AndromedasWake and I attended a conversation between Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers yesterday. Well, we tried. But we were slightly obstructed by the protesters who forcibly entered the theatre and then hippied up the whole damn shooting match.

Protesters? Oh, yes. You may count upon it.

Members of the Education Activist Network spent about half an hour sitting on the stage and talking nonsense. I gather they’re annoyed with Dawkins for his involvement with AC Grayling’s New College for the Humanities, about which they are disgusted, I tell you.

The gist seems to be a) it costs a lot and b) we can’t afford it therefore it is c) an affront to the laws of God and Man. According to the EAN, education is a “human right”, which I don’t think really follows, but even if it is, how do you quantify exactly how MUCH education is a human right? Is it basic levels of numeracy and literacy? Or is it the kind of suave service Grayling aims to provide?

I had to wonder about these protesters, these predominately young, groomed and foppish types as they flounced around the stage. The purpose seemed mainly to have good hair and pose dramatically, rather than effect any meaningful dialogue. I don’t imagine many involved will have donated all their spare money to educational charities, or devoted their spare time to mentoring and private tutoring. They probably like bursting into rooms and then not making sense.

Let’s dismantle the notion that expensive, private education is somehow bad. Assume that I, over a period of years, create an institute to teach guitar. It takes me a lot of time, money and effort, and is done with the aid of many people. In order to recoup my losses and in order to pay for the highest standards of tutelage, the costs are high. Does anyone have the right to complain? Nope. It’s my college and I can charge what I like. No-one has the right to free or cheap guitar tuition; it’s an exchange of money for a service. Even if education is a human right, is an exceptional education a human right? Grayling et al are trying to create extraordinarily high standards of service; costs will, correspondingly, be high.

Let’s make it even simpler. You go to Greggs (a bakery chain in the UK, not sure if it’s worldwide) and a cake is cheap. Got to Les Cakery de Pierre van de Gateaux, in Richtown, and a cake is expensive. But it will be a damn nice cake. Does anyone protest the fact that some cakes are too expensive for people to afford? Hell no. If a bunch of people decide to set up a private institution to offer a service, and the service is an elite one that cannot be sustained without high fees, how is it the right of poor people to demand the abolishment of same? At least it’s an institution devoted to the dissemination of knowledge, even if everyone can’t afford it. What the EAN are actually trying to do is reduce the number of educational establishments, on the grounds that they can’t afford them even though they have no right to expect to be able to afford them.

There was a Q&A at the end, but it seemed that the remaining protesters (many having been removed by police earlier) didn’t want to rush to the microphones, which you might have thought would be their purpose. Mainly they remained in their seats and heckled rather than taking the chance to directly converse with Dawkins on the subject.

Class act, guys.

The data collected was from two surveys taken in 2004 and 2008 asking 983 and 1,893 people respectively. The first effect looked at was the direct relationship between religion and support for torure. The researchers found a negative correlation on this point. That is, a religious person was less likely – on average – to support torture. This was described as an organic influence, something about the precepts of religion and opposition to torture were simultaneously appealing to the survey respondents.

However, the authors had also expected a discursive influence of religion and torture because of the popular view that religion and conservative politics ‘go together’ in the US and conservative politics lead to support for torture. When they separated out the progressive and conservative respondents, the moderating impact of religion was overwhelmed and a strong positive relationship between religion and support for torture was observed. A discursive relationship is one that arises through common perception, such as an ideological framework. Compare this to an organic relationship caused by innate features which people may not be consciously aware of. To show the three part relationship between religiosity, conservatism, and torture the researchers looked at one final factor: education level.

The authors of this study reasoned that conservatives with higher education levels would hold more consistent political views. Those with less education would be more likely to follow the common, organic, threads even if they were inconsistent with their stated political position. The data were consistent with this hypothesis showing conservative religious people who were highly educated were even more likely to support torture. So there we are, being religious is negatively correlated with supporting torture but being educated and politically engaged is positively correlated with it, at least if you are a conservative.

Malka and Soto (2011) The Conflicting Influences of Religiosity on Attitude Toward Torture. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Students could choose between four options to describe their view on this relationship.

1. Conflict – I consider myself on the side of religion
2. Conflict – I consider myself on the side of science
3. Independence – they refer to different aspects of reality
4. Collaboration – each can be used to help support the other

Categories three and four were lumped together into a ‘non-conflict’ answer.

Of this sample 83% of the students were religious. Unsurprisingly then, this means that 86% of the respondents went with non-conflict (69%) or sided with religion (17%). That leaves 17% non-religious students, 14% of whom sided exclusively with science. Given the large proportion of Christians in the US and that most are not of the fundamental variety, meaning they will have their science and eat it too, this seems a fairly straight-forward result.

