Neil Warnock is an Idiot

Many of my non-British readers won’t know who Neil Warnock is, or won’t even be bothered about football (Americans, read: soccer), but please don’t click the X on the browser just yet!

Here’s the background: Liverpool FC in the last two years have gotten very far in the UEFA Champions League competition. Last season we got to the final, (we won it in 2005!) and we are in the semi-finals again this season. This is actually the only silverware we’re competing for at this stage of the season, which means our league games are relatively unimportant in comparison. As a result, the Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez decided to rest several of his key players for Saturday’s game against Fulham, as the semi-final first leg against Chelsea is as close as Tuesday night.

Fulham are battling relegation, which means that the outcome of our game against Fulham is not only important to them, but other teams trying to avoid relegation too. The other teams down there would be hoping Liverpool beat Fulham and “do them a favour”.

None of which is, or should be, a concern to Liverpool. Right? Not according to the bitter cynical irrational rantings of Yorkshireman Neil Warnock. His gripe? Last season, Liverpool also fielded a ‘weakened’ team against Fulham, who actually beat Liverpool and eventually avoided the drop. Warnock’s team, Sheffield United, got relegated.

Here’s what Warnock had to say just before this weekend’s game:

“My advice to Reading, Bolton and the rest would be, if you’re expecting any favours, don’t hold your breath. They will have to do it themselves.”

Yes, and what’s your point?

“The fact of the matter is that if Liverpool were already out of the Champions League and needed to win to get fourth spot, they would play their strongest side.”

Yes, but again, what’s your point? Liverpool are in fact NOT out of the Champions League and don’t need to win to get fourth spot, so they don’t need to play their strongest side. So far, so obvious.

“Instead, I fully expect them to play a weakened team at Fulham.”

As did most people in the country.

“It’s part of a big club’s mentality. They look after themselves and they don’t bother about anyone else.”

Isn’t this part of EVERY sports team’s mentality?? Which sports team doesn’t think about just itself?

If you’re a professional sportsman and you have guilt about the knock-on effect of a game YOU WIN, you’re in the wrong business!

“The whole story that Sheffield United were going down and me having a pop at them afterwards was just treated like fish and chip paper by them. Liverpool didn’t care because they weren’t the ones getting hurt by it all.”

Well, actually Neil, Liverpool probably didn’t care because no one cares about your small-time poxy little opinions.

Of course, what Warnock fails to mention is that if Fulham would have ended up getting relegated, they would have gotten hurt. Maybe Liverpool were thinking about Fulham and didn’t want to hurt them by relegating them??

“Integrity, doing what is right for the game, comes way down Rafa’s list of priorities.”

Notice the false dichotomy: doing what is right for the game (whatever that means!) versus doing what is best for Liverpool.

What Warnock doesn’t realise (because he’s an idiot and because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about) is that doing what is ‘right for the game’ is precisely doing whatever is right for Liverpool! The only thing Liverpool should be concerned about is doing what is best for themselves. What is good for “the game” is open competition where clubs are free to play the players they want against any opposition they want.

What kind of a warped mentality could suggest that a sports team (or any business for that matter) should be interested in the wellbeing of its rivals?!

All that aside, Warnock’s Sheffield United had 38 games to amass enough points to avoid relegation. They didn’t. Boo hoo. That’s football. Warnock also forgets the last game of the season, when his team LOST to Wigan Athletic. A win would have kept them up, but they lost. Boo hoo.

What does Warnock expect: that a more successful club somehow has a responsibility to not act in its best interest in case another club could possibly incur an advantage/disadvantage as a result?? What if all clubs did this? The bigger clubs would go into games actively looking to not win where possible, after all, who wants to “hurt” another club by beating them?! Pathetic.

As always with this kind of sacrificial mentality, it’s the successful clubs that are to be penalised because they are successful; the clubs with the biggest squads should be forced to play their best teams in EVERY game in Warnock’s opinion. Why? Because they have the biggest and best squads. In other words, the better you are, the more you should be penalised and help accountable for taking advantage of your superiority!

But what about Sheffield United and other small clubs? Why doesn’t anyone talk about them pulling their finger out and wining more games?!

Liverpool did go on to lose in the final last year, but imagine if we would have fielded a full strength team against Fulham. Maybe Rafa would have said: “if only I could have rested my key players at Fulham to avoid tiredness/injury etc, perhaps we would have won the final.” People would have laughed at him probably, and Warnock wouldn’t have had anything to say.

But when a team like Warnock’s has 38 games to get enough points and then complain because Liverpool acted in their best interest, he gets his obnoxious face all over the TV and in the papers.

What is wrong with this mentality? In a word: altruism. Basically, the pathetic notion that acting in someone else’s interest OVER your own is somehow virtuous, more moral, nobler, for the “greater good”. Well, that’s nonsense. Ever club must act in its own self-interest, regardless of the effects on other clubs: play whatever team you want; play however you want. At the end of the day, you will stand or fall based on how successful YOU are – not how other clubs are!

The only people who don’t want to play by this fair and healthily competitive rule are the ones who are afraid; the ones who have something to lose by a fair fight; the ones who seek the unearned; the ones who can’t actually achieve success themselves but beg others to do the work for them; the ones who aren’t actually good enough to stand on their own merit. In other words, people like Neil Warnock.

It’s Snowing!

…and only in England could it snow in April!!

well, apart from Iceland, Greenland, the Arctic, Antarctic, Russia etc etc…

Ben Elton Interview - Worth A Quick Look

A friend of mine showed me a 7 minute interview on YouTube of the author and satirist Ben Elton.  As an Objectivist I would have to totally agree with everything he says (apart from an incorrect use of the word “sacrifice”), and Elton manages to cram in such an intelligent and insightful critique of today’s fame-obsessed irrational faith-ridden feelings-motivated culture, into such a short time.

Although Elton is not an Objectivist, he basically identifies the dichotomy between reason and emotionalism.  Ultimately, there can be only one guide in our lives: either we use our faculty of reason (rationality) to integrate facts that we apprehend from reality using our percepts (sense experience), using a method of non-contradictory identity (logic), OR we let our feelings guide us.  Our feelings are the END result of a thought or action - they can be trained by our rational conscious mind, but our feelings are not a prescription of reality, because no act of will or emotion can ever change reality.  That is why Ayn Rand successful identified existence as always having primacy over consciousness, because our minds must conform to reality, not the other way around.  Those who live with emotionalism (of which faith is a variety) as their guide disregard this most fundamental metaphysical axiom and basically ask that reality change to meet their will.

Here is the video.  It’s only short so it’s worth a few minutes to have a watch:

Free Speech Versus Respect

“The Secretary-General strongly believes that freedom of expression should be exercised responsibly and in a way that respects all religious beliefs” – Marie Okabe, spokeswoman for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2038161020080220?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Two years ago the Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan: “believes that the freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions.”

So, what if my religion demands that I disrespect other religions? What if my faith necessitates a lack of respect for other faiths? If you respect my faith, doesn’t that mean I’m allowed to do whatever my faith expects of me, even if that means disrespecting others? This is, of course, a paradox.

Implicit in statements like these are several politically-correct assumptions:

1.     That everybody’s beliefs must be respected

2.     That offending somebody is virtually a crime in and of itself

3.     That freedom and responsibility can conflict

Dealing with the latter two first: freedom and responsibility do not conflict – ever. Rights are moral principles sanctioning your freedom of thought and action in a social context. All Rights are corollaries of your Right to Life. Human beings must be free to think and do anything they believe is in their self-interest – with one constraint: that they do not violate the rights of others. Freedom of speech, of expression, is a means of human flourishing. The Right to free speech never conflicts with anybody else’s Rights – because no one has the right to NOT be offended by the words of others – no such Right exists. Rights merely mean that no one can use force against you, because the use of force negates morality.

On a similar subject, Leitmotif says: “When one claims that rights come with responsibilities, one is implying that one’s practice of a right could potentially conflict with the practice of another man’s rights. This is patently false. The moment someone has stepped outside the boundaries of one’s rights and has violated another man’s rights, his actions have initiated force and have become illegitimate. Insofar as this has not occurred, every man is free–without limits–to exercise his rights.”

Speaking about the pathetic Teddy-bear row that erupted back in November last year, I said: “If I want to say that Islam is an evil plagiarisation of the ramblings of ignorant primitive Jews, and not worth the paper it was written, that’s my right.”

Just as nobody has the right to do whatever they want on your property, so you have no right to tell them what to do on theirs or anybody else’s.

Remember, the legitimate rights of human beings do not conflict. If there is a conflict, then one party must not be claiming legitimate rights. Since freedom of speech is an undeniable necessary individual right, those who claim that it must be exercised with restraint are contradicting themselves – and are claiming illegitimate rights. “Limited free speech” is a contradiction in terms.

Offending somebody is therefore not a crime. It may be immoral, if it’s irrational however. But the immoral is not the illegal.

Finally, not everyone’s beliefs should be respected. To say otherwise is an egregiously nonsensical claim, and blatant contradiction. To quote myself here: “Moral subjectivism is an offshoot of relativism in general, another symptom of which is the insipid multiculturalism. Relativism in general holds that all opinions or cultures are of equal value. This is flat wrong: if one holds the opinion X that “all opinions are of equal value or merit” then my opinion that X is rubbish is to be taken with equal merit as X itself! Therefore the truth of X would require that we reject it. Therefore X is either false or rubbish.”

Not all cultures are of equal merit. Some cultures are backward, ignorant, superstitious, and just plain stupid. Some are blatantly evil. And if you disagree with me and think I am being offensive, then YOU are evil. Why? Because you have no moral standard from which to draw conclusions. Being a moral person means being intellectually honest and never equivocating on matters of truth or ethics.

The exact opposites of this are such ridiculous notions like political-correctness, fear of offending beliefs, and multiculturalism. The above comments from the UN Secretary General embody this attitude perfectly. But this is to be expected: morality is an individual matter, yet multiculturalism is based on soul-destroying collectivism, which organisations like the United Nations (or any democratic arrangement) exemplify.

“The moral distinction is clear: you are either a criminal or you are not. You are either within your rights, in which case you act freely, or you have initiated force, in which case you should be reined in. You either practice your rights legitimately–in which case, no one has a business telling you that you should be responsible in the practice of your legitimate rights–or you have stepped outside the boundaries protected by your rights and you are now a criminal.” – Leitmotif.

The comments from Ban Ki-moon are immoral are irresponsible. Free speech is non-negotiable, because individual rights are non-negotiable, because humans have a Right to Life. To deny total freedom to human beings is to deny the Right to Life. It’s as simple and as clear-cut as that.

Total Lunar Eclipse - Wed 20th Feb 08

Today (Wednesday 20^th February 2008 – yeah that’s right America, I put the date in the correct format!) sees a total lunar eclipse. Or more precisely, tonight does.

I encourage everyone to take a walk outside tonight and look up and check out this fantastic phenomenon. Or if you live in Manchester, just poke your head of out the cardboard box.

Unfortunately it’ll take place at about 3am here in England, so if I do get up to see it what do you want to bet the sky will probably be overcast? Yes that’s right, believe it or not it does cloud over from time to time in England. That’s a bit harsh really, given the beautiful weather and clear skies we’ve had lately. For the first time in months the British public was treated to a rare sight indeed. The sun. I don’t care though – I hate the sun. My friends have started calling me a vampire. I just thought that had something to do with the black nail varnish and leather. I’m joking – I don’t wear leather.

Here is the MSN Link for the total lunar eclipse: http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=7587885

And the same from Facebook which shows what times the eclipse will be visible around the world: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=19232260290

If anyone observes this amazing spectacle and gets any good pictures (of the moon) or wants to describe it from their POV, drop me a comment.

 

 

Objectivist Round-Up 30

Objectivist Round-Up #30

Welcome everybody to this week’s Objectivist Round-Up. This is my first time hosting this carnival and it’s a privilege to give Rational Jenn a well-deserved rest for a week!

Here are the accepted submissions for this week, in no particular order:

RationalJenn wants to know which states are currently complying?, and says…

“Somehow, this whole thing snuck past me when it went through Congress nearly 3 years ago. It looks as if the Feds are going to come down hard on states that refuse to comply fully with the federal “security” guidelines for the issuance of state ids. Not only that, I fail to see how on earth this will protect me from Bad Guys. But I see quite clearly how much information our federal government will have about me and everyone else who wants to drive a car or ride in an airplane.”

Nicholas Provenzo at The Rule of Reason tells us Why Boycotting Berkeley is Important.

Stella Daily at Reason Pharma reckons it Would be Cheaper if You Were Dead!

Gus Van Horn presents Heartland on VanDamme

Evanescent exposes the Nihilism of Subjectivism.

That’s all for now! The next round-up is over at The Crucible & Column, where the theme will be “Best of 2007!” You can submit your articles here.

 

Animal Welfare and Cloning

“The RSPCA has called for an immediate ban on cloning animals for food following a report questioning the ethical justification of doing so.” - http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=7291435

The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) did not categorically rule out the idea but said: “Considering the current level of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and animal clones, the Group has doubts as to whether cloning for food is justified.”

The EGE, following studies from the European Food Safety Authority and the US Food and Drug Administration, has concluded that food from cloned animals is safe to eat.

So the question of whether or not we can clone animals for food is settled: we can.

Nikki Osborne from the RSPCA however has said: “Cloning causes untold suffering to the animals in the process, but is purely for commercial benefit. The RSPCA believes that the cost in terms of animal welfare in no way justifies any perceived benefits of cloning.”

