Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Bloody Sunday: the legal arguments

    Much will depend on which evidence has survived, and what has perished.

  • Bloody Sunday report published

    “The conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt. There is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities.”

  • Murphy O’Connor reflects on child rape problem

    “Maybe we have lost part of our moral and spiritual authority”. Ya think?

  • Jesus and Mo read their Mary Midgley

    The barmaid replies, but they hear not.

  • Father, brother plead guilty in Aqsa Parvez murder

    They killed her because she didn’t wear the hijab. She was 16.

  • You might learn something

    Gosh, that was a lively discussion. It was sometimes rather…cryptic, though. When Dan L asked Michael, “where’s the dividing line? Where does philosophy stop and science start?” Michael said it was a tough question, and rather than answer it himself, pasted in a long excerpt from a post by Massimo Pigliucci at Rationally Speaking last November. It wasn’t the most helpful excerpt from that post that he could have chosen – there’s a more relevant one later on, for instance:

    So when some commentators for instance defend the Dawkins- and Coyne-style (scientistic) take on atheism, i.e., that science can mount an attack on all religious beliefs, they are granting too much to science and too little to philosophy. Yes, science can empirically test specific religious claims (intercessory prayer, age of the earth, etc.), but the best objections against the concept of, say, an omnibenevolent and onmnipowerful god, are philosophical in nature (e.g., the argument from evil). Why, then, not admit that by far the most effective way to reject religious nonsense is by combining science and philosophy, rather than trying to arrogate to either more epistemological power than each separate discipline actually possesses?

    Do Dawkins and Coyne say anything so crude and stupid as “science can mount an attack on all religious beliefs”? No. They both know perfectly well, and say, that there are religious beliefs that are nebulous and internal enough to be immune from criticism, and they also don’t talk about “mounting attacks” as if they were Vikings. And is there some place where either of them refuses to admit that the most effective way to reject religious nonsense is by combining science and philosophy? Not that I know of, and I thought both of them did just that.

    Massimo is very angry with Dawkins and Coyne, for some reason, and he says hostile and exaggerated things about them as a result. He said rude things to Coyne on the earlier thread. I wish he would stop doing that, and be reasonable, instead.

    Update: I did a post on that post of Massimo’s at the time – last November. Another round of useful comments.

  • Mark Oppenheimer on working for Templeton

    Templeton money has done a lot of good, but there is a bias.

  • Message from CFI Board of Directors

    One account of what’s been happening, and why.

  • Karl Giberson says ‘sorry’

    Notes general lack of charity in vilification of New Atheists. A handsome apology!

  • The noble and ancient tradition of moron-baiting

    Ben Goldacre on Martin Gardner and some predecessors.

  • Touchdown Jesus struck by lightning

    Stumpy Jesus now squats on freeway, saluting a pair of semi-trucks.

  • Amanda Marcotte on “feminist” anti-feminists

    Sarah Palin is not the first.

  • Massimo Pigliucci on Texas education and ideology

    The latest disturbing result of a long effort by right wing fundamentalists to undermine public education.

  • Hitchens on that speech of Chuck’s

    P. Charles surrounds with every moon-faced spoon-bender, shrub-flatterer, and water-diviner within range.

  • London June 20: Rally against Sharia and religious laws

    Hundreds will be demonstrating in London against Sharia and religious laws and in support of secularism and universal rights on Sunday 20 June 2010. The rally organised by the One Law for All Campaign will be held from 1400-1600 hours at Richmond Terrace junction with Whitehall opposite Downing Street (SW1A 2). (Please note venue change from Trafalgar Square made by police; closest underground: Westminster.)

    On the day, the Campaign will make public its new report entitled: Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights. In the report One Law for All outlines what Sharia law is, how it is practised in Britain and exposes the way in which Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are circumventing British law and human rights legislation. The report also reveals the gross injustices to women and children in particular and reiterates the need to end Sharia and all religious courts on the basis that they work against, and not for, equality and human rights.

    After the One Law for All rally, there will be a march organised by Iran Solidarity from 1600-1700 hours. The march will move from Richmond Terrace Junction to a protest at the embassy of the Islamic regime of Iran. According to Spokesperson, Maryam Namazie, “whilst racist and far Right groups like the English Defence League and the British Nationalist Party blame ‘Muslim immigration’ for Sharia law in order to further their inhuman agenda, it is people living under Islamic laws or the many who have fled Sharia and sought refuge here who are the principal victims of Islamism, and in the forefront of the struggle against it. Within this context, the One Law for All Campaign and the fight against Sharia law in Britain is an important front in the ongoing battle of people in Iran and everywhere against Islamism and for freedom, equality and secularism.”

    The march will culminate in a protest rally in front of the embassy of the Islamic regime of Iran (16 Prince’s Gate, London SW7 1PT; closest underground: Knightsbridge). The event will end at 1730 hours.

    Notes:

    1. Confirmed speakers and performers at the London rally include: AK47 (Street Poet); Asad Abbas (Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain); R Y Alam (Poet); Adam Barnett (Musician); David Fisher (Singer/ Songwriter); Lilith (Street Poet); Lyrical Agent (Emcee); Rony Miah (Lawyers’ Secular Society); Maryam Namazie (One Law for All and Iran Solidarity); Gerard Phillips (National Secular Society); Naomi Phillips (British Humanist Association); Fariborz Pooya (Iranian Secular Society); Brent Lee Regan (Emcee); Yasmin Rehman (Women’s Rights Campaigner); Gita Sahgal (Activist); Muriel Seltman (Activist); Sohaila Sharifi (Equal Rights Now); Peter Tatchell (Human Rights Campaigner); and others. We will also screen a segment of a major new film for HBO called For Neda by director Anthony Thomas.

    2. June 20 marks the day when 27-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan was shot dead by the Islamic regime of Iran’s security forces at a protest in Tehran. Her demand for freedom in the face of all-out repression has made her a symbol of people everywhere. According to Maryam Namazie, “It is very apt for us to remember Neda in our battle for equal rights in Britain or wherever we happen to live. Neda’s murder and Sharia law in Britain are intrinsically linked; both are the result of the rise of the political Islamic movement of which the Islamic regime of Iran is a cornerstone.”

    3. To read responses to Frequently Asked Questions, go to:

    http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/about/faq/. The responses are entitled:

    The affinity between the far right and the Islamists; Islam matters because of political Islam; Secularism is an important vehicle to protect society; We will have nothing to do with the English Defence League; Criticising Islam is not racist; Laws should safeguard rights not violate them; There’s no place for Sharia law in Britain; The right to asylum is a basic human right; and many more.

    4. To donate to the crucial work of One Law for All, please either send a cheque to our address below or pay via Paypal by visiting: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/donate/. We need regular support that we can rely on and are asking for supporters to commit to giving at least £5-10 a month via direct debit. You can find out more about how to join the 100 Club at the above link.

    5. For more information, contact:

    Maryam Namazie

    One Law for All and Iran Solidarity

    BM Box 2387

    London WC1N 3XX, UK

    Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731

    onelawforall@gmail.com

    iransolidaritynow@gmail.com

    www.onelawforall.org.uk

    www.iransolidarity.org.uk

    http://iransolidarity.blogspot.com

  • Knock three times for ‘yes’

    Michael De Dora said in a comment on Falling at the first post

    Scientific claims are probabilistic explanations based on observation and empirical evidence, and are subject to disconfirmation. The God claim is nothing of the sort. We can’t scientifically measure God or God’s interaction with the world, and the God claim is not falsifiable.

    Why can’t we scientifically measure God or God’s interaction with the world? One reason could be because god is not there. Another reason could be because god is especially hard to measure for some reason. If it’s the latter we just need better instruments. I think the reason De Dora is suggesting is that god is in principle incapable of being measured. But if that’s the case, De Dora needs to explain further – how he knows that, why it is the case, what it implies for claims about god, and similar.

    It’s not at all clear to me that we can’t try to scientifically measure god or god’s interaction with the world – and of course people have made such attempts, as with the intercessory prayer study. If we try, and find that it isn’t possible because there is nothing to measure, then it would seem fair to conclude that there is no reason to believe there is such a god, and that therefore there are good reasons to believe there is not such a god.

    In other words if god is so spooky and weird and ineffable that we can’t measure it or its interactions with the world, or investigate it in any other way, then we have zero reason to think it exists, and a lot of reason to think it doesn’t exist, or at least to think that we can’t possibly know anything reliable about it. If god is immune to all empirical investigation, then that means we have no way to know anything about it, so it is in effect non-existent, as far as we’re concerned.

    Doesn’t it?

    Update: Or to put it another way, as Ben reminds me –

    inference to the best explanation.

    That clears that up.

  • Widen that division

    Oliver Kamm put the matter concisely and well.

    Byrnes is not [at] that level*, but his views are reactionary and illiberal. They thereby illustrate a fundamental difference of values within the Left. I’m concerned to widen that division as far as I can.

    Same here. I want there to be a vast gulf between the Left that opposes reactionary illiberal views and the “Left” that sucks up to them.

    *The level of writing an article titled “Milosevic, prisoner of conscience.”

  • It is easy to manipulate memory

    It’s important to remember that.

  • Pope says priests are a gift to the world

    Made no mention of child-rape by priests in Ireland, Germany, Austria, the US and elsewhere.

  • More Guardian god-coddling

    ‘The concepts of equality, democracy and the right to be treated justly were gifted to the nations by the Bible.’