Interestingly by their junior year, 73% of those who had originally sided with religion had come to adopt a non-conflict or pro-science position. This shift perhaps reflects the secularising effect of education. However, 47% of those who had originally picked science had also shifted their position. Not as large of a percentage of those who changed from a pro-religion stand-point but a substantial proportion of students. Even when the researcher looked into the data for only science students, the moderating effect of education was still present. Apparently, learning more about science decreased the view that science and religion were in conflict.

What I would have liked to be able to look at is the detailed data for both the independence and collaboration viewpoints instead of having them lumped together in a single category. If it’s correct that more education promotes a more secular viewpoint I would expect to see the ‘independence’ category increase. Whereas if education was actually supporting religion, I would expect to see a growth in the number of students picking ‘collaboration’. With the data in their current form, it’s impossible to make such judgements.

1. SHEP is funded by the Templeton foundation; any true sceptics will now hum the Jaws theme.

Scheitle, C. P. (2011) U.S. College Students’ Perception of Religion and Science: Conflict, Collaboration, or Independence? A Research Note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 175-186.

In his Christmas speech the Pope addressed the subject of child abuse by saying that “In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children”. Yup, apparently in the 1970 everyone was just fine and dandy with the sexual abuse of children and so the Catholic Church, I’m guessing in an attempt to try and seem relevant and keep with the times, decided to start abusing children as well. See, it is all the secular worlds fault, they did it first, the Catholic Church was just going with the crowd. Seriously Catholic Church, if the secular world jumped off a bridge would you do it too?

Now I myself wasn’t born until near the end of the 1970s so I have no first-hand knowledge of whether child abuse was just considered run of the mill and acceptable during that time, but somehow I don’t think that was the case. But it does raise an issue about morality that the Pope seems to have missed. He went on to talk about the growth of child pornography saying “We cannot remain silent about the context of these times in which these events have come to light…that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society”. So it is acceptable to society so the Church cannot be held fully to blame if they did it as well, is that what you’re saying? Now one thing I remember clearly from when I was a Christian is the whole “in the world but not of it” line. Christian’s are called by Jesus to live up to a higher standard of morality than everyone else. It doesn’t matter if the rest of the world is a bunch of lying, stealing, murdering child rapists, as a follower of Jesus you are to be above such things and set an example by the moral life you choose to live. Seems the Pope may have forgotten this point when offer up his “well they did it first” argument.

Strangely all this got me thinking about Ray Comfort’s latest post over on his Atheist Central blog. Here Ray attempt to explain how you can have perfect justice and perfect mercy when mercy is, pretty much by definition, a suspension of justice. Once again, given that he only actually has like three lines of argument, he offers up the highly flawed analogy of a man in a court of law being found guilty and told to pay a $100,000 fine only for the judge to pay the fine himself because “he cares about the man”. According to Ray this would be an example where both mercy and justice were satisfied.

Now if you are anything like me you will find yourself scratching your head at this line of reasoning and being amazed by the fact that anyone could say such a thing with a straight face. This, like the Pope’s defence of priestly kiddy fiddling, only seems to work as an argument if you are already completely convinced that you are in the right. No one would watch a judge pay another man’s fine, or to make the analogy more accurate have someone else serve another man’s sentence, and say justice had been done, just as no one would accept the statement of “well everyone was doing it back then so why make such a big deal about the children buggered by priests” as a reason to forgive the Catholic Church for the horrors it inflicted on hundreds of innocent children. But then maybe I just don’t get religious morality.

I would love to hear your thoughts on either of these matters.

For those of you who haven’t heard about this let me give you the thrust of the story. The UK Government is currently working on plans to have internet service providers block their customers’ access to pornographic material as a matter of course, the idea behind this being to protect children from “accidently” accessing mature websites. Now if the idea of going without internet porn makes your life seem barely worth living don’t worry as the Government include in the plan a way that you can still get your fix of Japanese anorexic vomit porn, all you need to do is phone up your ISP and ask them to grant you access. I am sure that won’t be too awkward.

Personally I have never been a big user of porn, however it is good to know that if I do have the urge to find out what two girls and a midget can do with a bucket of jelly and six foot of garden hose that the option is available to me without having to phone someone up and tell them about it first. Now obviously I am making light of this story but it does have serious implications. This is very much a case of the Government decided what people can and cannot view in the comfort of their own homes. Porn, except in specific cases, is not illegal and while I agree that there should be things in place to make it hard for children to access it should that really be the responsibility of the Government or should it rest on the shoulders of the individual parents?

