Up Next...

Things are certainly starting to heat up a bit. In just three days I will be going to university and my schedule is pretty much full until then. Once there, I will of course be taking part in various activities associated with Freshers' Fortnight (yes, fortnight) and so it may be a while before I can write anything substantial on this blog.

What I will be doing, when I get a chance, is addressing a response to my last post by Aught3 on his blog, Indoctrinating Freethought. His response can be found here.

But yeah, this place may briefly become barren-not that there's that much activity here anyway...

Philosolosophy time! Absolute truth, morality, Nazis and God

Something that frequently annoys me is that staunchly religious (read: usually evangelical) apologists tend to argue that there are absolute moral values, that something is either objectively wrong, objectively good or objectively morally neutral. This is flawed, for reasons I will address in a moment. But something else that irritates me is that they call it "absolute/universal truth".

I feel that they consistently fail to make a distinction between different types of "truth". Some things are absolutely, objectively true. That the Earth is round is an example of this kind of truth. I acknowledge that. But other things are seen differently from person to person. That stealing is wrong is an example of this. Care should be taken to distinguish one type of "truth" from the other.

I hold that moral questions should not be considered to hold absolute answers. I hold that no answers to moral questions should be considered "truth" in any way. Rather, they should be considered and referred to as "opinions".

Let's use emotionally charged examples to show what I mean.

Is murder wrong? The obvious answer is "yes"-at least, it is in most circumstances. The question is incomplete. There still might be circumstances in which murder is objectively good or objectively bad. So let's use a better example:

Were the Nazis justified in the systematic extermination of six million Jews?

Obviously, your answer is "no". I share your sentiments. I consider the Holocaust to be one of the worst crimes committed in human history. If you do not feel the same way, I invite you to jump off a skyscraper and rid the rest of the world of your barbaric views.

And yet, I still hold that the question does not have an objective answer. If that sounds appalling then allow me to explain myself.

Did the Nazis themselves think they were justified? If the answer is "yes", if even a single Nazi considered the holocaust justified, then the answer to this moral question is subjective. In fact, all it takes is the capacity for someone to consider it justified and it becomes subjective. All of morality is like this. One cannot experiment on a moral question and find it true or false. It is open to variation from one person to another. All moral truths are in fact just opinions.

But the other kind of truth is objective. Scientific truth can be tested, observed and determined one way or the other. Probably. Scientists are always careful that nothing should be considered definitely true. But not because it is a matter of opinion. Opinion does not affect how true something is in science. But there is always the chance that the scientists have got it objectively wrong, or at least, objectively not quite right.

The Earth is shaped like a slightly squashed sphere. That is a fact. It does not matter if you believe the Earth is flat. A flat-Earther cannot walk walk to the edge of the world, not matter how hard they try.

The Earth is orbiting the Sun. That is also a fact (although actually, the Sun also orbits the Earth, but the Earth is so small that the Sun just wobbles a bit as the Earth zooms round once a year). It doesn't matter if you are a die-hard geocentrist.

The universe is probably about 13.72 billion years old. That is once again a fact. It will not be 6000 years old just because you might be a creationist.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Does God exist? Is it the god of the Bible (definitely not, I'm afraid) or some being that bears some aspects of the Biblical God? Or is it a Deist god, that made the universe, then let it do its own thing?

Whatever the case, I hold that this is a scientific question. Either God exists or he doesn't. Either he/she/it is like this, or like that. There is no middle ground. Claiming it as a theological question is just a way to dodge the issue. Trying to prove it one way or the other just by logic is fallacious.

We must do the scientific thing. When a scientist wants an answer, they look for positive evidence. They experiment. A being that can create Quasars and galaxies should leave a trace of its existence. If there is no physical, tangible evidence, then one should dismiss the hypothesis and formulate a new one.

There is no physical, tangible evidence for the existence of any kind of god, spirit, higher power or life force. The religious should, in my opinion, move on.

Two exchanges between myself and others on Facebook

Posted on the off-chance some people might find it interesting:

On the Facebook group "Smashing up your own city because you have the IQ of a ham sandwich" someone called Wayne Lush posted the following:

Wayne Lush: "Vote BNP this stuff won't happen"

My response was:

Me: "What, because the BNP would have sent in the SS by now and gunned the rioters down? Because they would have sent them to concentration camps? Fucktarded though the rioters may be, the BNP in power is by far the greater of the two evils."

