All entries by this author

Letters to Guardian About Stuart Jeffries Piece *

Feb 28th, 2007 | Filed by

‘Adherents to the supernatural explanation of life apparently cannot bear to hear any opposition.’… Read the rest



George Scialabba on AI vs Meditation *

Feb 27th, 2007 | Filed by

The science of mind doesn’t appear to have a generally agreed-on theory of anything.… Read the rest



Tests Accused of Mocking Muhammad *

Feb 27th, 2007 | Filed by

Which is odd, since they were sponsored by the Iranian government.… Read the rest



Nick Cohen Talks to Simon Baron-Cohen *

Feb 27th, 2007 | Filed by

Evolutionary explanations of the brain are not as politically hazardous as they once were.… Read the rest



Prospect Asks 100 Thinkers The Big Question *

Feb 26th, 2007 | Filed by

What’s next? What will take the place of left and right?… Read the rest



Ben Goldacre on Transgressive Genius *

Feb 26th, 2007 | Filed by

An academic journal that publishes a fringe review of a fringe book owes readers some background.… Read the rest



Stuart Jeffries Moans Over ‘Dearly Held Beliefs’ *

Feb 26th, 2007 | Filed by

Dean of Southwark calls atheists as fundamentalist as tube-bombers. Really.… Read the rest



‘DNA Shows the Tomb is That of Jesus’ *

Feb 26th, 2007 | Filed by

‘Tests on samples’ show Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. Eh?… Read the rest



The Bones of Our Lord

Feb 26th, 2007 | By R. Joseph Hoffmann

Happily coinciding with our Lenten observances, CNN and the Discovery Channel have colluded to bring us startling news, just ahead of the feast of the resurrection: namely, that Jesus lay for two thousand years in a family tomb next to his beloved bride, Mary (or Murray) Magdalene, and their little son, Judah, also known as Timmy. “The Lost Tomb of Christ” will air on March 4th. The miracle of the millennia has become the love story that could not be told.

“The Lost Tomb of Christ” will air on that paragon of scientific rectitude The Discovery Channel, home of such mind benders as “The Miracles of Jesus,” “Da Vinci’s Code,” and “Mysteries of the Bible.” Essentially the hoopla is all … Read the rest



Scraping the bottom

Feb 26th, 2007 11:37 am | By

And speaking of fundamentalists v liberals, this piece by Stuart Jeffries is truly disgusting. It’s a whole new level beyond the usual mewling Guardian drivel about religion. It’s really contemptible.

Today, it’s the religious on one side, and the secular on the other. Britain is dividing into intolerant camps who revel in expressing contempt for each other’s most dearly held beliefs. “We are witnessing a social phenomenon that is about fundamentalism,” says Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark. “Atheists like the Richard Dawkins of this world are just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs on the tube, the hardline settlers on the West Bank and the anti-gay bigots of the Church of England.”

That’s a revolting, outrageous, immoral … Read the rest



The Mega Interrogative

Feb 26th, 2007 10:53 am | By

Prospect’s Big Question is interesting in parts. The question is ‘Left and right defined the 20th century. What’s next?’ My answer of course is some version of reason and faith, or reason and supernaturalism, or open thinking and closed thinking, inquiry or dogmatism, revisability or certainty, fallibilism or authority. Thinking or obedience, you could call it; thinking or submission. Or you could call it liberalism or authoritarianism. Or, the Enlightenment or the Counter-enlightenment. You get the idea – and you’re certainly not surprised. What else would I say?

Human rights, is one thing I could say, but I take that to be subsumed under all the first terms. It’s all the second terms who say human rights are good exceptRead the rest



Nick Cohen on Censorship of the Internet *

Feb 25th, 2007 | Filed by

Saudi Arabia’s theocrats have banned ‘Women in American History’ Encyclopedia entry.… Read the rest



Catholic School Expels Student for Tattoo *

Feb 25th, 2007 | Filed by

Hey, kid, appearances matter. Jesus was a snappy dresser.… Read the rest



Gillian McKeith is Feeling Bullied *

Feb 25th, 2007 | Filed by

She can’t call herself Dr any more; it’s so unkind.… Read the rest



Mediawatchwatch Has the Joke *

Feb 25th, 2007 | Filed by

Jacques Tilly ‘was particularly pleased with the Muslim women piece’ – this one.… Read the rest



Islam-jokes Return to Düsseldorf Carnival *

Feb 25th, 2007 | Filed by

Last year’s joke about women never made it off the drawing board.… Read the rest



MoD Document on Remote Viewing *

Feb 25th, 2007 | Filed by

Freedom of Information in action.… Read the rest



Debut of TPM Blog *

Feb 25th, 2007 | Filed by

Is philosophy like health food or therapy?… Read the rest



The joy of changing your mind

Feb 25th, 2007 11:20 am | By

I was thinking earlier today about religion as a meme, and the familiar point that (as Steven Weinberg summarizes it in the TLS) ‘the persistence of belief in a particular religion is naturally aided if that religion teaches that God punishes disbelief.’ I was thinking about the fact that what that means is that religions that do teach that are a racket, in a quite literal sense. A racket, and also circular. ‘Believe in this god because it will punish you if you don’t.’ ‘But why should I believe that?’ ‘Because it will punish you if you don’t.’ ‘Yes but why should I believe that it’s this god that will punish me, what if it’s actually a different one … Read the rest



Beware of certainty

Feb 25th, 2007 10:25 am | By

An interesting point about expertise and epistemology and how they interact in courtrooms.

The evolving science that surrounds DNA, for example, demands caution and careful interpretation, while the criminal law and our adversarial system expects a simple explanation – often nothing better than a “yes” or “no” answer. So the hired expert who presents his data with certainty and determination is more likely to win over a jury than the more hesitant doctor, scientist or expert who is prepared to acknowledge doubt. That’s why Gene Morrison was able to bamboozle the courts for as long as he did – not because he had a fake PhD (after all, even TV diet experts have those), but because he presented what he

Read the rest