Now there is obviously a long hard slippery slope argument that can be made here. Once the Government has blocked easy access to porn how long before they make it illegal to look at it at all. What other things might they decide should be blocked “for the sake of the children” once the ability to do so is in place? Who decides what constitutes porn anyway? After all one man’s porn is another man’s art.

I know this is a little off the usual topic of this blog but I think the heart of the story is very much League of Reason territory. This is censorship, this is telling people what they can and cannot look at, even when it is perfectly legal to do so, and it has implications far beyond what is being proposed. I would love to know your thoughts on this one. Am I overreacting here or am I right in viewing the Government as trying to bend us over and shaft us where it hurts?

PS. Th1sWasATriumph so should have written this post. My attempts to use innuendos pales in comparison to his mastery of the art.

NASA’s release: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/dec/HQ_10-320_Toxic_Life.html

So, how do you think this will affect the search for life elsewhere? It might not be life on Titan (as some speculated the news release might be about), but it’s still pretty cool.

Forum topic for convenience: http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6453

I have lived through a decade of Ground Zero controversy. From the moment the dust settled, individuals and groups with political agendas descended on the wounded carcass of lower Manhattan, cutting out and dishing up great slabs of suffering to serve at the gluttonous feast of their ambitions.

“All of Ground Zero should be declared hallowed ground”, “The memorial in light should remain until the towers are rebuilt”, “it should be called the Freedom Tower”, “THIS tower design is a better memorial than that one”, “A design contest will show the true spirit of American freedom”, “The stairway to heaven can’t be moved, it would be disrespectful!”, “The beams that form a cross cannot be moved, God placed them there!”

It has gone on and on, year after year.

Politicians and activists stand in the shadow of the ruins, strike noble stances, bow their heads sorrowfully and then declare; “Vote for me! Support me!”

This is what angered me so much about Thunderf00t’s video. It was clearly yet another attempt to ride the emotional tide of Ground Zero.  The great Thunderf00t, long known as a scion of education, reason and logic on YouTube, had spoken out on the issue and had not addressed any of the real facts, had not applied his supposed keen, razor sharp intellect to the falsehoods and bigotry flying about; instead he had created a video that in my opinion, was total, absolute shit.  Like many others before him he had gone the base, common route of indulging himself in fallacy and hate at the expense of reason; at the expense of the people who call that neighborhood… “home”.

I won’t bother to repeat here any of the facts that destroy the many fallacious arguments against the Park 51 Center. But suffice it to say; there has not been a single “factual” argument put forward that has not turned out to be a lie – and in each case it was a lie that could be traced back to some Republican/neo-con right wing source.

I will address one argument that I keep hearing raised time and again.

“Why don’t they just place the Center somewhere else?”

This appeal to emotion, to supposed sensibility and rationality, is one of the most insidious arguments put forward. It totally ignores fact and reality, attempting to portray the opposing side as inconsiderate and unreasonable.

The Downtown Muslim community has existed since before the building of the World Trade Center. Since that time, it has grown. After 9/11, when businesses and families fled Downtown and moved elsewhere, the Muslim Community continued to grow. They are a part of Downtown. They live there, shop there, own businesses there, send their children to local schools. And they already have a mosque right there, a couple of blocks away, that has been there for years. It is now, however, too small for their community, insufficient for their needs in many ways, and needs to be replaced.

So I ask back to those who raise this question;

In a time when economic hardship is the norm, why should they NOT have their Center located where they live and work instead of at another location where the trip would cost them a few hundred dollars a month in transportation expenses not to mention an hour’s time round trip?

Why should they have to raise the additional funds to purchase a building at greater cost when they already have one?

Why should you, who have no connection to the area, with your offended sensibilities, based on your irrational emotional response, dictate how these people live their lives?
And why should the entire neighborhood, Muslim and non-Muslim, be denied the much-needed business and income that will result from the existence of the new community center?

September 11th has passed. On September 12th the politicians, the activists, the bloggers, the news sources put away their fiery rhetoric, set aside their somber expressions, wiped away their crocodile tears and for another ten months Ground Zero will be forgotten.  The tourists will still come in droves to view the site where one of the greatest tragedies in American history took place. But just blocks away, streets that were once teeming with pedestrians now contain only a ghost of that once busy traffic.  Businesses will continue to struggle. Some will survive. Others will not. Life in Downtown Manhattan will continue – Until next year, when some new controversy will be fabricated and the whole circus will begin again.

Someday, the Two Towers will stand again. But we must ask ourselves now;

“What do we want these Towers to mean?”

Do we wish them to be a symbol of the freedom and equality that we have always been told embody the American spirit?

Or do we wish to build an icon to the fear, bigotry and hatred that now dominate the American landscape?

