A Brief History of Dog

Sep 4, 2010 | Arts, Australian Values, Cultural Values, Media Values, Religious Values, Science Values, Values

A Brief History of Dog

 

Clever Brainiac Shorthand

 

The (£1-a-day) Times has released excerpts of Stephen Hawking’s soon to be released new book, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design.

“ The universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he says. “Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

The press are all over Hawking for this, claiming that Hawking used to believe in a god somehow. (You know, they love a good backflip.) The Guardian says:

“ In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text … he said new theories showed a creator is “not necessary”.

What Hawking said in 1988 was,

“ If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God.”

“Had seemed to accept“? Sir Roger can understand this conclusion if, as is so often the case with journalists, the writer knows nothing about science or scientists and never actually read the original book. The line about “the mind of God” was the last sentence in the book and very few people got that far. Sir Roger may be one of the few who actually tackled the world’s smallest ever, and least read, coffee table book.

Many journalists are overworked, if not really lazy, and they have to get a readable story out quickly and so they grasp at angles, thoughts, probably get a bit of an idea from something like Wikipedia or their own archives and rush the story through. But when it comes to god stuff they really ought to be a bit more careful.

Scientists are stupid, of course, which is strange because intellectually they tend to be on the smarter side and like to make jokes. They make up clever brainiac shorthand. Remember the University of East Anglia emails and the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series”?

Well, the silly atheist scientists keep talking about gods. The Higgs Boson or “God particle”. Einstein’s “God does not play dice wth the universe”. And Hawking’s “then we should know the mind of God”.

Don’t bloody say that stuff! It just confuses stupid people (and journalists after an angle with an angel). And god-botherers.

So let’s be clear.

Einstein didn’t believe in any god the way other people define it. Higgs is an atheist. Hawking is an atheist (although he may at some stage have been an agnostic deist) and he never meant you to take that last line literally. It was an analogy. Smart scientist shorthand. Okay?

Meanwhile, chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, criticised Hawking’s book. Having complained that science and religion are different (“Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation”) he went on,

“ The Bible simply isn’t interested in how the universe came into being.”

Beg pardon? What was all that stuff in Genesis about? Genesis I, Chapter 1, Verse 1? you know, where god creates the universe? The only part of the Bible that creationists care about??

1    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2   And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3   And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Explain that again about how the Bible isn’t interested in how the universe came into being?

 

 

The Meaning of Life

Aug 28, 2010 | Arts, Australian Values, Cultural Values, Lifestyle & Life, Religious Values, Values

The Meaning of Life

Sunday Sacrilege

 

Insights from the great Joseph Campbell, Mythologist, best known for his work in comparative mythology and comparative religion, author of The Power of Myth, The Inner Secrets of Outer Space, and The Hero with a Thousand Faces amongst many others.

His work was the basis for the structure of George Lucas’s Star Wars and — for his sins — subsequently for most of today’s Hollywood movies.

He’s speaking with Bill Moyers at the Skywalker Ranch. 

 

 

Also from Joseph Campbell:

“ Life is like arriving late for a movie having to figure out what was going on without bothering everybody with a lot of questions and then being unexpectedly called away before you find out how it ends.

 

 

“ Life is without meaning. You bring the meaning to it. The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning.

Sir Roger Gets Ogd

Jun 16, 2010 | Australian Values, Cultural Values, Humour, Religious Values, Values

Sir Roger Gets Ogd

 

Yes. It’s true! After everything he has said, Sir Roger’s scepticism has been swept away by his discovery of a new, an alien, religion.
And who would not want to be part of such powerful theatre, such wondrous ceremony, gorgeous ritual and exotic, ultra-dimension beings from the infinite corners of the universe?

 

 

 

Q’ah T^k Urzni wu Trifelj Hutinard!

We Came For Peace

Jun 4, 2010 | Australian Values, Racism, Religious Values, Terrorism, Values, War

We Came For Peace

“We came for peace,”

said the commando, one of the first Israeli soldiers to board the Mavi Marmara.

”They came for war.”

How you can tell “we came for peace” is that we came in the dark of night in warships and armed rigid-hulled inflatable boats, and rappelled down from military helicopters.

How you can tell that the flotilla “came for war” is that they had boats filled with food and supplies that would have been appropriate for a struggling, broken down, hungry, besieged population whose land we progressively steal.

So now you can tell who the real terrorists are.

They’re the people who believe in non-violence, humanitarians who are committed to the welfare of others, people who empathise with the pain of others and who try to do something to alleviate the suffering of others in the world.

So, you know, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Médecins sans Frontières, UNHCR, World Vision etc. etc.

I mean, that’s obvious, isn’t it? Just like Mr Fish says:

 

 

I mean, you know, let’s be clear about who are the professional victims here, right? You just have to understand that whatever the situation and whatever action we take however brutal and excessive, Israeli is always the victim, okay? Anyway, the White House will make sure no-one never has to find out what really went on. They’re okay with us “investigating” ourselves.

 

 

 

Shalom

Just a Question

Jun 1, 2010 | Australian Values, Legal, OzPol Values, Religious Values, Terrorism, Values, War

Just a Question

 

 When menace lurks behind every door 

 

If the Israelis approached civilian craft in international waters with the intention to – and in fact did – board, take control of and then tow, or with armed force cause, those craft to land in an Israeli port, isn’t that piracy? What is the difference really between the the Israelis and the Somali pirates? […despite the claim by Mark Regev, the unctuous Israeli spokesperson, that (“as you know”) interception on the high seas with warning is allowed in some convention or other …]

There are, however, these Articles from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea:

Article 88:   Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes

The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.

Article 89:    Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas

No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.

Article 90:    Right of navigation

Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas.

Article 110 :   Right of visit

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

As far as one knows there is no suggestion that the flotilla was suspected of piracy, slavery, unauthorised broadcasting, or having no or bogus nationality.

  

There is just one thing you need to know in order to understand Israeli politics: 

 

NEVER AGAIN

 

If you understand that you understand the Wall, this recent piracy, and even Mark Regev (ptooey ptooey) — possibly Australia’s most embarrassing export.

They will do and say ANYTHING – lie, cheat, kill, stab friends in the back – whatever it takes to maintain their existence so that NEVER AGAIN will they be the victims.

You can understand this for obvious historical reasons.

Of course, the problem is that this attitude/policy makes them their own victims; cages and imprisons them and shrouds them in the fog of their own delusion and blindness.

They blockade the Palestinians, but they also besiege themselves.

The paradox is that a policy that is all about NOT being a victim, because it is predicated on the reaction to victimhood actually makes the policy all about being a victim – in the present and into the future. And protecting against victimhood ignites the resentment and fuels the very fury that threatens them.

Who are they, after all, if they are not Victim reacting to Victimhood, struggling for survival in a hostile world in which terror surrounds them, menace lurks behind every door and NOBODY can be trusted?

Who are they?

What else is Israel?

What else do, or could, they stand for?

That’s the question for them that, when they can answer it, might free them and much of the rest of the world.

Anyway, it’s fascinatingly awful to watch them self-destructing, as they are – making increasingly appalling choices, telling increasingly preposterous lies and taking increasingly hysterical actions, marching with deliberate, inexorable, arrogance to self-inflicted defeat.