A teenager has reportedly been arrested in the West Midlands for burning a copy of the Quran and posting the video footage on YouTube. This, apparently, is the crime of "inciting religious hatred".
It is silly to burn a book given the symbolic significance of such an act. However, the Quran is exactly that - a book. Burning it is no worse than burning a Dan Brown novel. Well, intrinsically no worse. Obviously, the consequences for the burner may be somewhat different, given the world-renowned tolerance of the faithful. But that is their problem, not ours. I am horrified that the police could consider this a crime.
Presumably if I declare the Guinness Book Of Records to be a holy text it will become a "hate crime" to burn a copy. After all, there is no difference between me doing such a ridiculous thing and Muslims believing in the devine provenance of the Quran. Or perhaps the West Midlands police believe that the Quran is the actual word of god? If so, we should be told. I wasn't aware I was living in a theocracy.
But you may say that this is different. Burning a copy of the GBOR simply says: "people who believe in that are idiots" whereas burning the Quran says: "kill all muslims". And I would disagree.
Saying "kill all muslims" is arguably a hate crime in the same was as saying "kill all tutsis" or "kill all bald people" are (arguably) hate crimes, at least if said with conviction and not satire. At most, burning the Quran says "I'm angry that something that is so obviously a work of fiction is treated with such reverence and that its rather unpleasant instructions are treated as a guide to life for many people (many of whom wish to impose it on everyone else on the planet)." That's just common sense.
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Friday, 26 November 2010
Plagiarism
People say that you can't criticise something until you have tried it for yourself. Nonsense. I am about to criticise Dan Brown and I have never read one of his novels. So what are my qualifications? Well, a resort to authority, or perhaps pseudo-authority. An over reliance on authority is a terrible thing ("I was just following orders"). However, who would wish to argue with this collection of thoughts on Mr Brown's oeuvre:
Stephen King: "the intellectual equivalent of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese"
John Humphreys: "the literary equivalent of painting by numbers, by an artist who can’t even stay within the lines"
Salman Rushdie: "so bad that it gives bad novels a bad name"
Stewart Lee: "there is nothing of any value in Dan Brown"
Stephen Fry: "complete loose stool-water"
New York Times: "primer on how not to write an English sentence"
Anthony Lane: "unmitigated junk"
Geoffrey Pullum: "(one of the) worst prose stylists in the history of literature"
So imagine how pleased with myself I was this morning when I saw a fellow passenger reading Brown, and thought to myself "something to do while you wait to die." (The smug commuter mentally criticised the bespectacled fat man.)
Did I steal that from somewhere? It came to me unbidden, which is always a hint that something isn't original thought. But it felt original. And it felt good.
Stephen King: "the intellectual equivalent of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese"
John Humphreys: "the literary equivalent of painting by numbers, by an artist who can’t even stay within the lines"
Salman Rushdie: "so bad that it gives bad novels a bad name"
Stewart Lee: "there is nothing of any value in Dan Brown"
Stephen Fry: "complete loose stool-water"
New York Times: "primer on how not to write an English sentence"
Anthony Lane: "unmitigated junk"
Geoffrey Pullum: "(one of the) worst prose stylists in the history of literature"
So imagine how pleased with myself I was this morning when I saw a fellow passenger reading Brown, and thought to myself "something to do while you wait to die." (The smug commuter mentally criticised the bespectacled fat man.)
Did I steal that from somewhere? It came to me unbidden, which is always a hint that something isn't original thought. But it felt original. And it felt good.
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Que Sera Sera
This question just popped up on Yahoo! Answers:
"How do you think the universe came into existing?
I want your own theories/ideals about how the universe was created within absolutely noting?I know we may never know.. its fun to think about it. Your ideals on anything like this whether it be how planets were made, life, space or anything like that I would like to hear it. so please and thank you for your time"
This is my answer:
"There is overwhelming evidence that our Universe was contained within a tiny, extremely energetic point around 13 billion years ago. Therefore, we can say with confidence that a "Big Bang" happened, in the sense that we know that our Universe expanded extremely rapidly from that point. After that, the reasons for the formation of stars and planets are very well understood (basically gravity), and the cause of life is fairly well understood (if the laws of chemistry applying across ten thousand billion billion planetary systems over billions of years did not lead to the formation of life, it would be pretty surprising).
"However, there is still the rather significant question of what caused the existence of that tiny point of massive energy that became our Universe? There are various theories such as the "Big Bounce" or a series of "bubble universes" within a greater "multiverse", but all are highly speculative and rather unsatisfactory since they leave open the question "but what caused that?"
