Philosopher on Tap » Philip

Birthday Girl

Philip — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:21:42 +0000

As the civilised world revelled in the news that the 33 Chilean miners have been delivered safely from their 700m subterranean hell after 70 days, reports are coming in that one person is not at all pleased.

Insiders claimed that ex-British Premier Margaret Thatcher, reportedly suffering from terminal ‘forgetfulness’ muttered that she couldn’t understand what all the fuss was about, because as far as she was concerned, there shouldn’t even be any miners because she destroyed them all in 1985.

“Not so,” said International miner’s leader Bora Hole. “Mining is still alive and kicking, despite Thatcher’s attempts to strangle it at source in the UK. It’s gone on in other countries for decades, the difference being that some nations support their workers – who after all are the backbone of any national economy – whilst others prefer the financial sector as a source of national income. We all know where that particular strategy left us.”

“Yeah, right in the mire,” said a passerby with a Yorkshire accent who overheard the conversation. “It’s all well and good all these London-based fairies deciding the future of our country based on Thatcherism – but may I be so kind as to remind you that the British Empire was built on industrialisation – not paper shuffling and number crunching. Wallies, the lot of ‘em.”

Apparently yesterday was Thatcher’s 85th birthday – eclipsed totally by a mining rescue operation in Chile – funny old World; wonder what Pinochet thinks of it all.

Richard Dawkins and the Cancer of Creationism

Philip — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:42:22 +0000

A Christian’s critic’s critic writes:
For the most part, Richard Dawkin’s “The Greatest Show on Earth” is a beautifully written and well argued piece of work. In it he puts forward many convincing data and explanations which demonstrate categorically that the world is about 4.6 billion years old and that all species on earth can trace their origins back to the dawn of life itself. That is, the creationist view of the earth having existed for less than 10,000 years is dogma of the worst kind; deliberate ignorance and denial of fact to satisfy one’s own, in this case, religious agenda.
Admittedly, Dawkin’s well-documented arrogance surfaces regularly; here, for example, in the form of intellectual snobbery:
“…….reminds me of Peter Medawar’s wickedly astute observation that ‘the spread of secondary and latterly of tertiary educated has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought’. Isn’t that priceless? It’s the kind of writing that makes me want to rush out into the street to share with somebody – anybody – because it’s too good to keep to oneself”.
Presumably any sharing would not be with one of those at which the viciously snobbish (and false for that matter) gibe is directed, since a punch on the nose might take the gloss off his delight at the writing. Atheists should note that Dawkin’s literary hero makes no distinction between religious and non-religious “dullards” – the atheist acolytes of the good professor who love to snigger knowingly at his barbs and witticisms, get precisely the same treatment as the non-atheists; a sort of intellectual wrinkling of the nose, as if something smells not quite so. Dawkins and his ilk bemoaning the paucity of human intellect among the masses, somewhat bizarrely, brings Tolkien to mind:
“But they were shut out, listening at a door to words not meant for them: ill-mannered children or stupid servants overhearing the elusive discourse of their elders…… “
In another, equally risible passage, Dawkins denies that a fundamental difference exists between the animate and the inanimate:
“Life, the animate, was supposed to have some sort of vibrant, throbbing quality, some vital essence – made to sound yet more mysterious when dropped into French: elan vital……. I’ve always treasured Julian Huxley’s sarcastic deduction that railway trains must be propelled by elan locomotif”.
Why precisely? To take his example, trains are inanimate and only operate under an animate, driver’s control, without whose direction they will never move. So call it what you will, but clearly life, the animate, does possess something that the non-living, inanimate does not.
An even more brazen example of Dawkins’ hubris occurred when questioned by Stephen Hawking (the greatest scientist of the 20th century, barring possibly Einstein himself) in a recent Channel 4 documentary. Hawking poses the eminently reasonable question “One can’t help asking, why are you so obsessed with God?” And Dawkins initial response? “Well, I notice you brought up the question of God and I didn’t”. Rich indeed, from a man who has been banging on negatively about God and religion ad nauseam for so long.
From his writing and pronouncements it is clear that there exists a simple concept apparently beyond Dawkins’ comprehension; that is, for many people their faith (or their “great cop out”, as Dawkins would maintain – one of his more eye-popping claims, according to Francis Collins in “The Language of God”) doesn’t lead them to think any less of the brilliance of Richard Feynman or Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin – why would it? And why would Dawkins assume it did? He is guilty of the very charge he brings against religious adherents (that their religion doesn’t give them the right or freedom to think for themselves) when he assumes that their faith will affect adversely their ability to think logically and analytically.
For all Dawkins’ undesirable personal traits, however, “The Greatest Show on Earth” is a fascinating work and a superb rejection of the creationist movement; a movement so prevalent in the United States and worryingly gaining credence as an alternative to evolution by natural selection here in the UK.
It is not clear where the creationist problem emanates from and why its credibility is rising in this country. Doubtless, a number of factors are involved which all contribute: religious fashion probably plays a part (where the US leads, so the UK follows); the teaching of Scripture as a literal document rather than allegory (Christ speaks in parables throughout the whole of his Ministry, so why insist the Old Testament is a precise historical account?); and sheer, bloody-minded dogma (I have had the misfortune to hear a creationist’s sermon in my church – the preacher spoke of the “lie of evolution” as the source of most of society’s problems).
Of course ignorance is also culpable – because if one is prepared to read and inquire and think and discuss, then the only conclusion a sane individual can reach is that the earth is indeed billions of years old and evolution by natural selection has generated the plethora of life that exists today. It makes complete sense of the diversity of living organisms, the geologic record, embryo development and many other areas of applied science with unrivalled explanatory power. Any other conclusions are just so much hogwash. But in these dog days of lawyers and invertebrate politicians, how can the cancer of creationism be excised, especially from schools where the potential exists for most damage to be done by false teaching?
When religion should be concentrating on social justice, charitable works and all the good it can do, creationism is another juicy own goal, arming the high priests of atheism with further ammunition to mock and deride and turn people off – and once again the victim is religion itself.