This is TheTruePooka, writing to you from Hell’s Kitchen, NYC. And Remember; if you find these words upsetting; Pet the Cat.

“On September 11th, 2010, from 6pm – 9pm, we will burn the Koran on the property of Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL in remembrance of the fallen victims of 9/11 and to stand against the evil of Islam. Islam is of the devil!”

As I write this the latest on this story seems to be that, after stating earlier that the event would be cancelled, Reverend Jones plans to “rethink” the idea after local Muslim leader Imam Muhammad Musri denied that any deal had been struck to move the proposed Park51 community centre away, sorry make that further away, from the Ground Zero site. Jones has stated that on Saturday, the day planned for the Koran burning, he will be travelling to New York to meet with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf about the proposed location of the centre. However it is unclear if the actual book burning part of his plan is back on or not.

Either way the reason I mention this is in order to draw attention to what I think is by far the best response to this proposed event that I have come across so far. International Read a Book Day. I love this idea, not just because I love reading anyway but because I feel it is exactly the sort of approach that should be taken against something stupid like Burn a Koran Day. It is a reasoned, measured reaction that clearly gets the point across, shows solidarity and respect for people who may believe differently than we do and promotes something constructive. What’s more is that the people behind this are Christians. Yup for once we see moderate Christians standing up against the more fundamental members of their religion. Here’s what Facebook page has to say on the matter:

“In July of this year, the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida announced September 11 this year would be “Burn a Koran Day.” We believe that the burning of a Koran, or any other book, while it may be within the rights of free speech, is a tasteless and disturbing gesture that only communicates contempt and ignorance. Instead, we invite the international community to celebrate “Read a Book Day.” Burning books has never made a society better, but reading them has.”

So this September 11th I will be sitting down to read a book and remembering all those who died on that terrible day nine years ago. Will you join me?

“Please don’t attend to any calls from 7888308001, 9316048121, 9876266211, 9888854137 and 9876715587, these numbers come in red colour…you may get brain haemorrhage due to high frequency”

Now this may sound crazy but it is still more believable than the version of this urban legend that popped up in Pakistan in 2007. Here it was claimed that listening to phone calls coming from red numbers would result in men becoming impotent and, get this, woman falling pregnant. Now I am no expert on reproduction but even with my limited knowledge I am pretty sure that’s not how things works. Meanwhile back in Kenya the Communication Commission have been investigating these claims and have put out the statement below, which prompted me to comment on this in the first place.

“Upon analysis of the messages, the Commission has established the warnings are a hoax generated by unscrupulous people bent on causing fear and despondency among members of the public. The listed numbers are non-existent as mobile, fixed or international calls,”

Maybe it is just my years as a battle hardened skeptic but I required no further analysis than reading the title of the article to know that this story was complete horse hockey. I think this just goes to show why skepticism and critical thinking skills are so important. In a world where everyone had a basic understanding of how to apply skeptical thinking to their daily lives things like this would simply never gain traction. This sort of thing, as well as a lot of email driven hoaxes, rely on the credulousness of the people receiving the messages in order to propagate. With something like this I don’t even think you need to have an understanding of the technology used by mobile phones to see that it is bunkum. It just requires taking a few seconds to see if it passes the sniff test.

But maybe my strong reaction to this story come not from the fact that I find it so amazing that people would fall for this, as reality tells us that there are a lot of credulous people out there, but rather because, to my mind at least, it represents something of a failure on our part. I know that we have to choose our battles and that there are a lot more pressing subjects that need our attention. But really things like this always leave me feeling somewhat depressed. Just as I think we are making progress a story like this reminds me just how far we have to go in getting the world to think skeptically.

Legislators in San Francisco are set to introduce new laws requiring all mobile phone retailers to post radiation emission level notices next to all the handsets they sell. Tony Winnicker, spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, claims that this “is a modest commonsense measure to provide greater transparency and information to consumers” and the proposal, which passed with a vote of 10-1, is likely to get its final approval next week despite the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE that mobile phones cause any harm to humans.

The idea that mobile phones can cause brain cancer is a widely held misconception that has long been shown to be false by that pesky spoiler of fun known as “peer reviewed scientific evidence”. For example a study conducted in Denmark, and published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, looked at the effect of RF radiation on 420,000 mobile phone users over a 13 year period. They looked for any sign that mobile phone use caused an increase in a wide variety of different cancers and related conditions. The results were pretty conclusive:

Risk for these cancers … did not vary by duration of cellular telephone use, time since first subscription, age at first subscription, or type of cellular telephone (analogue or digital). Analysis of brain and nervous system tumors showed no statistically significant [standardized incidence ratios] for any subtype or anatomic location. The results of this investigation … do not support the hypothesis of an association between use of these telephones and tumors of the brain or salivary gland, leukemia, or other cancers.