I then received a private message from someone else called Mary Kingdon (not "Kingdom"):

Mary Kingdon: "Hey, I don't like this comment. Please remove it. [she then posted a copy-paste of my comment] Link to content:

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=175989085806344&id=175743665830886"

'Ooh!' I thought. 'A chance to argue with a stranger on the internet! I must respond.'

Me: "With all due respect, I wouldn't take it down even if the Prime Minister, the Dalai Lama and the Archbishop of Canterbury said together that they were offended. One right we do not have is the right to not be offended.

You could perhaps persuade me that my comment is inappropriate or disproportionate-in which case I will still leave it up for historical purposes, but add a disclaimer in the same comment section rather than take it down and pretend I never said it.

In any case, I can't see why a reasonable individual would dislike my comment. It is an attack on both the stupidity of the protesters and the policies of a far-right, neo-Nazi political party."

Her response then baffled me slightly:

Mary Kingdon: "Bullshit. I have been offended by your arrogant and childish comments. I abhor your nazi tendencies as would all right thinking Brits. You just jumped on a bandwagon and followed the pack mentallity which is what the youths were doing. Because you lack respect for others in the same way. Oh and don't waste time replying because I will have blocked you from doing this."

So I replied, with no real idea what the fuck they were talking about at this point:

Me: "Nevertheless, I shall reply, for there is some chance you shall read what I have to say.

I feel you may not have actually read what I said. What "nazi tendencies" did I exhibit? I am the one opposing the BNP. The BNP are the ones with Nazi tendencies.

I am not sure what you mean by "pack mentality". When I typed my original comment, it appeared to my screen that there were no other comments below. I did not know that others would post.

In what way do I "lack respect for others"?"

On the Norwegian Terrorist Attacks, Fundamentalism and Racism

A long-winded title for a blog post, perhaps. But all three topics are linked.

Firstly, unless you have been living under a rock at the bottom of a lake since yesterday afternoon, you will no doubt be aware that two terrorist attacks were carried out yesterday (22nd July 2011) in Norway.

The first was a bomb attack in the capital, Oslo. Current reports indicate that this killed seven people.

The second attack was far more shocking. A gunman disguised himself as a police officer and visited an island several miles away from the capital which was hosting a youth camp organised by the ruling political party. In the confusion following the bomb in Oslo, he was allowed access to the camp. He then opened fire on the campers, killing at least 84 people in the half hour before he was arrested.

This is stunning. A bombing is in itself a brutal, vicious thing to do, but gunning down 84 defenceless, innocent people is the action of a person who barely deserves the title "human." To carry out such acts, the gunman must have been completely level-headed and utterly callous.

Despite initial speculations of an attack by Al Qaeda or Gaddafi, the gunman was in fact a Christian fundamentalist.

Interestingly, Christianity was trending this morning on Twitter. Let's see what people on Twitter had to say on the subject:

"The murderer in Norway is not a Christian, and these evil actions have nothing to do with Christianity."

"He doesn't represent Christianity."

"That isn't fundamental Christianity. Or even mental Christianity. It's just insanity."

Et cetera, et cetera...

Of course these acts aren't representative of Christianity. Of course this man is an exception to the rule. But he is a Christian. That is undeniable. Trying to deny that is like trying to deny that he is Norwegian because most Norwegians don't do that sort of thing.

Religious fundamentalism is a backwards and thoroughly ridiculous stance that has thankfully almost died out in the West (with the notable exception of the United States).

I expect, then, that we'll see the Daily Mail on Monday foaming at the mouth about how Christianity is incompatible with modern democracy and that churches should be closed down. After all, didn't they say just that after the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks?

Ah, my mistake. Most Christians in this country have the same colour skin as us. How silly of me.

Seriously, though, there is a problem. All too often people attack Islam as backwards, medieval or barbaric without taking into consideration that precisely the same thing could be said of Christianity.

