People with the same values are not the same

If I were forced to go on holiday with Richard Dawkins or a left-ish leaning CofE clergyman, the Bish of York, or the Archbish of Canterbury, say, I'd definitely choose one of the latter. Dawkins simply has no imagination. I mean, who cares if people believe in horoscopes or Reiki? There may be shameless people making money from the likes of "psychic" premium rate telephone lines but there are people making money from all kinds of Bad Stuff, from burgers to bombs.

Dawkins says: "There are two ways of looking at the world - through faith and superstition, or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence, through reason." To me that's like saying: There are two socio-economic models: Capitalism or Communism - as if there are no alternatives, just dichotomy.

Science employs faith as much as religion. I trust that when I flick the switch, the light will come on. I can't see electricity but I know it's there. This is not a pro-God argument, just an example of how Dawkin's opposites are not necessarily opposed.

What Dawkins and his reductivist ilk don't get:

a) the power of playfulness - to go into a wood and imagine the fairies and witches and beasties that live there whilst simultaneously knowing that they don't really exist, to visit somewhere that is reputedly haunted and hope to see the ghost, despite being certain that there are no such things as ghosts; both of these things are fun. Watching a soap opera and getting caught up in the characters so much that you offer advice to them (through the medium of shouting at the screen) but remembering that they're only actors. I bet poor old Dawkins can't even read a novel without saying: Well that's just ridiculous! There isn't such a thing as an invisibility cloak! The molecules and atoms that make up matter can not be reversed! Anti-matter is simply a theory that has not been proven!

b) the comfort of religion. It's been shown (scientifically of course) that patients who are less stressed recover more quickly. Thus those who can pray, or meditate or have, say, a course of shiatsu treatments, will be happier, more relaxed and get better more easily. Dawkins dismissal of TCM stinks of arrogance, not to mention racism - thousands of years of Chinese medicine - pah! Our thalidomide and fluoxetine are better than that!

What I don't get about Dawkins and his ilk is that it's possible to dip in and out of things: socialism, feminism, Freudianism, all have good and bad aspects to them. I can read an "alternative" hippy magazines and laugh at the adverts for finding a guardian angel but agree with the articles about organic food. I realise that a book which had a central tenet of: Everyone's like, OK, and everybody should just, yeah, get along, wouldn't shift many units (and hippies are far too lazy to write books), but it seems odd for a humanist to despise other people so much.

Oh yeah, and Dawkins invented the scourge of livejournal, the meme.

*
I have had a little falling out with self-styled liberal hero, Jon Stewart, last week. He interviewed Stephen Hayes, who has written an authorised biography of Dick Cheney. I should, for fairness sake, say that Jon Stewart is a brilliant satirist, comedian and member of America's (very small) left wing intelligensia, but a terrible interviewer. If his interviewee is Hollywood, he spends much of the time with his tongue up their arses. If they are political or creative, he just makes jokes. And in all the time I've watched the Daily Show, I've only seen two women interviewed - Kirsten Dunst and Angelina Jolie. Not for him female writers, politicians, journalists, broadcasters or thinkers. Nope, just hot babes.

Anyway, earlier in the programme, they showed a clip of Cheney from 1994 stating that the Bush Snr administration was right not to remove Saddam Hussein after Gulf War 1 because of the chaos it would have caused in such an unstable region. Jon opened up the interview by bringing this up. Hayes responded by saying that Cheney had said the same thing in '92 and '98, but that 9/11 had changed everything. Now, I have no sympathy for a neo-con who still believes that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, but he was totally floored by such a seasoned arguer as Jon Stewart. The interview started to resemble bullying. There were no questions, just repetition of the idea that because Cheney had said this, then the government shouldn't have gone into Iraq in 2003.

However, this wasn't the real point they were getting at. Jon, on behalf of the anti-war faction of America, was going to take this rather unassuming guy to task for Bush, Cheney and all the right wingers' accusations that the left wing's anti- war arguments were traitorous, unpatriotic and treasonous. This was the nearest Jon could come to attacking the Bush inner circle themselves. "Just last week some moron from Fox News was mocking my response to 9/11 and calling me a phony," Jon happened to mention. The audience whooped and hollered. The interview wound up a couple of minutes later. So, basically, it seemed that the whole interview had been planned for Jon to belittle the Fox News idiot, Jon Gibson, whilst making it look like an off the cuff remark. Because to create a whole segment out of the incident would have made Stewart look petty and defensive whilst giving Gibson some free publicity. But to "bring it up" casually like that shot Gibson down in flames without dignifying him with a proper response.

So my point is: intelligent men are not as clever as they think they are.

*
Rain cold rain cold: I want autumn now, I want this summer euthanased.

People with the same values are not the same

If I were forced to go on holiday with Richard Dawkins or a left-ish leaning CofE clergyman, the Bish of York, or the Archbish of Canterbury, say, I'd definitely choose one of the latter. Dawkins simply has no imagination. I mean, who cares if people believe in horoscopes or Reiki? There may be shameless people making money from the likes of "psychic" premium rate telephone lines but there are people making money from all kinds of Bad Stuff, from burgers to bombs.

Dawkins says: "There are two ways of looking at the world - through faith and superstition, or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence, through reason." To me that's like saying: There are two socio-economic models: Capitalism or Communism - as if there are no alternatives, just dichotomy.

Science employs faith as much as religion. I trust that when I flick the switch, the light will come on. I can't see electricity but I know it's there. This is not a pro-God argument, just an example of how Dawkin's opposites are not necessarily opposed.

What Dawkins and his reductivist ilk don't get:

a) the power of playfulness - to go into a wood and imagine the fairies and witches and beasties that live there whilst simultaneously knowing that they don't really exist, to visit somewhere that is reputedly haunted and hope to see the ghost, despite being certain that there are no such things as ghosts; both of these things are fun. Watching a soap opera and getting caught up in the characters so much that you offer advice to them (through the medium of shouting at the screen) but remembering that they're only actors. I bet poor old Dawkins can't even read a novel without saying: Well that's just ridiculous! There isn't such a thing as an invisibility cloak! The molecules and atoms that make up matter can not be reversed! Anti-matter is simply a theory that has not been proven!

b) the comfort of religion. It's been shown (scientifically of course) that patients who are less stressed recover more quickly. Thus those who can pray, or meditate or have, say, a course of shiatsu treatments, will be happier, more relaxed and get better more easily. Dawkins dismissal of TCM stinks of arrogance, not to mention racism - thousands of years of Chinese medicine - pah! Our thalidomide and fluoxetine are better than that!

What I don't get about Dawkins and his ilk is that it's possible to dip in and out of things: socialism, feminism, Freudianism, all have good and bad aspects to them. I can read an "alternative" hippy magazines and laugh at the adverts for finding a guardian angel but agree with the articles about organic food. I realise that a book which had a central tenet of: Everyone's like, OK, and everybody should just, yeah, get along, wouldn't shift many units (and hippies are far too lazy to write books), but it seems odd for a humanist to despise other people so much.

Oh yeah, and Dawkins invented the scourge of livejournal, the meme.

*
I have had a little falling out with self-styled liberal hero, Jon Stewart, last week. He interviewed Stephen Hayes, who has written an authorised biography of Dick Cheney. I should, for fairness sake, say that Jon Stewart is a brilliant satirist, comedian and member of America's (very small) left wing intelligensia, but a terrible interviewer. If his interviewee is Hollywood, he spends much of the time with his tongue up their arses. If they are political or creative, he just makes jokes. And in all the time I've watched the Daily Show, I've only seen two women interviewed - Kirsten Dunst and Angelina Jolie. Not for him female writers, politicians, journalists, broadcasters or thinkers. Nope, just hot babes.

Anyway, earlier in the programme, they showed a clip of Cheney from 1994 stating that the Bush Snr administration was right not to remove Saddam Hussein after Gulf War 1 because of the chaos it would have caused in such an unstable region. Jon opened up the interview by bringing this up. Hayes responded by saying that Cheney had said the same thing in '92 and '98, but that 9/11 had changed everything. Now, I have no sympathy for a neo-con who still believes that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, but he was totally floored by such a seasoned arguer as Jon Stewart. The interview started to resemble bullying. There were no questions, just repetition of the idea that because Cheney had said this, then the government shouldn't have gone into Iraq in 2003.