In fact the very idea of mobile phones causing cancer makes very little sense. Mobile phones do not use ionizing radiation, nor do they use oscillating frequencies like those found in microwave ovens. As such that pretty much rules out any plausible way by which your mobile could conceivably cook your brain. But not only is there no reason to believe that there is any danger from mobile phones in the first place, there is also disagreement regarding whether the new legislation will accomplish its goal of better informing the public.

“Rather than inform, the ordinance will potentially mislead consumers with point-of-sale requirements suggesting that some phones are ‘safer’ than others, based on radio frequency emissions,” said John Walls, vice-president of public affairs for the CTIA.

By hey, why should we listen to those scientists and their “evidence” when it is much easier to put a pointless and confusing law in place to help ease our irrational misgivings regarding things we don’t really understand? The only people I see benefiting from this new law are those people selling products that claim to protect you from the radiation coming from your mobile. So well done San Francisco, you have created a law that helps the purveyors of pseudoscience. Nice one.

The resulting report concluded that people wanted scientists who worked with the bits and pieces of life to do so with humility and respect for the material they were working with.

It also showed that people wanted to have a say in how the research was conducted and how grants were awarded. There should be consideration of social values as well as scientific merit, they said.

Now I don’t know about you but I can’t think of anyone who would be worse than the general public when it comes to evaluating the benefits of various areas of scientific research. I’m also sure that I’m not the only one who can’t help but read the words “humility and respect” and think “must not play God.” The general public as a group stopped getting itself vaccinated due to one ethically vile over reported paper. It now doubts climate change due to the use of the word “trick” in a couple of emails. And it spends millions every year on alternative medicine that, to put it bluntly, doesn’t work. This is hardly the right group of people to be making decisions about a new cutting edge area of scientific research. This is exactly what we have, oh what are they called, ah yes, experts for.

Ok, that is all. Please return to your daily lives.

However, you develop an unfair bias of a newspaper when you peruse it mainly to find new nonsense to write about in your blog. You ignore all rational articles about politics\current affairs\crossbows to the face and concentrate only on articles that guarantee a spout of vitriol frothy enough to incur a transparent sense of self-righteousness. And as a result, your perception is that the chosen paper exists only to print stories about religion, druids and the supernatural. Unfair, since the Metro regularly dishes out reasonably informative articles about modern science and astronomy.

My last fodder was about druids fixing roads, and it’s hard to have sympathy for a publication that will indulge itself with such asinine balls. But almost the next day, indeed it could have been the next day, the Metro printed this. Our very own Phil Plait, who I have happily if briefly met (and who disillusioned me slightly by expressing a certain reserve for District 9, damn it Phil when will you see that guys in alien power armour are the next Casablanca) blogged about a photo of a lunar rock that had rolled into a crater. The Metro picked this up and wrote the small piece to which I just linked.

They could have taken Phil’s approach, which was “OMFG space is awesome and beautiful”. And they sort of did. But they also titled the article “Proof that golf-playing God shot a hole-in-one on the Moon?”

Facedesk.

Why, why would you do this? What manner of journalist would take a story about a lunar event of some rarity and make it into terrifyingly inept pun-based  pseudoscience? Am I only this annoyed because I loathe religion? No, I don’t think I am. The image itself deserved a tone of joyous solemnity (and sure, Phil played with a few golfing metaphors himself before getting into the science of it; I imagine the Metro stole the idea.) But that wouldn’t have been enough to make a prominent article; only invoking God could elevate the story into something worthy of News. Not content with printing stories about supernatural druidical assholery, they feel the need to take stories of astronomical wonder and create supernatural assholery. ” . . . this picture suggests that the Almighty could have had a round or two on the grey course – and even scored a hole-in-one.” What? You can almost hear the satisfied smirk as it drips off the journo’s face and congeals in the folds of his Armani tie.

You were so close to redeeming yourself, Metro. Now I hate you hate you hate you.

Print news, fine. Even if that means factually reporting on nonsense, fine. But taking science and jokingly inserting God? I will end you. With sticks.

Perhaps more than anything else in recent years, it is in light of the introduction of The Amaz!ng Meeting in Europe that no one can deny the rising tide of scepticism around the globe.

I wasn’t alone when I arrived so fresh and early. Aside from a trickle of sceptics congregating near the door, I was accompanied by my good friend and fellow League blogger, Th1sWasATriumph. “Christ,” I hear you say, “what an asshole!”

Yes it’s true, but as I said, he’s a good friend, and sometimes you have to look past the myriad flaws in an individual’s character – an individual whose very acronym is ‘TWAT’ – and see him for the beautiful, loveable atheist within. Besides, I wasn’t stuck alone with him. Shortly after our arrival we were greeted by RabbitPirate  (this came as something as a surprise, as RP hadn’t once mentioned that he was attending TAM), League regular Josan and several members of YouTube’s sceptic community.

Once inside, we were treated to entertaining and informative talks, jokes, and even songs from a great variety of presenters. So awesome was the event, that I struggled to find the energy to write a comprehensive review (I will this year, I promise) so instead I’ll refer you to the one posted by the Hampshire Skeptic’s Society. You can also find a gallery of photos on my Facebook page (apparently you need to be signed into Facebook to view them) most of which were shot with a telephoto lens from the second row for close-up goodness. My short review is that somehow, the word ‘amazing’ doesn’t do it justice. For me it was a great opportunity to meet and thank some of the people who have inspired me to become vocal about my scepticism, atheism and love for astronomy (*cough* Phil Plait *cough*), and particularly symbolic as a landmark critical thinking conference held in my own country.

Thanks to the sell-out success of the London debut, this year’s second round has been announced and detailed for  the weekend of October 16th and 17th. The line-up is excellent (though I must confess to not recognising all of the names) and the whole thing is sure to attract more media attention thanks to several high-profile attendees.

This is a fantastic opportunity to raise public awareness of the sceptical cause and the importance of education. It’s also the perfect excuse to get some of the League together and represent our corner of the intertubes. It was, as I said, quite a surprise to bump into anyone aware of the site at last year’s event, but we’ve grown since then; who knows how many attendees could be reading? League of Reason is primarily a UK website – that is, it’s hosted in the UK with British administrators, and TAM London is the premier British event of its kind. Although our user base spans the entire globe, we have a comparatively strong European influence over other rationalist internet forums. What better way to represent than with a meet-up at TAM? I am also working on a League outreach programme, which many have shown interest in, so stay tuned for that!

Tickets for TAM London 2010, which are £220, go on sale on the 29th May (yes, this Saturday!) and I would expect them to sell out quickly. There is even a slim chance I won’t get one, but for the love of Loki I’ll give it my best shot. Th1sWasATriumph will also be attending this year’s event pending availability, as will Josan. Expect a League pub jaunt following the weekend’s festivities (i.e. get Monday off work) and some kind of t-shirt campaign in the run-up to October.

I began writing this post yesterday, and by the time I came back to it today, three new speakers had been added to the bill; among them, Richard Dawkins! Dawkins was unable to make last year’s event, as was James Randi (sadly due to illness) but this year it seems they will be joined by the one and only PZ Myers to form a trio of unstoppable ass-kicking. Do you really need any more convincing? To me, the only drawback is the lack of Phil Plait, who I had the pleasure of meeting at last year’s event. Phil, you will be sorely missed.

Finally, I have a special message for you PZ. Yes, I know you’re reading. I know you’re the one who creates endless, unoriginally named accounts to spam our forums with anti-atheist flame bait. Since you have mentioned me (twice) on your blog, I will be waiting for you in London, stalking in the shadows like a science ninja. I’m going to find you and I’m going to PESTER YOUR FACE OFF.

That said, who’s with me? Full details including accommodation information can be found over at tamlondon.org. TAM London is also on Facebook and Twitter. Lastly, my prediction for the weekend’s events.

[Item] or [practice] nullifies or negates the effects, presence, activity or consequences of [entity], [energy], or [phenomenon]. How can you tell? Because absolutely nothing is happening, and so the [item] or [practice] is a legitimate success. This stone keeps away bears. You can tell because you don’t see any bears around here . . . yes, this stone IS for sale. How expensive? Completely.

 This kind of non-logic is still happening today, and not only is it still happening but it’s actively endorsed by government bodies. Welcome to Austria, where a hitherto fatality-laden length of motorway near Salzburg has been fixed. By magic.

Druid Ilmar Tessman has blamed the high accident rate on a local mobile phone mast, which spreads “negative radiation over 120-200 miles.”

The accident rate has been reduced to zero in two years by the use of standing stones and magnets, apparently. Responding to scientific skeptics who say “Whatever can’t be measured does not exist” (Dr Georg Walach, Leoben University), Tessman says “If you ask me to give you a scientific explanation, I can’t. I just know it works, and even critics can’t argue with our success rate.”

