Psybertron Asks

Great interview of Jim Al-Khalili with Caspar Melville of the Rationalist Association. So much better face for the BHA.

[An] introduction to the man who has recently become, at least in principle, the most important and high-profile non-believer in Britain. In January Al-Khalili was confirmed as President of the British Humanist Association.

He has been [a convinced atheist] since he was a teenager. He is also, as a scientist, a convinced rationalist materialist who believes that there is a real world out there …. his life experience and temperament, have convinced him that a “softer” approach is required: …  if you focus on what’s bad about religion that doesn’t serve any purpose.

Al-Khalili credits the outspoken atheism of Dawkins (though he doesn’t agree with everything about his approach) with clearing a path for a new, gentler and more accommodating brand of public humanism …  it’s because we are winning the battle that we can afford not to be so strident, belligerent, antagonistic, confrontational. Because we’re winning the battle that more and more people can see that humanism is an inclusive thing, it’s not an exclusive club, … it’s not a sect. Because that is changing we don’t need to be on the attack against people with faith. … Al-Khalili represents a new face for British humanism.

[My emphasis] Someone with a constructive streak at last. I’ve been banging my head against a brick wall with the BHA recently, pointing out that they are in real danger of defining themselves solely in puerile terms of what they’re against – just a bit of fun apparently – rather than what they’re actually for in the real grown-up world.

Be interesting to see Jim in debate with Tariq Ramadan and Douglas Murray.

Interesting also that he makes it possible to say you’re an accommodationist. Might not be the word I’d choose – maybe integrationist (after Mary Parker-Follett), but the point is the bigger the issue the less it is about taking sides (after Slavoj Zizek).

Accommodating the positions of others is not about compromising your own. It’s not about compromise at all, nor is it about opposition; it’s about integration.

[Post Note : See also the Geek Chocolate interview with Jim Al-Khalili from last year.]

As I’ve said many a time, when using Ockham’s razor argument, you need to be careful not to cut your own throat. Here neatly exposed by BoingBoing.

Classic meme case – where a simple stated, oft quoted,  but subtly misunderstood adage becomes accepted (by a vocal majority) and applied as some kind of absolute rule.

Interesting potential development in microprocessor technology. (Hat tip to Rayan on LinkedIn)

Interesting, ideas on the source of “Proto-Indo-European” language (aka Aryan) continue to develop – associated with the spread of peoples and trade communications. (from last year).

A coming together of BHA and Baroness Warsi.

Warsi [said] that while genuine, hateful religious intolerance should be confronted [and] incitement to religious hatred remains an offence in Britain, a blasphemy law once on our statute book was abolished in 2008 �” in part because […] it was incompatible with the freedom of speech.

Copson […] said […] “Mere criticism of religion �” even though it may always be perceived as offensive or blasphemous by some religious groups and individuals �” cannot be automatically prohibited as hateful. Rather, the expression of humanist ideas, atheist and critical ideas per se must be protected.”

Warsi has previously been criticised by humanists and secularists in the UK for endorsing a greater role for Christian and other religious groups in national policy, and describing some forms of secularism as “intolerant and illiberal”. “Freedom of religion or belief applies equally to humanists, atheists and other non-religious people […] emphasis on religion or belief as – in her words – a universal right for all, rather than as a privilege for a majority religion in any given country.

Some forms of secularism are indeed intolerant and illiberal, so the real topic here is balanced freedom of expression. My one point to add here is this – it is criticism per se that is protected as a universal right, not  a right to offend. No offence, but …. has to be seen to be meant sincerely by mutual respect of human individuals.

Another one for the “twas ever thus” and “nothing new under the sun” collection (from Punch 1906, from Mike Loukides via Hugh MacLeod):

(Which reminds me, a long time since I’ve looked at BoingBoing.)

Never seen this effect at this scale before; Von Karman vortices formed in the clouds stretching hundreds of miles beyond two small islands off Chile. Hat tip to Milind on Linked In for sharing the link.

Interesting not least (to a geek like me) because this is an effect that works at small and very small scales too – around towers and chimney stacks, around power distribution cables, around old aircraft struts and wires, even around tiny wires in instruments, where the effect is exploited to measure flow rate. (I often hear it at audible frequencies as the wind blows past the leg of my specs.)

Racial abuse from rival supporters, in fact any kind of tribal “abuse” is a no no for me, even at any competitive sporting event, but Diouf has to be the least likely target to raise any kind of outrage. (Maybe that’s why they’ve chosen him.) Talk about water off a duck’s back – is there any bigger wind-up merchant in the game – got to admire him for it. He and Warnock were made for each other, love ’em both.

Don’t get me wrong. This is not “racist” abuse. It’s abuse, a much bigger problem. Where ignoramuses pick on least popular (most effective) members of the opposing club, and find the most abusive taunts to hurl at them, and that’s always going to attack whatever makes them different, whatever is likely to be most offensive.

I could give plenty of examples – even in the Milwall vs Leeds case there is the Jimmy Savile example. Delivered with wit and originality, there can be valid comedic value in offensive material, but, the but matters. The problem is people believing that “abusive attack intended to cause offense” is valid behaviour full stop. Right from PM’s Questions downwards. This is a much more deep seated problem, I’ve blogged about before – most obviously here.

I remember Julie when she started at the NME – alongside Tony Parsons and Charles Shaar-Murray I seem to recall. You can’t help but notice she’s continued to be a contrarian in her life since, but this Desert Island Discs session is one for the scrapbook. You have to suspend disbelief, and Kirsty does a great job doing that.

Guess I need to check a few facts – became a Christian and is now ex-Christian and studying Judaism …. ? Spike interview from 2005.

My view: He’s no doubt stepping down due to frailty of age. They already have to wheel him about. In days when authority counted for something, the office of Pope could afford to continue until the demise of incumbent body. Pretty sure the Rap Singer sees that his church needs a person of some strength in leadership – in these days where the church needs to respond to anti-authoritarian attacks, and worse.

Sure enough:

“this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary”