The BBC’s Radio 4 morning broadcast includes a daily slot entitled Thought for the Day, in which religious figures are allowed to pontificate away to their hearts’ content for a few minutes.  In classic religious style, they generally begin with reference to some current news story or topic, then gradually veer off to indulge themselves in a bit of religious posturing.

As a habitually early riser, I catch this slot each morning as part of Radio 4’s flagship news show, Today.  You can see the usual contents of the slot, and indeed listen to some at the Thought for the Day web page.  However, I advise reading the excellent Platitude of the Day website, which offers an atheist’s transcript of each Thought for the Day broadcast.

For quite a long time now, there have been rumblings that Thought for the Day is somewhat outdated, and indeed my view is that excluding a secular voice is rather discriminatory, and suggests that atheists and agnostics don’t have a worthwhile opinion on ethical issues (though I believe Richard Dawkins was given a brief slot immediately following Thought for the Day a few years ago).  Now, according the The Times Online (BBC ponders Thought for the Day: should secularists be allowed?).  So, should the “God slot” be preserved as it is, or should secularists be given a voice?

The three-minute section of the Today programme on Radio 4, which has been derided by one former editor as a “reservoir of pointlessness and boredom”, would be opened up to humanists and secularists under plans being considered by the BBC Trust, the corporation’s governing body.

Amusingly, Mark Damazer (Controller of Radio 4) refers to the issue as a “finely balanced argument”.  Of course the mere suggestion that the various religious groups might have to give way upsets the respective groups, used to getting preferential treatment:

A Church of England spokesman said: “We would strongly resist moves to add non-religious voices to one of the few protected spots in the schedule where religious views on issues of the day can be expressed openly. Thought for the Day is highly valued by people of all faiths and none.”

I suppose that’s true in a way – I value it as a regular comedy slot, fuelled by my reading of Platitude of the Day.  Hanne Stinson of the British Humanist Association, said:

“If it’s right to have a slot within the programme for people to have an ethical perspective on issues, then it should be open to all kinds of people.”

Quite.  But on the other hand, I’d quite miss the daily idiocy offered by a multitude of mutually imcompatible faiths – I wonder whether a rational speaker could really match the absurdity that’s usually served up as a “spiritual view”!

Share on Facebook

Tags: , ,

With many thanks to Pharyngula, I discover the excellent Far Left Side, with today’s cartoon satirising the new chair of the Texas State Board of Education:

Please do visit the excellent Far Left Side.

Share on Facebook

Tags: ,

The Times reports (Pope Benedict XVI clears way for Cardinal Newman to become a saint) that the Vatican is likely to create the first British saint since the 1970s.  The article says that Cardinal John Henry Newman is the “most important convert from the Church of England to Catholicism”.  That’s as may be, but it’s interesting to read what needs to happen to become a saint.

From the Cardinal John Henry Newman Wikipedia page, it appears that one needs a verified miracle to be beatified, and a further verified miracle to be canonised.  The Times’ article says

The Pope opened the way for the beatification in 2001 when he recognised claims that Jack Sullivan, a Catholic deacon in Boston in the US, had been miraculously healed of a “serious debility of the spine” at the intercession of Newman, who died in 1890.
In 2000 Mr Sullivan, who is married with three children, prayed for the Cardinal’s help after being warned by his doctor that his back problem could result in paralysis. Next morning, he awoke to find that his pain had gone and that he was able to walk properly for the first time in months.

Essentially some bloke prayed to get better via the intercession of a dead religious figure, then woke up better. One does wonder how a serious investigation could “prove” that Mr Sullivan’s recovery was anything to do with someone who’d been dead for over a century, or indeed to “prove” that Mr Sullivan prayed only to the one dead religious figure.  The Times’ article doesn’t explain further.

Apparently there’s now been a second miracle (as yet uninvestigated), though the article doesn’t go into details on that one.  But I predict the miracle will have affected a strong believer, much as Mr Sullivan is reported to be a “Catholic deacon”.  Newman’s Wikipedia page does offer the following:

A second miracle would need to be confirmed before Newman could be canonized as a saint. The Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints is expected to consider the case of a 17-year-old New Hampshire resident, who fully recovered from severe head injuries suffered in a car accident after invoking Cardinal Newman.

Essentially these cases represent unexpected recovery from serious medical conditions (events which can and do occur without the intercession of dead people).  Over at the Wikipedia page for Congregation for the Causes of Saints (the Catholic body that investigates claimed miracles), I found this:

The miracle may go beyond the possibilities of nature either in the substance of the fact or in the subject, or only in the way it occurs. So three degrees of miracle are to be distinguished. The first degree is represented by resurrection from the dead (quoad substantiam). The second concerns the subject (quoad subiectum): the sickness of a person is judged incurable, in its course it can even have destroyed bones or vital organs; in this case not only is complete recovery noticed, but even wholesale reconstitution of the organs (restitutio in integrum). There is then a third degree (quoad modum): recovery from an illness, that treatment could only have achieved after a long period, happens instantaneously.