For a start, I don’t want the law of this country changed simply because of what the RSPCA or anyone else “believes”.

The EGE states: “In the Amsterdam Treaty animals are recognised as ’sentient’ beings and, therefore, while meat production is important in the human diet, and the slaughter of animals a necessity, it should always be clear that the way in which we treat animals should be in accordance with the already existing animal welfare and health standards required in EU legislation.”

This doesn’t quite follow: if it’s acceptable to eat animals for food, and if it’s acceptable to kill them for food, what does it matter if the animals are procreated through natural methods, or cloned? What is it about the process of cloning that somehow contravenes animal welfare?

“However, in addition to these standards, the Group believes that additional requirements should also be taken in intensive animal breeding, in particular the guidance in animal welfare provided by the World Organisation for Animal Health, namely the five freedoms, from hunger; thirst and malnutrition; from fear and distress; from physical and thermal discomfort; from pain, injury and disease; and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.”

This kind of reasoning is symptomatic of a warped-view of morality and freedom, and is rooted in our society’s altruistic and utilitarian mentality. To talk about freedom from hunger, thirst, malnutrition, fear and distress, physical and thermal discomfort, pain, injury and disease – is nonsensical. There can be no “freedom from starvation” unless you have the means to acquire food. There can be no “freedom from pain” unless you are protected from any person causing you harm. There is no such thing as “freedom from disease” – there is only the freedom to purchase medicine and healthcare to protect yourself from disease.

Freedom is a concept that applies to an entity’s actions. Specifically, it assumes an entity has the capacity to be free, that is, to choose its actions and course of life accordingly. Because human beings are rational volitional beings with free will, and the capacity to make moral decisions over a lifetime, freedom is a necessary Right that arises because of the type of beings we are. To be more precise, this fundamental freedom, this fundamental Right is this: the Right to life. Now, animals are not free-willed rational volitional beings, and have no capacity to make moral decisions. Unlike humans, animals are automatically equipped with the knowledge and instinct they need to survive. To take about freedom for animals ignores the very nature of freedom; because animals have no ability to make free rational moral choices, they have no “right” to freedom.

“Infringements of the above criteria would need to be balanced by important benefits to human beings. The EGE has however doubts whether infringements of these standards can be justified by the benefits obtained by current procedures in cloning animals for food production.”

The EGE is trying to balance animal “rights” with human benefits. But animals have no rights, so any attempt to balance human and animal rights will always produce a contradiction, and it is humans who will be seen as the criminals although no crime has been committed.

What really matters is this: cloning animals for food could produce (in theory) limitless free sources of nutrition for millions of humans. There is no need to compare the human benefit with anything else: only humans have rights, and what is moral here is what a rational being needs to do to sustain its life – if a human needs to kill an animal to eat, the moral thing is to kill it. If a human needs to clone an animal in order to kill it to eat, the moral thing is to clone it and kill it.

The problem with the RSPCA and EGE’s reasoning is this: their morality is based on the utilitarian notion that suffering is the standard for morality. But this is patently untrue: suffering, like happiness, is the end result of a course of action. Morality is our guide to a course of action – not the result. Morality is an objective code to help us make decisions, it is not determined post-action by weighing up the suffering and happiness of those concerned; (and who concerned? How many people? Which people? Anything that can suffer? How is this even measured?)

The morality of an action is not determined by some arbitrary measure of suffering or pleasure. According to Objectivism, morality is a code of values accepted by choice to guide decisions. Therefore, whatever is necessary and beneficial for the life of a rational being is good – whatever is inhibitive and detrimental to such a being is wrong.

Unfortunately, what we see with comments from the EU and RSPCA is a morality rooted in altruism, in sacrifice – because this is the underlying philosophy of society in general. This sort of ethics does not hold human life as the standard, but rather the standard of suffering, that is, death. Any ban on animal cloning would be an absolute travesty.

21/01/08 Edited to add:

Thanks to Leitmotif for pointing out several errors and ambiguous statements in my article:

When I said freedom applies to an entity’s action, freedom applies to action and thought – all freedom is a corollary of the Right to Life. It makes no sense to speak of one freedom without the other.

Also, forgive me for making it sound that freedom is the same thing as the Right to Life – this was not my intention. It is the Right to life that makes all other Rights possible. It is the Right to Life that makes freedom (intellectual and physical etc) a necessity for human beings.

Teddy-bear row protestors demand death

“Weapon-wielding mobs of Sudanese protesters have demanded the execution of British teacher Gillian Gibbons.