THE BETHLEHEM BLUES

Philip — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:09:34 +0000

Crawled up into Bethlehem, feeling ‘bout half past dead
Just really needed somewhere to rest my aching head
“Hey there Mr Innkeeper, can you tell me where I can stay?”
He just grinned, shook my hand and whispered “Allow me to lead the way”

I’d been walking with the Devil, walking side by side
He was filling my mind with lies and stuff pertaining to my bride
Innkeeper shouted over “Lucifer, leave that poor boy be,
She’s been true and she’ll produce your perfect match, presently”

Mary’d been carrying heavy, for the last few miles or so
Her time was coming up fast, she didn’t have long to go
“Joe, I can’t have my baby – not like this on the road -
I’m ready to show the world, the seed the Spirit sowed”

A bunch of shepherds ran into town, sweating hard from fear
“What been going down guys, what did you see up there?”
But they stood still with parchment faces, wouldn’t say a lot
Just stood around in wonderment, with eyes that had witnessed God

Two years later on, with my family on the run
Three kings rocked up on camels, they’d been following the sun
Their baggage seemed real heavy, they were all dressed mighty keen
The gifts they brought were the finest the world had ever seen

John

Philip — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:42:10 +0000

How many times (in nearly a decade)
Did I hear him raise his voice?
And while others raucously their views made
Not he, ‘twas not his way nor choice.

Rather, he liked to take the middle ground
To mediate, to quell and smooth
The clanging cymbal of the “I am” sound,
Conflict? He’d rather deflect and soothe.

I did hear him raise his voice to sing of Love
And although no Caruso he,
God and His angels rejoiced high above
“A Christian sings! Praise be! Praise be!”

He wondered long at the limitless sky,
At hands that flung stars into space.
Together we’ll sit and watch Red Dwarfs die
When we meet in another place.

I read a poet called Whitman who wrote
“A reasonable man achieves naught”
But JW realised something of note
When those to the Cross, he brought.

Leek Pie for Two

Philip — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:11:09 +0000

Leek Pie for Two

“Back to the future” they say
Surely they mean back to the past?
When two suddenly became three -
And another was place set

Eighteen brief years
Of that extra place mat
And then a lifetime
Of cooking for two

“As long as he’s happy, we’re fine”
“We can do what we want now”
But what I want to do
Is cook again for three