there was some destiny out there with Mathew James Morton written on it, I am not so sure I would want it. If there was something out there withholding the answers from me until the right time came along, I don’t think I would cheerfully take them when said time did arrive.
The enlightenment taught us that human agency was where we should place our bets, not on some higher power, whatever form it may take. Trusting in foreordained events and personal destinies was so widely believed in the past that in the event of a shipwreck, people would clamber over whomever stood between them and safety, believing that God had already decided who lived and who died.
Accepting human agency as the driving force in our lives means we don’t sit around waiting for answers; we go out and find them. We don’t wait to see where our path in life takes us; we walk boldly ahead in the unknown knowing that though our path isn’t part of some divine plan, it is nevertheless our path to make, and our privilege to forge it.
I am going to close this post with a quote which I may have already recently mentioned (though I can’t remember), but which all the same seems to fit well with the topic.

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” – Soren Kierkegaard

I hope that you enjoyed this first installment of Wednesdays Words. I think it went quite well, but I have the niggling thought at the back of my mind that this is a somewhat lame attempt at regularity.
Please let me know what you think in the comments; I crave your approval!
MM