The Retreat of Reason by Anthony Browne

Having read only 10 pages of this 121 page pamphlet The Retreat of Reason, by Anthony Browne, I am already able to say that this book is likely to follow The End of Faith in my estimation as the second most important book of our age. Indeed I would go so far as to say that this book summarises and articulates well many of the things I have said on this site, and if there is a book I would like to have written myself,
this is it.

The Retreat of Reason is very well written, in a calm, rational and eloquent tone, and is certainly insightful, but it isn’t, so far, an especially profound book – it isn’t Principia Mathematica. It is simply stating facts – but they are facts that usually dare not speak their name – and that is the point.

The book addresses what is essentially a modern manifestation of fascism (one which is all the more reprehensible for the way it poses as the opposite). One which subverts free speech, truth and even free thought and threatens the very fabric and future of our society. It addresses the insidious march of political correctness. Interestingly, criticism of political correctness is, itself, outlawed by political correctness (the mechanism is self-protecting). This book ignores all that and proceeds to analyse and expose the problem in all its guises with uncompromising truth, concern and accuracy.

I will not quote from the book, because virtually everything I have so far read is worth quoting, but I will strongly recommend it to anybody who cares about the state of their society, and I look forward to reading this one too afterwards.

18th Century romance

Richard Steele, writing to his future wife (thankfully!), in 1707. Somewhat different to the
typical text message of today.

New Graphic site launches

Through my company Orland Media Ltd, I have completed development of the site for Irish design agency New Graphic.

The site was built to specification in ActionScript 3.0 and is entirely XML driven, allowing my client to easily update the site themselves without needing to come back to me. The core architecture of the site is very lightweight (therefore fast loading) at only 75Kb.

As far as the technical details go, my decision to create this project using ActionScript 3.0 yielded the following benefits:

• Ten-fold speed increase
• E4X XML parsing (easier data handling)
• Enhanced drawing API
• Simplified and formalised event handling model
• Correct type objects for the job at hand (i.e. Shapes for shapes, Sprites for one frame clips) == lower overhead
• Use of enhanced third party classes, such as TweenLite AS3

The site was engineered entirely using external ActionScript (.as) files and my editor of choice was FlashDevelop.

Aric Sigman: Remotely Controlled

I recently read this book and it joins the ranks of some of the best I have ever read. Why? Because Aric Sigman is motivated mainly by respect for truth and a concern for fellow human beings rather than by money. In other words, he has integrity.

In this book he is not afraid to take on the big TV corporations and produces a great deal of research to confirm what, really, should be obvious to all: too much TV, and the kind of TV generally broadcast, is bad for us, and we do watch too much.

Personally I had cancelled my TV license before even reading Mr Sigman’s fine book. There is potentially a danger of him “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” because some TV can be okay, but he does not say people should stop watching it all together, just that they should be more selective and not accept TV as a substitute for real life.

I say that too, and when you consider that you can listen to the radio free of charge and pull down any useful TV from the Internet these days, one might wonder how the broadcasters (especially the BBC) expect to survive at all. They only survive because people don’t read excellent books such as this (because, as Sigman notes – of course – they’re not promoted or even mentioned on TV).

Really the arguments of Remotely Controlled fall into two broad categories: watching TV is actually physically bad for us (which he fully backs up) and the programmes on TV generally promote bad values, which do not have our – but rather the broadcasters’ – interests at heart. This might seem obvious as well, but it is not obvious to everyone and it’s great to see it all written down so clearly.

Finally, Aric Sigman is concerned at the surrogate role TV has – it becomes a surrogate mother, a surrogate teacher, a surrogate friend. It even becomes a surrogate life for many people. Aric Sigman is saying (and I am certainly saying): show it the door. Stop letting it steal your personal relationships and time from you. Stop thinking people have some particular credibility just because they are on TV. Realise what is going on, read this important, excellent book, think for yourself, turn off your TV and take back control of your own life.

Television: Opiate of the Masses

John Humphrys: In God We Doubt

I am absolutely staggered by John Humphrys’ book In God We Doubt. I heard his radio series, but I am sorry to say the book is even worse. Though he plays devil’s advocate to unreasonable extremes sometimes, I actually generally like John Humphrys on Radio 4’s Today Programme. He does press politicians when they refuse to answer simple questions, and he is obviously a nice and well meaning man. But this book, an exercise in fence-sitting, is virtually a non-entity, and it is an inadvertent insult to the public to even expect it to be read.