It would be interesting to know how many claims are made for each of the three degrees of miraculous intervention, and the proportion of each that pass investigation.  Also from that article, here’s the progression from dead religious person to Saint:

Stages of Canonization in the Roman Catholic Church

Servant of God →   Venerable →   Blessed →   Saint

Apparently Cardinal Newman is at stage 2 – he’s referred to as being the Venerable – while getting to stage 3 requires the approval of a miracle (this is what’s about to happen), while advancing to full sainthood (stage 4) requires the investigation and approval of a second miracle.  Presumably this is still to happen, so maybe the Times’ headline is a little premature?  As a hardened atheist, the whole process looks rather mediaeval.  And Newman’s not very active – two cures in over a century since he died seems a very minor intercession to me.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , ,

Platitude of the Day, which always presents an entertaining take on Radio 4’s religious twaddle spot “Thought for the Day”, has excelled itself with its take on the current news story that medical staff want the right to push whatever brand of mumb-jumbo they believe in on the sick and vulnerable (NHS extras).

See also coverage by the BBC and The Freethinker

Share on Facebook

Tags: ,

The Daily Telegraph reports (Britain is no longer a Christian nation) on the declining participation in the Church of England.  Despite modest increases in church attendance for Easter and Christmas, congregations continue to decline, at around 1% a year.  The article claims this makes it unlikely that the Church will survive 30 years from now, though I don’t know on what evidence that is based.

Fortunately for the C of E, the size of donations has increased as the number declines – but this may not be able to cope with the large infrastructure they need to maintain.  More statistics in the article:

  • Church closures expected to rise from 30 to 200 a year in five years’ time
  • The church has to maintain 16,200 buildings, 4,200 of which are listed Grade I
  • Baptisms into the C of E now at a record low of 128 per 1000 births (in 1900 this was 609)

The author of the article is Rt Rev Paul Richardson, the assistant Bishop of Newcastle.  He clearly thinks the Church of England isn’t facing up to this threat in a realistic way.  He worries that the Church of England may no longer deserve to be the established church, pointing out:

The reason offered for upholding establishment is usually that it gives the church a sense of responsibility to the whole nation. In practice it often looks as if the church is really trying to keep its special privileges on false pretences.

In fact, it’s increasingly looking as though Bishops will get the heave-ho from the House of Lords.  A report, also from the Daily Telegraph – Bishops ‘could be banished from the House of Lords’ – indicated one option to be included in a paper to be published by Jack Straw will be for an entirely elected upper house:

One option under consideration is a move towards an all-elected upper house. In the new, elected House of Lords, there would be no seats reserved for Church of England bishops or any other religious leaders.

The more likely option however is a partly elected upper house, a proposition which will find more favour with the Conservatives (and anyway, I suppose the next Government might well be Conservative):

A less radical option being discussed is for an 80 per cent elected Lords, with the remaining seats reserved for appointed members and others such as the bishops.
Advocates of the 80 per cent option say it would allow the Lords to retain the expertise of some of the distinguished academics, scientists, lawyers, medics, economists and generals who now sit as life peers.

But it’s not clear how much longer the Church of England can claim the right to be the established church.  Not is it obvious to me as an atheist where bodies like the Church of Scotland fit the picture.  And above all, I worry what’s filling the vacuum left by the decline in participation in the main churches – it doesn’t seem to me that people are necessarily moving towards secularism, but rather towards fringe religions and new-age claptrap.  At least that’s the sort of impression one gets reading surveys of belief and evolution run by organisations such as Theos.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , ,

There’s a nice audioslideshow at the BBC News site: Audio slideshow: Darwin’s Endless Forms.  It features images in an exhibition at the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge.  If. like me, you’re unlikely to be able to visit the exhibition (which is open 16 June – 4 October 2009) , it’s an interesting narrated slideshow.

The Fitzwilliam Museum website’s worth visiting too.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , ,

This is an odd thing that came through on my regular Google search for atheism.

Belief in climate change can be a ‘philosophical belief’
Source: Brodies LLP – In Nicholson v Grainger plc, a tribunal has potentially extended the protection afforded by discrimination law and found that a belief that carbon emissions must be cut to avoid catastrophic climate change could amount to a philosophical belief for the purposes of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations.

