The Atheist Blogger

What I would have given to have had Clifford Stoll as a science teacher back when I was at school! The man seems to bask in his hyperactive mind, constantly switching from subject to subject in this 18 minute presentation he gave at TED a few years ago. The whole thing is bizarrely easy to follow given the format (or should that be non-format), and is highly entertaining.

Dave Gorman is a British comedian who rose to fame after he travelled the world looking for people who shared his name (literally asking people “Are you Dave Gorman?”). This video is from a show he did covering another wacky idea of his, where he went in search for various Googlewacks (a two word search term that returns only one result). In it, he recants how he got a rather unusual tattoo after a night out drinking in Austin, Texas.

Finally, two videos from Eddie Izzard, a famous comedian and atheist. Parodying religion is a regular occurrence in his shows, and in my opinion he is second only to the great George Carlin at this. The first video covers religion in general, especially the formation of the Church of England.

The second video is a hilarious take on the Genesis story, starring James Mason as God, and Sean Connery as Noah.

On Valentine’s day, I took 3 of my student group up to London in order to protest the Vatican’s interfering in Italian politics, and their general views on women and homosexuality. It was a great day out, and we managed to attact quite a few protestors for the march, which started at the Natural History Museum, and ended at the Italian Embassy. It was great to meet some famous people there, like the political activist Peter Tatchell (who performed a citizen’s arrest on Robert Mugabe twice), and the President of the National Secular Society, Terry Sanderson.

As promised, I took loads of photos, and those of you who have me on Facebook can simply view the two albums there. For those who don’t use Facebook or haven’t added me, I have installed a cool plugin for the blog that makes my facebook albums available through a special gallery. If you wait for the entire page to finish loading before clicking on anything, each picture should appear in a nifty JavaScript viewer which you can use the arrow keys to move through.

Album 1 (60 photos)

Album 2 (22 photos)

My student group is currently planning a trip to the Darwin Exhibition at the Natural History Museum, which we will hopefully do next weekend, although tickets are selling out faster than we originally thought, so we may have to do it in early March.

Apparently there is no limit to how low Catholics will sink to defend their crackers. After PZ Myers desecrated a cracker back in July, he received numerous emails expressing hate, including some death threats. Then, when a Canadian guy started posting videos of Eucharist desecration under the name “fsmdude” on YouTube, he received the same sort of thing. A Catholic also found out where he lived, and wrote a letter to his father, prompting him to take down his videos.

Crackergate continued though, and police showed up at fsmdude’s house one night. They had received reports that fsmdude might have a gun and was planning to murder children at a local school. fsmdude has a series of 3 videos re-enacting the talk he had to have with the police, which included him having to explain what “FSM” meant, and why Pastafarianism wasn’t a dangerous cult.

Seriously though, if Catholics want to defend their God, I have no problems with that. Just don’t make up blatent lies that accuse someone of being a terrorist. That is so low it’s actually sickening.

I had an interesting conversation with an atheist friend on mine over IM the other day. They were arguing that scientists who had religious beliefs couldn’t be “full” scientists because of their irrational belief systems. I pointed out that this accusation was bordering on the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy, because it doesn’t properly consider the definitions involved.

Firstly, a scientist is someone who furthers human knowledge by experimentation and observation. Of course this definition does not quite cover it, as it can also mean someone who uses the scientific method (observing, forming hypothesis, testing, forming theories etc.). The question remains is how some people can fit religion into this picture.

I argued that the majority of theistic scientists find ways to separate their religious beliefs from their science. They understand that their work reflects the observable world, and maintain that their religion reflects the unobservable. Others hold that without their religious beliefs, none of what they do would make any sense. They claim that the world just makes more sense with a God in the picture. I can understand this viewpoint, although obviously I disagree with them.

My friend countered that there were also scientists who did not fit in the above category. People like Michael Behe or Guillermo Gonzalez certainly do not hide their religious beliefs, even if they try desperately to in order to force I.D into public schools in America. However, even in these cricumstances I would say Behe and Gonzalez are “true” scientists. Sure, they might contribute some wacky ideas to the scientific community, but they have in the past contributed some good ideas (in order to get to where they are in the first place). Anyway, the whole point of science is to separate the wrong ideas from the right ones. Of course both Behe and Gonzalez are very unscientific in their denial that I.D is all but dead and buried in terms of actual scientific accuracy.

In the end, we agreed to disagree on the subject. My friend couldn’t see how scientists can be so rational at work and so irrational in their own time, but I guess you’d have to ask a theistic scientist that. I know Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic, so I guess that means he thinks God sent his son down in the form of the most advanced species on Earth. To me (and all atheists I presume) this makes absolutely no logical sense, but it does make for interesting conversation.

I get tired of Americans always claiming that we have it “so good” over here because we are such a secular country. In reality however, I think America is more secular. Your constitution restricts the government from making a national religion^[1]; in essence calling for a separation of church and state (the definition of secularism). We have no such ruling.

Many would argue that the words “In God We Trust” on money and “One Nation Under God” on the Pledge of Allegiance are not things you would find in a secular nation, and this is true. The difference being that in the USA, you could take your case to the Supreme Court and get these words taken off (in principle, although for other reasons this might not happen). In the United Kingdom, the government could decide to put “God” everywhere and we wouldn’t be able to do a thing about it.

So both countries are not truly secular (I doubt there are many countries that are), but to say that the UK is predominantly more secular is false.

National Religion

For one thing, the United Kingdom has a national religion, Christianity. It’s called “The Church of England”^[2] (CofE), and is headed by the monarchy, our head of state. The head of state, currently Queen Elizabeth II, has to swear to protect the religion of the UK at their coronation. When asked,

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?^[3]

Liz replied,

All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.

Who was doing the question asking? Why, only the person prevailing over the coronation: The Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest position to hold in The Church Of England. In a truly secular nation, the Queen would have been crowned by the Prime Minister, and would have vowed to protect the laws of the nation, not the laws of God.

Government

House Of Lords

The church has infiltrated the very heart of government though, and 26 members of the clergy are always elected to the House of Lords to sit as the Lords Spiritual^[4]. The House of Lords are overseers of the House of Commons, which holds the government as elected by the people. Whilst their power is restricted by parliamentary acts, they are able to delay certain bills.

Not only are clergy sat in the House of Lords, but a prayer is said before chamber sessions even begin^[5]. Both the House of Lords and House of Commons participate in prayer, which although voluntary, is still an anti-secular event.

Additionally, the blasphemy laws that plagued our nation since their 17th century induction into the common law system were only abolished on May 8th, 2008^[6]. That’s 6 months ago to-the-day. It’s a step in the right direction, but the long road to secularism is miles long.

Education

I know full well how much religion impacts on education. Over 25% of primary schools (ages 5-11) are CofE Schools, and just under 6% of secondary schools (11-16) share this attribute^[7]. These are government funded schools, and these figures are for one church. There are many Roman Catholic schools that receive funding from the government too.

I went to two primary schools, both CofE, and both situated next to churches. We had prayers twice a day, and when we left, we were given a Bible as a present (I threw mine away). My secondary school was founded and named after Bishop John Wordsworth^[8] and is situated next to Salisbury Cathedral, following the CofE faith. We also had prayers daily, but luckily when I left I had something useful…namely an education.

Now I’m attending Royal Holloway, a university that is connected to the monarchy in some bizarre way, and therefore still connected to the Church of England.

So please, the next time you consider how much “better” it is over here, why not consider how much worse it is too?