Guess what? They can. I find it bogglingly, numbingly depressing that such nonsense is tolerated, let alone invested in as a valid solution. Instead of subjecting such findings to further research – and think about it, if you genuinely were sure that cheap edifices of stone, plastic and magnets could prevent car accidents surely you’d research the hell out of it, given that it represents a new stage of physics – this coincidental nonsense is simply allowed to continue. Drivers on these dangerous roads, whose risk factor has not been reduced in the slightest by these druidical interventions, will drive thinking they’re safe. I’ll tell you for free what reduced the rate of accidents – coincidence. People happened not to die for two years running, which is hardly surprising on a well known accident black spot. The more notorious the area becomes, the more careful drivers will be on it. Makes sense, I feel. But now? Drivers will think that elemental magic protects them from harm, and will quite possibly drive more dangerously as a result.

Grow up, world. If Tessman has truly stumbled on a new arena of scientific endeavour, don’t you think he should write a few papers on the subject?

You can find on the internet, today, people who genuinely think they have psychic or telekinetic powers. Imagine the new depths of Tessman’s delusion now that he’s been told he can fix road traffic fatalities. It’s cruel, when you think about it.

But that aside I still think that something like this needed to happen and as if to prove the point Pakistan has decided to ban access to facebook and much of youtube and flickr in order to stop its countrymen from being offended by stick figures labelled Mohammed.

“Before shutting down (YouTube), we did try just to block particular URLs or links, and access to 450 links on the internet were stopped,” said PTA spokesman Khurram Ali Mehran.

“But the blasphemous content kept appearing so we ordered a total shut down.”

But why on earth would they need to do this? I mean what is so bad about people being offended? Well though I disagree with their actions I can’t help but think that they had a point, it’s just that their reasoning behind the site blocking just proves the very point the whole event was trying to make.

Government officials say they are acting pre-emptively to prevent a repeat of the 2006 cartoon riots that caused destruction of property and caused five deaths. But it was unclear whether the measures would satisfy the court or prevent disturbances.

Even after Facebook was banned yesterday, Islamist groups took to the streets, mounting minor protests. More are feared following weekly prayers tomorrow.

Yup, they decided to block the sites because they had reason to believe that looking at a few pictures of some bearded guy called Mohammed would result in rioting and possible death. Though I have no doubt that this is just an excuse to limit free speech and freedom of expression it is hard not to wonder what I would have done if I had been in the same situation, knowing that people would probably die because a percentage of the population would react to the cartoons in a completely over the top and out of proportion way. I’m not defending them, far from it, I just wonder what their alternative could have been?

Of course not everyone has such altruistic motivations. Some were more worried about hurt feelings.

“Such malicious and insulting attacks hurt the sentiments of Muslims around the world and cannot be accepted under the garb of freedom of expression,” Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit said about the page.

I’m sorry but this is exactly what freedom of expression is all about and do you not think that when people are threatened with death for drawing cartoons that that constitutes “malicious and insulting attacks” to a much higher degree than this does? So if it is something you feel comfortable with then get out your pen and draw yourself a picture of Mohammed. Yes it will insult people, but maybe it will show them that they are foolish for getting insulted in the first place and that it is their reactions that are ultimately responsible for ours.

Ps. Apologies for this post having no real sense of direction and for not making much sense. I wanted to comment on this issue but it has been a very long day and clearly my brain is not functioning correctly. I can’t even work out what point I was trying to make here.

Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!

Note that this was posted in the context of the airport being closed before he was due to fly. It was not actually directed at the airport, but when found by an employee was reported to the police, who arrested him. He has been fined £1,000 and now has a criminal record. Ever the gentleman, Stephen Fry has offered to shout the fine, but the man’s life will almost certainly take an unnecessary dent* from this fiasco and I can’t help but wonder how the average British tax-payer feels, knowing how the justice budget is being spent.

I found the Judge’s words to be the most staggering part of the story:

A district judge ruled the Tweet was “of a menacing nature in the context of the times in which we live”.

Tell me, what isn’t menacing in the context of the times in which we live? Have we really made so little progress in our efforts to combat terrorism over the last decade? What good is an expensive ‘War on Terror’ abroad if we still live in terror at our computers?

More painful though, is the ironic reference to context. Since, in the context of the times in which we live, isn’t this OBVIOUSLY a joke?

Apparently not.

Click here to follow this news on Twitter.

*Update: It seems Paul was half-way through his accountancy qualification. The conviction will officially prevent him from graduating. That makes me a sad panda.

A Muslim woman has been fined for wearing a burka in a post office in Novara, Italy, after the mayor passed a law forbidding face-covering garb inside public buildings. Mayor Massimo Giordano could maybe be described as an Islamophobe, but as far as I’m concerned that’s like calling someone a murderophobe or a rapistophobe. It’s entirely rational to dislike or fear Islam, which makes it not a phobia but a very sensible intellectual stance.