I haven’t investigated further – this requires registration at the Linex Legal site, and having no legal background, I’d probably not get a lot from it!  But it does seem to me that a belief based on a body of evidence (whether that belief isin favour of global warming or not) is substantially diferent from a belief based on ancient scripts!

Share on Facebook

Tags:

Intelligent Design was always intended to be a wedge in the American education system, intended as  a cover for pushing religious belief into science lessons and pushing teaching of evolutionary biology to one side.  Or so its opponents, and indeed the American judiciary say.  Of course, ID proponents, such as the Discovery Institute disagree: their claim has been that ID is science.  No matter that ID never makes testable hypotheses, they always claim it as science.

An article in New Scientist points out (Christians battle each other over evolution), a new website, probably launched in response to Francis Collins’ theistic but pro-evolution website BioLogos Foundation, appears to concede that ID is, at heart, a christian belief system.  The Center for Science and Religion is Discovery Institute Program (see logo) have set up a website entitled Faith and Evolution.  As the New Scientist article points out:

I think it’s interesting that the Discovery Institute – which has long argued that intelligent design qualifies as science – seems to have given up the game and acknowledged that their concerns are religious after all. It’s equally interesting that the catalyst doesn’t seem to be someone like Richard Dawkins pushing atheism, but Francis Collins pushing Christianity. Perhaps the Discovery folks realise that Dawkins’s followers are never going to be swayed by intelligent design; Collins, however, might very well cut into their target audience of scientifically-curious evangelicals.

The Discovery Institute has now made it crystal clear that they have no interest in reconciling science and religion – instead, they want their brand of religion to replace science. Which makes it all the more concerning when their new website includes resources and curricula for high-school biology classes, and promotes the pseudoscientific documentary film “Expelled” as part of their campaign to introduce non-scientific alternatives to evolution under the banner of “academic freedom“.

It’s a nice article, and worth reading.  The Faith & Evolution site is a bit of a hoot, if you’re not too offended by repeated misrepresentation.  But it does make it pretty clear they are working to a christian agenda.  As PZ Myers points out,

I hope the NCSE and various lawyers have snapped an archival copy of the entire “Faith and Evolution” website — it will be so useful in the next ID trial.

And a Hat Tip to PZ for twittering this one, to New Scientist for covering it.  I’m off on vacation for a couple of weeks, so don’t expect posts for a while…

Share on Facebook

Tags: , ,

I switched on the radio this morning and fortuitously caught this morning’s edition of Science in Action.  The first item in the programme was Ida, the unlikely name given to Darwinius masillae, possibly the most over-hyped fossil in recent years (check my comments to my previous blog article for links to the growing controversy).

In the radio show, one of the authors of the paper speaks briefly, but is then followed by a series of contributors who basically say – while this is a spectacularly well-reserved fossil, no this isn’t quite as important as the media puffery would make out.  Steve Jones takes exception to the use of “missing link”.

You can listen to the show through BBC iPlayer (well, you can in the UK, and maybe elsewhere, given that this is the World Service) for the next week: Science in Action, Friday 22nd May (presumably I caught a repeat broadcast)..

Share on Facebook

Tags: ,

The news sites and blogs have reports of a new fossil found in Germany, a 47 million year old primate, named Darwinius masillae.  The quality of preservation of this fossil is extraordinary, and even reveals what its last meal was.  PZ Myers gives the lowdown at Pharyngula (Darwinius masillae).

Of course, there’s a major PR job going on about this – check out Ed Yong’s blog (Not Just Rocket Science – Darwinius changes everything) for a refreshing view.  John Wilkins (Evolving Thoughts -No, it’s not an ancestor either (probably)) questions statements that it’s the ancestor of all primates (he cites Science Daily).

The blogosphere’s pretty full of writing about Darwinius – some buys into the hype, others question it.  one thing’s for sure, it’s a damn fine fossil.  On the downside is the confusion the news coverage may engender in the public, with buzz-words/phrases like “missing link” and “oldest ancestor of humans” flying around.

I think the BBC News website (Scientists hail stunning fossil) strikes the correct balance with comments such as:

Dr Henry Gee, a senior editor at the journal Nature, said the term itself was misleading and that the scientific community would need to evaluate its significance.

The publication is accompanied by a David Attenborough fronted BBC TV programme!  (Makes my YouTube press release via the BBSRC look really rather puny!). If you’d like to read the paper, it is publishe din the open access journal PLoS One:

Franzen JL, Gingerich PD, Habersetzer J, Hurum JH, von Koenigswald W, et al. 2009 Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5723.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005723

Share on Facebook

Tags: , ,

« Older entries

Content recommendations from Evri