Thousands joined together on the streets of Khartoum, some with knives and sticks, shouting for a harsher sentence for the mother-of-two jailed for 15 days on Thursday.

Mrs Gibbons, 54, was found guilty of insulting Islam and escaped a punishment of 40 lashes. But her sentence was seen as lenient by Sudan’s hardline Muslim clerics.” - http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=6859416

 

Insulting Islam?   Interesting.  People all over the world have expressed outrage, rightly so, about finding somebody guilty of offending an entire religion and blaspheming by naming a teddy bear “Mohamed”.  “It is outrageous!” they claim, that naming a teddy can be an insult to Islam.  They’re right, but haven’t the governments and courts and everyone else forgotten something else:

Who cares?  Yes, who cares if the teddy is or isn’t an insult to Islam, or blasphemy to “god”, the Easter bunny, or anything else?  It doesn’t matter if this women DID insult Islam or not.

Blasphemy is not a crime.  If I want to say that Islam is an evil plagiarisation of the ramblings of ignorant primitive Jews, and not worth the paper it was written, that’s my right.  The right to freedom of speech is a corollary of the right of free expression; man must express himself in order to flourish and enjoy life.  Therefore this is a corollary of the right to exist.  Those who deny the right to free speech of ANY and EVERY subject are denying individual rights, the only real rights that exist.  Those who wantonly violate the rights of others without cause have forfeited their own, and deserve no respect or rights themselves.

Even if blasphemy was a crime, are we to believe that god isn’t old enough and tough to take care of himself?  What’s that expression: “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me”.  Well, I assume god doesn’t have bones, so I imagine names will hurt him even less.  Of course if god was just the invention of primitive power-hungry bigoted men passed on by authority and force over centuries, we might expect HUMANS to get on the defensive when their boogie-man in the sky was insulted.

On a side note, this is exactly why, in principle and practice, democracy doesn’t work.  The very fact that a majority of people in a country can declare blasphemy a crime is to sacrifice the rights of free speech of one or any number of people to the majority; it is to say that a minority does not deserve to exist, except for the whim of the majority.  Not only are individual rights non-negotiable, this kind of social / ethical collectivism can only lead to moral subjectivism.  And if we’re reduced to moral subjectivism, no one has any right telling anyone what is right, wrong, or “offensive” or not.  Not even the deranged religious fanatics who want an innocent woman to die for “offending” them.

Open Thread: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Ok I need help.

Why is there so much controversy over climate change, and what are the facts?

There is so much debate between legitimate scientists, I have become very sceptical when reading anything that puts forward a strong opinion, either way, on human effects on global warming.  I find I am increasing unable to take either side very seriously anymore.

Note: I am not denying global warming at all.  My question is this:

Does human activity add significantly to global warming?

The Royal Society seems to think so.  This is the leading scientific authority in Britain that, in a peer-reviewed analysis, claims that humans are contributing significantly to global warming:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761

Yet, why have 19,000 American scientists signed a petition stating that this is not the case, and produced a comprehensive analysis of the trends of global temperature against industrial activity (and found no correlation):

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Why have JunkScience.com offered $125,000 (as yet unclaimed) to anyone who can scientifically prove that humans are causing global warming:

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

 

Bloggers that I share very many opinions with, believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming:

http://www.blacksunjournal.com/climate-change-facts/

And bloggers who I often agree with and respect a lot reject AGW:

http://ergosum.wordpress.com/category/environmentalism/

 

Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” has become very popular in advertising man’s putative effects on the planet.  But, when the film is replete with lies and distortions, I’m more inclined to think of it as something akin to creationist propaganda and politicking, than credible science.  You see, if the facts of mankind causing damage were that self-evident, why would so many people on both sides need to lie and attempt to deceive others about the evidence?

I am trying to keep my sanity here, so can someone tell me why there is even a debate?  Scientists don’t argue over the fact of gravity, or evolution, or heliocentrism etc?  In fact, scientists aren’t even debating that global warming is occurring.  The debate is whether it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that man’s industrial activities are the primary cause.

As a rational thinker, I must go wherever the evidence leads.  However, I have no intention of getting swept up in purely political debates or emotionalism.  In other words, let’s propose for the purposes of this discussion that I don’t actually care if we are harming the environment or not.  I just want to know if we actually are.  At this moment in time, the only reasonable position I can take is one of agnosticism toward AGW, which means, I won’t accept it unless the evidence convinces me.  That is, I’m going to assume there’s not a problem unless someone can prove to me that there definitely is.  Call this naive if you will, but please be assured my only interest is the truth.