Ah, you might think, but what about all the pictures we see of Muslims holding up signs reading "ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD" and "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM"? Isn't that evidence that Islam is more inherently fundamentalist than Christianity?

No, it is not. Hands up who has wandered around town, or been on public transport and come across a fundamentalist preacher telling indifferent passers-by to accept Christ into their hearts or suffer eternally. Now hands up who has seen Muslim preachers doing the same for Islam. One at the back. Thought so.

Then I ask: why we do not see pictures of these Christian preachers plastered just as frequently over the pages of the Daily Mail and The Sun? I would hazard a guess that it can be summed up in one word:

Racism.

Priorities

Came back home on Sunday morning after the Year 13 prom (which was good, although I have very little recollection of the after-party). After having a shower, I went downstairs to find my mother in the kitchen. She asked me if I "picked up any girls". The answer was no. (I'm not suave or self-confident enough to simply say "Hey babe, fancy a dance?" If you know what my voice sounds like and what I look like, you'll know immediately just how horrifyingly, ridiculously awkward and utterly unromantic that would be coming from me.)

Later on, when I saw Dad, his first question was not along those lines. His first concern was how drunk I got. He was pleased on that account.

I found this mildly amusing, at any rate...

Goodbye Space Shuttle

The Space Shuttle Atlantis took off yesterday for the last time. Never again will humans be taken into space by those ships. I won't say "good riddance" because the Shuttles have contributed to countless discoveries over the last few decades. But I am glad to see the back of them.

The Cold War-era space race was driven by competition between the USA and USSR. Each wanted to show that they could outmatch the other's technology, because mastery of space meant mastery in the event of a nuclear war. A rocket that could take men into orbit could easily bring nuclear weapons crashing down on cities.

Then, suddenly, the Soviets simply gave up the fight. They made no attempts to get men to Mars or establish a base on the Moon. The Americans relaxed and the future of space exploration was held back for decades. No human has set foot on another world since 1972.

But another space race has been gearing up, largely behind the scenes. This time between private companies. As happened with aeroplanes in the postwar period, competition may be able to drive down costs significantly, especially with new and more efficient rockets. I strongly doubt space flight will be affordable for normal people until an orbital elevator is constructed, but we might at least be able to see government-owned bases spring up on the Moon this side of 2030 and space hotels in orbit for the rich and famous before 2020.

50 Things

Shit.

I have nothing original to write about, but think I should do something more worthwhile than arguing with morons on the internet, as I have been the past half hour. Therefore, I am going to write down 50 different facts about me, on the off-chance that someone will find at least some part of it interesting.

1. My full name is Thomas Alexander Nash
2. I was born with a small hole in my brain caused by a blood clot in the womb.
3. Perhaps as a result of this, my dexterousness is all fucked-up. I write left-handed, drink right-handed, shoot a gun left-handed but shoot a bow right-handed etc
4. I was born with a hole from one side of my heart to the other, but this has since closed up.
5. I was born with a condition known as Cystic Hygroma, which affects about 1 in 60,000 people. Basically, I have a large cluster of lymph nodes in my right cheek, making it appear swollen.
6. I have had several operations to reduce the swelling. If you think it looks bulky now, you should see pictures of me as a baby.
7. My right leg is slightly shorter than my left. This gives me a slightly strange gait. I walk heel-toe on my left foot but toe-heel on my right. But if I walk quickly, both feet go toe-heel.
8. I am partially colourblind. I can see in colour, but I can't tell when bananas are ripe, amongst other things.
9. I nevertheless have perfect 20:20 vision.
10. I am an agnostic, ignostic atheist humanist. I do not believe in any gods, but consider the assertion that there are definitely no gods unscientific.
    
    
11. I find it impossible to choose what to believe. I don't know if everyone is like this, but often people talk about "wanting to believe" something. I can't do this. It's either true or it's not, and whether I think it is good or bad has no bearing on the truth of a statement.
    
    
12. I have had two experiences that could be called "numinous", that is to say, "religious" but not as a result of religion. The first came when driving through the Australian outback at night. I looked up and saw the incredible, vast cloud of the Milky Way galaxy above my head. For a brief period of time I was able to comprehend as I had never done just how enormous the galaxy was. It brought tears to my eyes.
    