Humphrys by his own admission doesn’t know where he stands – he calls himself a failed atheist. He repeatedly, wrongly refers to Sam Harris as Sam Smith (I could barely believe my eyes when I saw this). The book is supported by no references or footnotes. He frequently resorts a subjective position (“well, at least to me”). He agrees yet disagrees with Dawkins on the same points. This book is nothing more than an inconclusive musing, lacking intellectual rigour and precision. One wonders if it was released just to make money.

I repeat, I generally like John Humphrys (and share his concern over poor use of English), but this book is not fit for release to the general public, and to think he could have written it is almost enough to put me off listening to him on The Today Programme.

For fuller reviews of the book see the last one on this page and the first one here – and for a really serious analysis of this whole subject, of course see here.

Christopher Hitchens speaks reason again

I was most alarmed to see Mr Hitchens not in his usual ivory suit but here’s a great round of eloquent reason from him again as he debates a rabbi who confuses being ethical with being religious and who possesses a remarkable ability to construct entire sentences full of falsehoods. I couldn’t help but smile when Mr Hitchens came to the defence of the arm-waving rabbi with the line “He’s answered the question as best he can”!

Government’s response to petition to ban faith schools

No. 10 Downing Street has responded to a petition to ban faith schools, which I (and 19,000 others) signed. The petition’s text went like this:

“Faith schools remove the rights of children to choose their own religious, philosophical and ethical beliefs. They also sanction ethnic segregation and create tension and divisiveness within society. Schools should be places where children are given a free education, not centres for indoctrination. Creationism and other religious myths should not be taught as fact regardless of the funding status of a school. Abolishing faith schools will provide children with more freedom of choice and help to promote a fully multi-cultural, peaceful society.”

The response from the government is appalling and does not negate any of the well made points above, but it is little more than one would expect from a government which wants to retain the votes of as many people as possible in order to remain in power and (on this issue at least) does not care about principle or truth. Their text goes like this – I will break it up and comment throughout as to why it is wrong (it’s not hard to see):

“The Government remains committed to a diverse range of schools for parents to choose from, including schools with a religious character or “faith schools” as they are commonly known.”

They’re saying they haven’t listened to any of the points above.

“Religious Education (RE) in all schools, including faith schools, is aimed at developing pupils’ knowledge, understanding and awareness of the major religions represented in the country.”

They’re missing that faith schools do not teach equally about all faiths (all of which are rubbish anyway) but rather mindwash children with bias towards a particular faith.

“It encourages respect for those holding different beliefs…”

It doesn’t encourage respect for those holding different beliefs (on the contrary – see above) and more to the point respect should not be automatically given to those who hold different beliefs. This is a disgrace, especially in a school. Respect should be shown only for beliefs which are properly supported by evidence, and if someone believes something they cannot substantiate then they do not deserve your respect – this applies as much in the field of religion as in any other.

“…and helps promote pupils’ moral, cultural and mental development.”

If pupils use the Bible as their moral guide this can only serve to retard their moral development, as anyone who has actually read the book knows.

“In partnership with national faith and belief organisations we have introduced a national framework for RE.”

In other words, “we’re too frightened to face them”.

“In February 2006, the faith communities affirmed their support for the framework in a joint statement making it clear that all children should be given the opportunity to receive inclusive religious education…”

Of course – obviously – they support their own cause. That’s begging the question and doesn’t make it right.

“…and that they are committed to making sure the framework is used in the development of religious education in all their schools and colleges.”

All begging the question. There should be no framework, that is the point of this petition.

“The Churches have a long history of providing education in this country…”

This almost made me laugh out loud! The churches actually have a long history of inhibiting education and executing those who make discoveries which threaten to expose the writings in the bible as the baseless myths they are. The Enlightenment movement had to fight against the churches! Have government ministers not even read basic history these days?

“…and have confirmed their commitment to community cohesion. Faith schools have an excellent record in providing high-quality education…”

Then work harder on the other schools. Whatever good aspects there might be to these schools, the fact they are centred upon faith is not one of them and it is certainly not a necessary condition for excellence.

“…and serving disadvantaged communities and are some of the most ethnically and socially diverse in the country.”

So what? They are missing the point again.

“Many parents who are not members of a particular faith value the structured environment provided by schools with a religious character.”