However, this wasn't the real point they were getting at. Jon, on behalf of the anti-war faction of America, was going to take this rather unassuming guy to task for Bush, Cheney and all the right wingers' accusations that the left wing's anti- war arguments were traitorous, unpatriotic and treasonous. This was the nearest Jon could come to attacking the Bush inner circle themselves. "Just last week some moron from Fox News was mocking my response to 9/11 and calling me a phony," Jon happened to mention. The audience whooped and hollered. The interview wound up a couple of minutes later. So, basically, it seemed that the whole interview had been planned for Jon to belittle the Fox News idiot, Jon Gibson, whilst making it look like an off the cuff remark. Because to create a whole segment out of the incident would have made Stewart look petty and defensive whilst giving Gibson some free publicity. But to "bring it up" casually like that shot Gibson down in flames without dignifying him with a proper response.

So my point is: intelligent men are not as clever as they think they are.

*
Rain cold rain cold: I want autumn now, I want this summer euthanased.

Sunday in Surrey

Sunday: To Egham (‘n’ chips) to do a circular walk through Surrey woodlands where we pick early sloes and late blackberries, around Virginia Water with its man made waterfall and Roman ruins imported from, um, Rome, into Windsor Great Park (where the queen kindly lets the plebs run around without even charging them) which has landscaped gardens, a totem pole, an obelisk, a fragrantly pink heather garden, and then onto American soil – an acre of land given over to the Americans when JFK died (let’s hope no-one assassinates Bush or the government might give them Slough). Fortunately, we don’t have to go through immigration and they have yet to open a strip mall or a McDonalds here; there’s a tasteful monument, 50 steps to represent the 50 states and a lot of flim-flummery about how you’re entering a pilgrimage into life and death (especially if the slippery steps are wet). There’s also a Magna Carta memorial and a tree planted with soil from Jamestown, Virginia.

 

Back into proper ramblin’ countryside with reedy streams and rushing rabbits and brown cows, looking at us nervously as if we’re about to examine their feet and mouths. We also visit The Poshest Pub in The World where our muddy boots stand out a little amongst the Gucci (sample conversation #1: “Oh yah, it’s great to have a villa in France – if you can find the right place.” Sample conversation #2: “Darling, have you got your bangle? It’s solid silver you know; don’t leave it behind.”) and also a Proper Pub, albeit one where the locals are talking about prune and pecan bread from Waitrose. It’s overcast and damp, but after a mile or two my Stoke Newington raspy cough has gone and after 10 or so miles my legs are crampy but my heart is gladdened.

Sunday in Surrey

Sunday: To Egham (‘n’ chips) to do a circular walk through Surrey woodlands where we pick early sloes and late blackberries, around Virginia Water with its man made waterfall and Roman ruins imported from, um, Rome, into Windsor Great Park (where the queen kindly lets the plebs run around without even charging them) which has landscaped gardens, a totem pole, an obelisk, a fragrantly pink heather garden, and then onto American soil – an acre of land given over to the Americans when JFK died (let’s hope no-one assassinates Bush or the government might give them Slough). Fortunately, we don’t have to go through immigration and they have yet to open a strip mall or a McDonalds here; there’s a tasteful monument, 50 steps to represent the 50 states and a lot of flim-flummery about how you’re entering a pilgrimage into life and death (especially if the slippery steps are wet). There’s also a Magna Carta memorial and a tree planted with soil from Jamestown, Virginia.

 

Back into proper ramblin’ countryside with reedy streams and rushing rabbits and brown cows, looking at us nervously as if we’re about to examine their feet and mouths. We also visit The Poshest Pub in The World where our muddy boots stand out a little amongst the Gucci (sample conversation #1: “Oh yah, it’s great to have a villa in France – if you can find the right place.” Sample conversation #2: “Darling, have you got your bangle? It’s solid silver you know; don’t leave it behind.”) and also a Proper Pub, albeit one where the locals are talking about prune and pecan bread from Waitrose. It’s overcast and damp, but after a mile or two my Stoke Newington raspy cough has gone and after 10 or so miles my legs are crampy but my heart is gladdened.