"One answer can almost certainly be ruled out - God. There are no meaningful reasons to believe in a god other than (arguably) the existence of our Universe. But if we believe that "God" is the cause of the Universe, we have achieved nothing since we are left with the question "but what caused God?" and we are back to square one. In fact, we would be left asking why we bothered suggesting God in the first place since it explains nothing and only adds pointless complication.
"Some people may answer that God is causeless. However, that argument is self-defeating. If something can be causeless then, by definition, the Universe could exist without cause. Using the philosophical argument known as Ockham's Razor, we would then conclude that the Universe just came into existence for no reason and your original question would become meaningless - pretty unsatisfactory, I think you will agree! We would also conclude that there is no longer ANY reason to believe in God and could dimiss his existence for the same reasons that we do not believe in fairies or Darth Vader. So whichever way we look at it, God is a pretty useless explanation.
"I think a far more likely answer to your question is that even within a void, there is some essential 'thing' that makes the existence of Universes like ours either a necessity or at least a possibility. If either of those scenarios is correct, then there is no longer a mystery and we are simply left to work out the precise details (the "how" of your question). Regarding what such a 'thing' might be, I would assume it would be some law of mathematics or logic. However, I appreciate that someone could respond to that with "but why do mathematics and logic exist and why are they the way that they are?" Well I'm sorry, but no one knows the answer to that yet. I expect that given enough time our species will work it out one day, or maybe we will make contact with a more advanced species that can explain it to us."
I'm up against some intellectual giants (sample: "I think that somehow the Universe is the aftermath of erosion/decay/death of something that we will never understand") but I'm hopeful of getting that treasured 'Best Answer' prize.
"How do you think the universe came into existing?
I want your own theories/ideals about how the universe was created within absolutely noting?I know we may never know.. its fun to think about it. Your ideals on anything like this whether it be how planets were made, life, space or anything like that I would like to hear it. so please and thank you for your time"
This is my answer:
"There is overwhelming evidence that our Universe was contained within a tiny, extremely energetic point around 13 billion years ago. Therefore, we can say with confidence that a "Big Bang" happened, in the sense that we know that our Universe expanded extremely rapidly from that point. After that, the reasons for the formation of stars and planets are very well understood (basically gravity), and the cause of life is fairly well understood (if the laws of chemistry applying across ten thousand billion billion planetary systems over billions of years did not lead to the formation of life, it would be pretty surprising).
"However, there is still the rather significant question of what caused the existence of that tiny point of massive energy that became our Universe? There are various theories such as the "Big Bounce" or a series of "bubble universes" within a greater "multiverse", but all are highly speculative and rather unsatisfactory since they leave open the question "but what caused that?"
"One answer can almost certainly be ruled out - God. There are no meaningful reasons to believe in a god other than (arguably) the existence of our Universe. But if we believe that "God" is the cause of the Universe, we have achieved nothing since we are left with the question "but what caused God?" and we are back to square one. In fact, we would be left asking why we bothered suggesting God in the first place since it explains nothing and only adds pointless complication.
"Some people may answer that God is causeless. However, that argument is self-defeating. If something can be causeless then, by definition, the Universe could exist without cause. Using the philosophical argument known as Ockham's Razor, we would then conclude that the Universe just came into existence for no reason and your original question would become meaningless - pretty unsatisfactory, I think you will agree! We would also conclude that there is no longer ANY reason to believe in God and could dimiss his existence for the same reasons that we do not believe in fairies or Darth Vader. So whichever way we look at it, God is a pretty useless explanation.
"I think a far more likely answer to your question is that even within a void, there is some essential 'thing' that makes the existence of Universes like ours either a necessity or at least a possibility. If either of those scenarios is correct, then there is no longer a mystery and we are simply left to work out the precise details (the "how" of your question). Regarding what such a 'thing' might be, I would assume it would be some law of mathematics or logic. However, I appreciate that someone could respond to that with "but why do mathematics and logic exist and why are they the way that they are?" Well I'm sorry, but no one knows the answer to that yet. I expect that given enough time our species will work it out one day, or maybe we will make contact with a more advanced species that can explain it to us."
I'm up against some intellectual giants (sample: "I think that somehow the Universe is the aftermath of erosion/decay/death of something that we will never understand") but I'm hopeful of getting that treasured 'Best Answer' prize.
Friday, 12 November 2010
Don't Pray In My School And I Won't Think In Your Church
Two news stories today with a whiff of the metaphysical about them.