I’d like to see the evidence for all these sweeping claims. Many of these parents probably have no choice but to send their children to faith schools, much to their annoyance, and anyway a “structured environment” can of course be had without the confines of faith.

All in all, this is a totally unsatisfactory response from the government, which completely fails to address any of the very strong points made by Nicola Holt, who brought the petition. Whoever wrote it should be ashamed of themselves: they have helped to deny a free and fair education to thousands of children. Even worse, and wider, than this: they have colluded in obstructing the progress of civilisation.

Some useful programming principles

• KISS
• Hollywood
• DRY

Darwin Day Lecture 2008

This evening I attended the British Humanist Association’s Darwin Day Lecture at University College, London, which was on this occasion given by Tim Lewens, a lecturer in Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge. You can see some photographs of the occasion here and some short video clips are on my Facebook page.

I will admit that the principal reason for me attending this lecture was to be in the presence of Richard Dawkins. I am delighted to say that I was able to speak to Professor Dawkins and tell him face to face how much I admire his courageous work, and how I am keen to assist further in the cause of fighting irrationality.

I can tell you that in real life Prof. Dawkins comes across as the same highly capable yet humble person that he does in videos and, while direct and to the point, he is always unfailingly polite and devoid of the arrogance sometimes wrongly attributed to him (but sometimes possessed by other senior academic figures to their own disadvantage).

With regard to Tim Lewens’ lecture, Mr Lewens spoke well – it is difficult to speak in front of a room full of people – but did seem, from his style, to be more used to addressing undergraduates, and did insist upon refering to Darwin in the present historical tense (“Darwin thinks”, “Darwin says”). I was pleased that Richard Dawkins picked him up on this at the end, because indeed it does not fully take into account the period in which Darwin was writing and it can sound pretentious.

Regarding the contents of the lecture, I would need to see a transcript to analyse them in detail, but to a large degree Mr Lewens seemed to be “bolting Darwin’s subject onto his own”, because – it seems – Darwin did not actually say very much about philosophy, prefering to to write about science. This left Mr Lewens with not much material, I felt, but the lecture was interesting when he discussed the commonly perceived conflict between acting selfishly and acting altruistically. Here I feel he would have been well advised to have mentioned not only the Peacock theory (mentioned in The Selfish Gene) which I find very convincing, but also Sam Harris’s excellent points made in The End of Faith, where he explains that to act really fully selfishly actually entails acting altruistically as well as we seek psychological fulfilment (there is more to human beings than simply the selfish gene, as Mr Dawkins himself has said – we are unique in this respect) . I would like to expand upon this argument in detail at another time, because a widespread comprehension of it would undoubtedly be the solution to a great many problems in society.

With regard to the evolutionary advantages of being altruistic, these were rightly attributed to the group surviving, as Mr Dawkins pointed out even in The Selfish Gene, and with regard to our sympathy for disabled people, whose genes do not seem to favour natural selection, I believe this too can be shown to actually be compatible with natural selection in the sense that nobility is again beneficial at a group level – however this topic again is derserving of an article in its own right.

Mr Lewens made a number of claims about and interpretations of Darwin which jarred with me and I found rather unlikely, and I was therefore not surprised when Prof. Dawkins picked him up on them in no uncertain terms at the end of the lecture, but the lecture was to some degree informative. When Mr Lewens seemed to disagree with Prof. Dawkins, I (and probably most of the audience) had the distinct feeling he was picking the wrong man with whom to disagree, and it even crossed my mind that he might have been doing so in order to try to make a name for himself rather than through genuine disagreement, though I don’t claim this with certainty.

Following the lecture the floor was opened to the audience, and the kind of questions asked were, for the most part, typical of audience questions at such an event: lacking precision, forethought or relevance, and a little embrrassing for the speakers to have to contend with, but then Mr Dawkins is now a veteran of handling such remarks and it must come as a very pleasant surprise when an intelligent question is asked or valid point made.

All in all I do not want to be too scathing of this lecture because it is all in a very good cause and the BHA needs, and should receive, all the support it can get. Professor Dawkins spoke excellently prior to the lecture and so did a senior member of the BHA (whose name I missed), stating clearly that the organisation will not stop fighting the encroachment of religion in our secular lives and law. Thank goodness, for all of us, that we have many great people in the country doing this, but there is a long way to go yet. Why not sign up and help?

Sam Harris: The End of Faith

I have recently been re-reading The End of Faith, by Sam Harris. I have read many great works of philosophy and many novels too, however I would say that this is the best book I have ever read, and that is not an accolade easily given by anyone. I would also say it is the most important book of our time.