To any commenter’s: I will play Devil’s Advocate both ways; don’t take it personally!  ;)  Who knows, by the end of this thread I will have reached a conclusion!…

Internet Infidels Discussion Board

I highly recommend you take a trip over to Daylight Atheism and read what Ebonmuse has to say on the current IIDB situation.  As a former frequenter and moderator of this site, and someone who’s devoted much time and financial support to IIDB, I’m very disappointed with what’s happening.  Here is the link:

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/a-note-on-the-iidb-situation.html

Christopher Hitchens versus Alistair McGrath

I’d like to say a few things about two very prominent people in the modern debate over religion and anti-theism.  They are Christopher Hitchens and Alistair McGrath.

I’ve been meaning to write about Hitchens for a while now, but after watching his recent debate with McGrath on YouTube, I wanted to comment on both of them.  (This article will be more effective if you watch all 11 parts of the debate first.)

Christopher Hitchens is a true intellectual.  After reading God Is Not Great (twice) and watching almost of all his debates, I see a man who very much knows what he’s talking about.  He has a deep reservoir of literary, philosophical, cultural, and political knowledge to draw upon.  He speaks with authority, and import.  One of his fears is one that should never be realised: being boring.  Listening to him speak at length is almost mesmerising.  It is, for me, fascinating and intriguing.

The reason for this is actually quite simple: Hitchens is direct.  He doesn’t mince his words.  He doesn’t beat around the bush.  He answers the questions put to him.  You know where he is coming from.  Even if you don’t agree with him, you can never accuse him of shirking a question or challenge.  He doesn’t make unsupported or vacuous assertions.  He backs each and every statement up with logical reasons or a reference to a historical or modern event.  His cultural experience and familiarity with other peoples and cultures is matched only by his wit.  When you listen to him, you feel like he imparting real wisdom.  He communicates very effectively.

McGrath is an unusual character.  There is something almost appealing about McGrath, and I think I can best describe it as innocence.  He is probably a very nice person in everyday life.  I can imagine myself liking McGrath if I heard him talk about something other than religion.  Unfortunately, this is his chosen specialist subject, so it is this that I will judge him on.

I do not hear McGrath speak with authority.  He speaks as one giving a sermon, than a speech.  He does not argue, he preaches.  It is as though, for McGrath, just to be on stage with the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins is the victory in itself.  He is there because he claims to know the unknowable.  Whereas Hitchens and Dawkins are experts in their field, and do not waste a single word, most of McGrath’s words are a waste of time, and his expertise is in theology, a topic which should not be considered a field in its own right.

One of McGrath’s problems it that he simply doesn’t answer the questions; he doesn’t address the issues, he avoids them.  If he doesn’t know he’s doing it, he is deluded and mentally compartmentalised.  If he does know he’s doing it, his skills are wasted as a theologian: he should be a politician.

And this is when he avoids the issues and doesn’t give meaningful answers, (which is most of the time).  When he does attempt a proper answer it gets even worse.  He proceeds from the assumption that the bible is god’s word.  He talks about the authority of Jesus to speak and say the things he did.  He misses the rather glaring point that why should Jesus need any authority to speak good advice and brotherly love.  Are the egregiously factual and historical contradictions of the NT unknown to him?

I think McGrath sees public debate as a forum to preach his personal beliefs instead of answering the problems of his faith.

At one point he admits that he doesn’t recognise the charge of celestial dictator levelled at god by Hitchens, but can see where Hitchens is coming from.  I’m sorry, what?!  You can understand why somebody might believe god to be a celestial dictator, but not agree with them?  Is there that much confusion and doubt about god’s personality that McGrath can sympathise with those who think god is a cruel figurehead in the ultimate totalitarian regime?

McGrath acknowledges the truism that just because we might wish something to be true, doesn’t make it so.  He then adds the self-evident extraneous tautology that just because we wish something to be true, also doesn’t mean that it’s false.  Well, yes, Alistair, very true, but what’s your point?  McGrath not only wastes his time, he wastes everyone else’s too.

He suggests (for McGrath never says anything of certainty, but rather dilly-dallies and prefixes or suffixes every important statement with “perhaps”, “maybe”, “it seems to me”, “in some way” etc), that atheism is another form of wishful thinking.  Perhaps he forgets that the majority of people in the world don’t believe in his particular version of Skydaddy; perhaps he forgets that the burden of proof is on him?  If atheism requires faith, so does believing that Santa doesn’t exist.