Hands up who’s seen, in the UK (I can speak for no other country, being not well-travelled) signs in banks/shops/post offices etc forbidding the wearing of motorcycle helmets? Exactly; lots of ‘em. Seems sensible to me. You don’t want someone shotgunning a hole through the till and making off with the money whilst disguised. Even ignoring the implications that burkas hold regarding the rights of women in Islam, illegalising a clothing that makes identification near-impossible is an act of common sense. If the burka was outlawed in all public spaces I’d have pause for thought; I’d think it was a breach of personal rights if not for the fact that burka wearing is pretty much imposed either by a man or by indoctrination to the religion. 

And how have the Muslim couple in question reacted to this? Well, check this – when the woman (Amel Marmouri) was stopped by police, her husband (Ben Braim) wouldn’t let the burka be removed by male policemen. Presumably the sight of an unclothed face would have led to an instant and massive sexbrawl. 

Kind of proving my point that burkas are often imposed, Braim is quoted as saying “We knew about the law and I know that it’s not against my religion but now Amel will have to stay indoors. I can’t have other men looking at her.” 

Outstanding. He’d rather imprison his wife than allow her outside barefaced. That shows an admirable commitment to your faith, doesn’t it? It’s worth noting that Imam Izzedin Elzir, president of the Islamic Community and Organisations Union in Italy, said ” . . . we are against face veils or coverings in Italy because the law of recognition has to be observed.” So it’s not all bad . . . but does that mean that Muslim women in Italy are allowed out without a burka? Or does it mean they’re law-abidingly confined away from the gaze of other men? I hope, I really hope, that it’s the former.

As I anticipated would happen, Rabbitpirate beat me to laying the first League blogstone on the subject of Simon Singh and his sudden victory. Since I’m not a petty man/as good as Rabbitpirate, I’d love to see him do a longer musing on the subject without the dilution that my opinions would create. However I just wanted to highlight one thing.

Quoting from the BCA’s press release, “The BCA has considered seeking leave to take this matter to the Supreme Court and has been advised there are strong grounds for appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment. However, while it was right to bring this claim at the outset, the BCA now feels that the time is right for the matter to draw to a close. ”

Isn’t that beautiful? The legal equivalent of saying “I could smash your face in, I could . . . any time I wanted . . . only I’m not going to. Any time. But now I’m going home.” For “been advised there are strong grounds for appeal” read “quick, save face ANY WAY WE GODDAMN CAN.” And what’s the best way to save face? Lie. If there were truly strong grounds for appeal the BCA, an organisation that has happily made a decent, genuine, intelligent and (I’m fortunate to know this from personal experience) really lovely man suffer tremendously for years, would without hesitation appeal to continue. Of course they would. Singh said mean*, hurtful** and unfortunately absolutely true things about them so they responded with petty legality. If there was the slightest chance the case could be pursued, don’t you think the BCA would go for it? Just to hurt Simon? 

I love seeing people forced to back down after attempting to use laws to censor dissenting voices. We’ve all had our run-ins with DMCAs on Youtube, but Singh has become the poster boy for hope and reason against the odds. And as the BCA sidles grumbling into the shadows, we can only hope that libel laws everywhere face a swift dissolution.

Rabbitpirate? Over to you, sir.

* “You are all frauds”

** “Your mothers are ladies of questionable moral integrity”

I’d hoped that childishly ripping on Gabriele Amorth, Righteous Exorcist 1st Class Of The Holy Vatican, might be the last slur I cast in the direction of Catholicism. My hope was in vain.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, second highest in the Vatican – sort of a third-hand God – has denied that enforced celibacy is behind child abuse in the Church. His alternative hypothesis is that homosexuality is to blame. Now, I would really like to be surprised at this point. It would mean that I still felt there was some distance left for the Vatican to fall, but considering their leader thinks homosexuality is objectively wrong – among many other equally jaw-dropping transgressions of reason – surprise is nowhere to be found. Merely a weary resignation. I imagine I would feel the same had I a young offspring to whose tireless destruction I returned every evening. You just go with it.

‘ . . . many [psychologists and psychiatrists] have demonstrated, and have told me recently, that there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. This is true, this is the problem,’ said Bertone. Wouldn’t it be nice if, just once, a religious authority referred to peer-reviewed research and evidence after hurling such slurs? But let’s not forget that we’re dealing with an organisation grimly dedicated to avoiding responsibility. Blame the gays, because obviously they’re not right in the eyes of the Lord anyway. Or blame Satan. Anything rather than say “Yeah, a lot of our guys are partial to abusing and raping kids. We’re sorry about that and will be instituting rigorous strictures in the future. Also, here’s a shitload of compensation to make reparations. Additionally, we’re dissolving Catholicism because recent studies prove that it just doesn’t work.”

Such fun.