Sam Harris has a clear and eloquent style, an excellent vocabulary and a remarkable capacity for reasoning deeply and cogently. He also displays great integrity, being prepared to say things that might be controversial if that’s where reason and the pursuit of truth take him (as they do), and being moved, above all, by a great concern for the suffering, and future, of mankind.

The End of Faith does not provide every answer, but it provides a good many – and certainly many more than you will find in any religious text. It is a book that I personally found inspirational, and if you would like to read a carefully reasoned, extremely well written treatise by a highly educated man on possibly the most important issue currently facing humankind, you need look no further than this. Its stark truths will be hard for some to swallow, especially if indoctrinated by religion. To them I would say “Read it if you dare” – and to free-thinkers, I say “We’ve been waiting for this a long time”. This is a well-written book by a responsible and brave man, who is now taking his work forward with The Reason Project.

Kleenex rides the wave of inconsideration

The latest advertising campaign by Kleenex tissues on tube trains across London, incredibly, features the strapline “Blow it loud and blow it proud”.
I won’t be buying Kleenex again.

Archbishop Rowan Williams on sharia law

Muslims are in the headlines again here in the UK, but this time courtesy of the Archbishop of Canterbury. While all religious people can be said to have a loose grasp on reality inasmuch as they are prepared to hold fundamental beliefs which lack any evidence or even reasonable probability of being true, Dr Rowan Williams, who seems to be a kind but misguided man – a Type 1 Christian – has been saying some particularly strange things recently, not even in the interests of his own faith.

People are often all too eager to embellish and miscontrue things others have said when they think they hear something they don’t like (I know it’s happened to me), so let’s first be clear on what the Archbishop did not say. He did not say that he “wants sharia law in the UK” per se, as you might be forgiven for thinking looking at tabloid headlines today. He said that Muslims should be able to choose sometimes between British law and sharia law and that this was in any case eventually going to become “unavoidable”. Anything else he said was too vague to be of any use as he merely floated questions rather than provided answers, as religious people often do (which is ironic considering their complete certainty over unverifiable events).

While the whole of sharia law should never be adopted, of course, because of its barbaric punishments, its many arbitrary rulings and its superstitious foundations, there may be a few useful ideas in it which could be incorporated into our secular law – but only inasmuch as the points might happen to be good, not because they are religious. This might turn out to be a very short list, granted, but we need not dismiss the possibility out of hand. (Religious people do not have this luxury of “pick & mix”, by the way, because if it’s the word of god, well it’s the word of god, and He surely cannot have made any mistakes.)

What should not be encouraged however is any idea of two different laws for different groups within the same country, especially if this is to appease and accommodate irrational religious belief. This is what Dr Williams appears to be advocating and it both is avoidable and should be resisted strongly: such a move would be dangerous in that it would sanction the insidious concept of moral relativism, implicitly endorse religious belief, further segregate people and introduce double standards and confusion (some would say more confusion) into the British legal system.

London Transport teaches manners where parents have failed

London Transport has launched an initiative called Together for London, which is attempting to teach manners to a society which now seems, largely, to regard them as nothing more than a quaint anachronism (whereas they are actually of fundamental importance to a happy society). I have been saddened to see some bloggers cynically dismissing the attempt, because it is in fact long overdue. These individuals are obviously not familiar with the words of Edmund Burke.

It is an indictment of a society, certainly, that a transport organisation should have to teach it basic manners, but we are seeing this society self-destruct as people show no regard for anybody else (and thereby, really, no regard for themselves) and at least London Transport are doing something rather than simply considering their own profits.

I just wonder if the approach may be a little too soft. I would like to see inconsiderate people shamed into good behaviour – but I thereby open up a whole new debate about causes, ways and means, a debate for another time.

Coldplay: What If

This video was not made by Coldplay, however it might just as well have been. I like the scenes of ordinary people and the importance attributed to them…

Spot the difference

Is it only me, or is it obvious to everyone how Stephen Jones, gifted melody maker and quirky lyricist of Babybird fame, and Kiefer Sutherland, good actor but repeated drunk driver of 24 fame (and several good films including Flatliners beforehand) are virtually identical?

Disregarding Sutherland’s exploits off-screen and considering his no-nonsense persona Jack Bauer instead, it seems heroic characters sometimes come looking the same!