McGrath admits that it’s strange that so many people haven’t heard the gospel.  He says this might be unfair, but in regions where the gospel hasn’t been heard, people will be judged on how they’ve acted to the best of their knowledge.  Well, isn’t that what good moral people do anyway?  So, what is the point of the gospel?  Why not judge people based on what they actually do, instead of what they believe, like we do in any enlightened modern secular society?

McGrath also makes the incredibly transparent faux pas of saying that Jesus’ ransom sacrifice and the subsequent possibility of salvation by god is an OFFER, and god does not impose this on us. Did McGrath think Hitchens would not pick up on this??  Needless to say, Hitchens does.  Hitchens plainly points out the notion of hell; of infinite punishment for finite sins.  McGrath, in customary fashion, has nothing to say in reply.

When asked about the horror and cruelty in the Old Testament, McGrath again says he must see it through the eyes of his Christianity.  In other words, he says less than nothing.  His words are valueless.  McGrath waxes religiously about “progressive revelation” but I have no idea what this means and I suspect neither does he.  What matters is that once again he talks and talks and says nothing; what about the horror and cruelty in the OT?  How does McGrath reconcile that?  We are left to wonder, because McGrath doesn’t tell us what he thinks.

McGrath obfuscates and equivocates; he equates the search for god with a search for deeper answers, philosophical truths, and metaphysical questions.  He conveniently ignores the reality that religion does not start with questions or searches.  Religion starts with answers.  Religion starts with THE answer: ‘god did it’, and works backwards.

McGrath also admits that his beliefs are a matter of faith and he cannot prove them.  So why does he debate then?  What does he have to offer?  What expertise does he have?  How can he expect to be taken seriously, when the very thing he is supposed to be debating about, he believes even although there isn’t a shred of evidence to support it?  On what merit does he deserve to be on the same platform at a Hitchens or a Dawkins?

Hitchens argues that believing you are a messenger from god, a theist, a believer that there is an almighty being who favours you is the ultimate in selfish wishful thinking and solipsism.  He claims it is arrogant and absurd because you are claiming to know what you cannot possibly know.  What does McGrath have to say?  Only that he doesn’t claim to have any special knowledge.  But as usual with McGrath, this is just rhetorical irrelevant nonsense.  He forgets again, or ignores again, that his beliefs require that he pretend to know things that he cannot possibly know.

In short, McGrath is a huge disappointment.  He does not even compete with Hitchens.  He has no credentials to debate over the subject at hand, but perhaps I cannot be too critical with him for this: the alchemist flushes when the chemistry professor walks into the room; the astrologist is mysteriously quiet when the astronomer shows up.  The theologian huffs and puffs and excuses and preaches and blusters and whines, but anyone with an ounce of common sense can see him for what he is: an expert in the preposterous; one who pretends to know what he doesn’t have a clue about.

Nothing demonstrates the hollow falsity of religion better than that of the issue of morality.  In conclusion, I will reiterate the Hitchens Challenge: “name an ethical statement made by a believer, or an ethical action, that couldn’t have been made by a non-believer.”  The lack of an answer, or perhaps the inability to answer, by theists, speaks volumes.

With Hitchens you get clear, precise questions and clear, precise answers.  He even says that he would be prepared to stay and debate for longer because “I won’t go, if someone can claim I didn’t answer a question.”  And why shouldn’t he say this?  He isn’t the one trying to square the circle.  Another gem he quoted which I hadn’t heard before, from Einstein: “the miracle of the natural order is: there are no miracles.”  In other words, miracles just don’t happen.   There are no easy, lazy, stupid answers.  There’s an explanation for everything.  We don’t need to wrap our heads around supernatural beings.  (Incidentally, McGrath never does respond to the question of whether god intervenes or not in world events.)

The world and the universe is exactly what we would expect to find if religion was FALSE; if we were an averagely-evolved mammalian species, recently appeared on the scene and for the most part, largely under-developed mentally.  There is no mystery for the atheist.  This all makes sense.  There are no apologetics required.  It is the theologians, like McGrath, who must embarrass themselves by dodging and weaving and equivocating, and trying to make sense of ancient Jewish bronze-age myths in a modern world that has long since stopped needing or wanting these ridiculous explanations.

9/11

I was in work. It was between 1 and 2pm here in England. I heard the news from word of mouth that there’d be some sort of disaster in New York. We all switched on the radio to hear more. Apparently one or two planes had crashed into the World Trade Centre. It wasn’t immediately apparent that it was a deliberate attack.

I remember coming home that Tuesday evening and watching the footage over and over again. It is the only time in my life I can recall my blood feeling cold. The words chilling, haunting, and unbelievable are used too often, but they were understatements in this case. That was 6 years ago.