    
13. On a less serious note, my favourite food is normally pepperoni pizza.
14. The perfect pizza would be barbecue and stuffed-crust, and have pepperoni, ham, bacon, minced beef, chicken and possibly duck as toppings.
15. I consider minstrels to be the nicest chocolate cheaply available.
16. I am single.
17. I am heterosexual.
18. I am, it would seem, inept with regard to relationships.
19. I had a very quiet emotional breakdown between the ages of 14 and 15.
20. I'm a complete nerd/geek. There's no point denying it or taking offence at the term.
    
    
21. I have a phobia of needles resulting from having a drip left in my hand long after the anaesthetic had worn off when I was about 7 or 8, allowing me to feel the pain of it being in there.
    
    
22. The last time I went for a routine injection, I was voluntarily sedated beforehand with (prescribed) diazepam.
23. Diazepam felt like being drunk, only without any urge to carry out "good ideas".
24. I have never smoked anything.
    
    
25. I once wore a brace, but any changes made by the brace were being pushed back by my cheek, so the decision was made to stop wearing it. Hence I have fairly crooked teeth.
26. I have one filling. Not because that tooth had a cavity, but because it came out of the gum already chipped. Typical.
    
    
27. I am a moderator on an online forum.
28. I was also a "super user" (moderator) on another forum which then died.
29. I have been involved for many years with a charity called Changing Faces. No prizes are awarded for guessing why we first got in touch.
30. I was once on posters to increase publicity for Changing Faces.
31. I was once featured in a photo exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery in Manchester.
    
    
32. There is a reasonable chance that I will also be briefly shown in a BBC3 series soon. Not as a subject, but simply because I was on the same activity day as one of the people who is a subject of one of the episodes.
33. I can flare my nostrils.
34. I have a very high metabolism, but low blood pressure. The result is that I can eat and not get fat, and I have a lower risk of heart disease.
35. I am a casual Lifeguard at a local sports centre. I can work if and when I want, and the pay is amongst the best available for someone my age.
36. The most action I have seen in my job is a grazed knee. The exciting stuff happens precisely when I'm not there, which suits me just fine.
37. I get an unparalleled level of respect when I'm wearing the uniform. I can make douchebags stop their douchebaggery with a whistle-blast or a shake of my head. Maybe they fear me slightly because I can have them removed from the centre. POWER! Muahahaha!
38. I read two webcomics regularly. Yeah...
39. Probably my favourite all-time game is Rome: Total War. I use mods (modifications) to the game, as the original has long ago lost its appeal to me. The replay value with mods is almost unparalleled.
40. I was born in Pembury, Kent.
41. I have a strange accent. My family moved to East Yorkshire when I was three, so I've picked up quite a few local intonations. But at home everyone still speaks with more southern accents. So my "o"s are quite strongly pronounced, amongst other things.
42. I dislike the sound of my own voice. If I have to listen to it, I try not to for long.
43. Ideally, I would be almost carnivorous. Meat tastes so much nicer than vegetables. But I have to take into consideration both health and the fact that chocolate and breakfast cereals are not meat.
44. I've effectively given up on getting my driving license this side of university. I tried to learn, but over a year later, my instructor was taking me round the same bloody roundabouts each week. Not a single manoeuvre or anything. I could almost do those roundabouts with my eyes closed. So I've since stopped having lessons.
45. I resat the first year of Sixth Form. I got a D, two E's and a U the first time round, as opposed to three C's and a D the second time.
46. I'm hoping to study biology Derby University this September. Failing that, I'll go to Salford which, despite its low reputation, has fairly strong biology.
47. If I choose, I can probably exercise complete control over at least two people through blackmail.
48. As long as the situation is not emotionally charged, I can be a fluent liar. Which is very useful.
49. The most fun I've ever had doing an activity was paintballing. If I had someone to go with, I would go as often as possible.
    
    
50. I tend to be optimistic. I have yet to come up against a single event that has changed my life irrevocably for the worse. In fact, the worst disaster I have met (see 45) has actually turned out to be a blessing in disguise. It granted me the extra time and support (intentionally and accidentally) to mature emotionally to the point where I actually feel ready to flee the nest.