Confirming the conviction of a woman who killed her severely disabled and brain-damaged son, Lord Judge said ".... however disabled Thomas might have been, a disabled life, even a life lived at the extremes of disability, is not one jot less precious than the life of an able-bodied person." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11742526
Hm? I wonder how many people would whole-heartedly agree with that when obliged to consider it rationally. Of course, we don't all think rationally all of the time. I gather Igor Judge is a catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Roman_Catholics)
And good old Iain Duncan Smith is at it as well (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/11/coalition-backlash-hardship-payments-scrapped).
IDS kindly informs us that it is a "sin" for people to fail to take up work. Well, that may be true in a broad, vague'ish sense, but it may not be the most considered thing the former leader of the Conservatives has said. But then again, he too is a catholic.
IDS is entitled to his opinions and I suppose he is entitled to voice them in his role as a member of Government. But we should be very wary of these opinions when it comes to the next General Election. Obviously the same went for Blair in spades.
However, Lord Judge's catholicism quite possibly disqualifies him morally from passing judgement on matters of life and death. The Vatican's ex-cathedra pronouncements in this area makes it impossible for any observant Roman Catholic to make rational decisions here. And without rational thought, what is left of our society? Might as well hand it over to the mullahs or the bishops.
Confirming the conviction of a woman who killed her severely disabled and brain-damaged son, Lord Judge said ".... however disabled Thomas might have been, a disabled life, even a life lived at the extremes of disability, is not one jot less precious than the life of an able-bodied person." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11742526
Hm? I wonder how many people would whole-heartedly agree with that when obliged to consider it rationally. Of course, we don't all think rationally all of the time. I gather Igor Judge is a catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Roman_Catholics)
And good old Iain Duncan Smith is at it as well (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/11/coalition-backlash-hardship-payments-scrapped).
IDS kindly informs us that it is a "sin" for people to fail to take up work. Well, that may be true in a broad, vague'ish sense, but it may not be the most considered thing the former leader of the Conservatives has said. But then again, he too is a catholic.
IDS is entitled to his opinions and I suppose he is entitled to voice them in his role as a member of Government. But we should be very wary of these opinions when it comes to the next General Election. Obviously the same went for Blair in spades.
However, Lord Judge's catholicism quite possibly disqualifies him morally from passing judgement on matters of life and death. The Vatican's ex-cathedra pronouncements in this area makes it impossible for any observant Roman Catholic to make rational decisions here. And without rational thought, what is left of our society? Might as well hand it over to the mullahs or the bishops.
Thursday, 11 November 2010
I Am Not A Number
Lovely stuff: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11719764
The new Government is spending a fortune (quite rightly in my view) destroying the data compiled for the ID database. Two particular amusing/horrifying facts:
“... if the data it collected had been stored centrally as it was meant to be. But there is evidence that some was accidentally stored locally”
“Accidentally stored locally”??? So reassurances about the security of the data were... bullshit. Exactly as anyone with 3 brain cells insisted all along.
“Anti-ID card campaigners often warned about the dangers of storing all of the ID data in one place - making it potentially vulnerable to hacking, only to be assured by ministers from the previous government that this would not happen. So it is fascinating to read that there are two separate locations in the UK where all of the biometric and biographical information gathered by the ID card scheme is, or has been, stored.”
So ministers just lied. They said the data would be spread around to make it less vulnerable. But it was all stored together in one place. Two actually, so doubly risky.
It does make me really angry when I remember all the reassurances from Labour about how the data would be safe. Turns out it was all absolute bollocks. We knew they were lying to us, but they still smugly did it, knowing that they would never be held to account. Bastards!
The new Government is spending a fortune (quite rightly in my view) destroying the data compiled for the ID database. Two particular amusing/horrifying facts:
“... if the data it collected had been stored centrally as it was meant to be. But there is evidence that some was accidentally stored locally”
“Accidentally stored locally”??? So reassurances about the security of the data were... bullshit. Exactly as anyone with 3 brain cells insisted all along.
“Anti-ID card campaigners often warned about the dangers of storing all of the ID data in one place - making it potentially vulnerable to hacking, only to be assured by ministers from the previous government that this would not happen. So it is fascinating to read that there are two separate locations in the UK where all of the biometric and biographical information gathered by the ID card scheme is, or has been, stored.”
So ministers just lied. They said the data would be spread around to make it less vulnerable. But it was all stored together in one place. Two actually, so doubly risky.
It does make me really angry when I remember all the reassurances from Labour about how the data would be safe. Turns out it was all absolute bollocks. We knew they were lying to us, but they still smugly did it, knowing that they would never be held to account. Bastards!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)