As chance would have it, the 6th anniversary of those atrocities also falls on a Tuesday. May we never forget those thousands of innocent people whose lives were cruelly snuffed out for absolutely no good reason. The bravery and courage of others who risked and gave their own lives to save their fellowman stands in stark contrast to the evil minority who chose to slaughter their fellowman in the name of everything inhuman. Let it also be a reminder of what happens when people forsake reason for righteousness and facts for faith.

Osama bin Laden video - an infidel’s response

In the recently aired Bin Laden video, Osama had this to say:

“This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives.”

I’m not saying that democracy is perfect, but what is the alternative?  Fascism, theocracy?  I don’t think so.  Bin Laden doesn’t care about the lives of humans.  He isn’t waging a war for freedom against the tyranny of capitalism.  If he cared so much about these things he wouldn’t have thousands of innocent people murdered.

No, Bin Laden cares about furthering his religio-political agenda, in which civilians are fair game to be hurt or killed in order to make a statement.

“And despite this brazen attack on the people, the leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown - still talk about freedom and human rights with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings.”

Again, let’s put aside the relative merits of the US, British, and French Heads of State, and point out the enormous hypocrisy in these words: if Bin Laden cares about human intellect, he wouldn’t subscribe to a bronze age myth that rejects rationality and evidence, and treats women like property, where the death penalty, stoning, and rape, are acceptable punishments for even trivial “offences”.  He talks about freedom and human rights, but what if a Muslim man in the Middle East wants to convert to another religion, is he free to do so, or is he deemed an infidel apostate who will probably be killed?  And what about the rights of the people who lost their lives in 9/11?  Bin Laden doesn’t mention these.

“So is there a form of terrorism stronger, clearer and more dangerous than this? This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system.”

The irony is choking; I think the speech is incomplete, Bin Laden probably would have gone on to say “…and embrace the tyranny of a theocratic government under Sharia law which demands that the whole world be converted to Islam, and anyone who speaks out against us or chooses to live a different life is executed; where women are little more than pets, and speaking your mind is something you don’t even dare to do.”

No thank you, I’ll keep my godless Western democratic capitalism thank you very much.  It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the alternative that religious fanatics offer.

Live Earth - Sat 7th Jul 07

Today sees the international event of Live Earth.

The purpose is to raise awareness of climate change and the damage that has been done to our planet.

I think this is an excellent idea. I first thought it smacked of the Greenpeace hippy save-the-whales stuff I don’t usually like, but the inconvenient truth is that there is a very real problem with the environment and anything that raises awareness of this and gets everyone thinking must be a positive thing!

We live in a critical point in human history for many reasons. But human history is inextricable linked to the planet that gave us life. How ironic that after shaping us for millions of years and giving us the technology to achieve all our dreams, we should do some much disrepair to Earth. Yet, we also have the technology to stop and change, and treat our world a lot better. I once said:

“We see our inheritors before us saying “create the world we will live in.”

A lot depends on the current generation. No one else is going to solve our problems. There is no knight in shining armour or universal overlord waiting in the wings. We’re on our own; humans will decide the fate of humans.

I encourage anyone who reads this to visit the Live Earth website and encourage others you know to do so.

 

Terrorist Attack at Glasgow Airport - Sat 30th Jun 07

There has been a terrorist attack at Glasgow airport.  The virus strikes again.

Apparently two Asian men drove a jeep into terminal one.  No one was killed fortunately.  This follows failed attempts yesterday to explode car bombs in the centre of London.

Incidents like this test my patience and ethics.  I am opposed to the death penalty, but if the two men would have burned to death instead without harming anyone, I wouldn’t care one bit.  When the world loses evil deluded fanatics, it gets that much better.

I don’t know what exactly the terrorists hoped to achieve, but I do know why they attempted it.  You can talk about politics and war, guerrilla tactics, freedom fighting, retaliation, making a statement, fighting in “the only way you can”, but we all know what it comes down to so let’s not pretend it’s anything else: religion.

Ultimately, it all comes down to religious intolerance and hatred, because one group of people think that their invisible friend in the sky with magic powers is real and the other groups’ invisible friend in the sky with magic powers isn’t.  This is like killing yourself and innocent people over an interpretation of Lord of the Rings.  (Except LoTR is much better written that any holy book.)

Anyone who targets innocent people is evil and a coward.  Anyone who performs evil acts to please a god worships an evil god.  The fact that these magical beings are pure fantasy just makes the violence and loss of life that much more tragic, and that much more stupid.