Ceci n'est pas un blog
Anthony
This user hasn't shared any biographical information
Homepage: http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/
Posts by Anthony
The government shall be upon his shoulders
Jan 22nd
NT Wright, speaking on Christmas Eve:
‘Unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulders.’ [Isaiah 9] Unless you sigh with relief at those words, you haven’t really been listening. What we need just now, more obviously than ever in my lifetime, is someone to shoulder the burden, someone who can get under, pick up our multiple problems and carry them for us.
It should be obvious by now that nobody locally or globally has the slightest idea how to address, let alone solve, the crisis that has come swiftly upon us. And I’m not simply talking about the voting methods in Strictly Come Dancing. I’m talking about those admittedly lesser concerns, the problems of global power, global finance, global humanity as a whole.
We have of course just witnessed a kind of secular version of Isaiah 9. The election of Barack Obama has been hailed with wild delight around the world. ... The whole world was hungry for hope, and now Obama, who is indeed brilliant, charming, shrewd and very capable, is being told that the government of the world is upon his shoulders, and we expect him to solve its problems. Poor man: no ordinary mortal can bear that burden. Nor should we ask it of him. The irrational joy and hope at his election only shows the extent to which other hopes have failed, making us snatch too eagerly at sudden fresh signs. And that can only be because we have forgotten the Christmas message, or have neutered it, have rendered it toothless, as though the shoulder of the child born this night was simply a shoulder for individuals to lean on rather than the shoulder to take the weight of the world’s government.
Because this night, together with its senior cousin, the night of Easter, is the real night for which planet earth was waiting and to which it must look back if it wants to know the way forward. We place too much trust in our politicians because we place too little trust in God, and in the self-revelation of the living God in the child who is born to us. And when our politicians let us down, all we can think of is ... how to find another politician, who will get it right this time. ...
Jesus isn’t simply another politician on whom everyone can pin their hopes and who will then let them down. His way of establishing God’s justice and peace on the earth was different to Caesar’s, different to the usual power games and money games, different in source, different in method, different in effect. We are today hungry for exactly that difference, and Christmas night is the time to ponder it. ...
And Isaiah cries out, and Luke in his spectacular Christmas story cries out too, that it’s time for a different kind of world, a different kind of empire. What we need is a new economic system, a new way of doing global politics, a new style of leadership. That’s what the Christmas message is all about: ‘Unto us a child is born, a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders. And his name shall be called, Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’ Christmas is all about the coming of the world’s true king, the one who stops wars, who forgives debts, who establishes true justice and judgment in the earth.
Simulating the Universe
Jan 20th
Astronomers spend a lot of time making computer simulations of the Universe. Some discussion on The e-Astronomer's blog has set me thinking about why...
- To help us work out whether the stars and galaxies in the Universe could have arisen from much simpler beginnings. The Universe is quite a complex and diverse place. How did it get like that? Did it start off simple and gradually grow in complexity? Or is that completely implausible? Of course, we'll never get a definitive answer, but computer simulations can give us some pointers. However, at some point you have to say enough is enough and decide whether the answer is probably "Yes" or "No". It seems to be "Yes", so do we really need to keep doing more and more simulations?
- To find or test the laws of physics. If we plug the laws of physics into a computer simulation and find that it reproduces the observed Universe perfectly, then that suggests we were right after all. But if not, maybe we should try tweaking the laws of physics to see if that improves things? Again, this is an exciting question to ask, but simulations are nowhere near good enough to be able to do this - and it's questionable whether they ever will be.
- To reproduce observations. We know from observations that galaxies have XYZ properties. After N zillion CPU hours, our expensive simulation is able to reproduce XYZ. Wahey! This suggests that the simulations are working, which is good for establishing number 1 above. But there will always be fresh observations for the simulations to replicate, so what's the point of continuing indefinitely?
- To give observers something to look for. Our simulation of XYZ suggests that galaxies will also have ABC properties. Please Mr Observer, is this the case? Give me a few billion for a shiny new telescope and I'll tell you... Yes it is! Wahey! (Or, No it isn't - go back to step 3 and reproduce what we actually found.) Again, this can help to establish whether or not simulations can work (point 1 above). But once that's been established, it's another unending road to nowhere...
- To reconstruct the history of the Universe. To my mind, this is by far the best reason to keep on with the simulations. It's not a competition between simulations and observations, each trying to stay ahead of the other, but it's both working together (along with a hefty dose of human intuition and creativity) to uncover the sequence of events that made the Universe what it is today. So the aim is not primarily to formulate a simple mathematical description of the Universe or to quantify things with great precision. But astronomers are on a quest more akin to that of a historian, an archaeologist or a forensic scientist - first to figure out what actually happened, and then to communicate the excitement and drama of that story to everyone else.
- To make pretty pictures and animations. Okay, I lied. This (and this) is what simulations are for.
2009: International Year of Astronomy
Dec 31st
Stand by for the countdown ... 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1 ...
Dawkins on rape
Nov 6th
Presenter of Premier Radio's Unbelievable? programme "Justin Brierley spoke to prominent atheist Richard Dawkins after his debate with Professor John Lennox at Oxford University in October 2008." Here's what was said 5:30 into the interview:
JB: But when you make a value judgement don't you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say the reason this is good is because it's good, and you don't have any way to stand on that statement?
RD: But my value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.
JB: So therefore it's just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.
RD: Well, you could say that. But it doesn't in any case - nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.
JB: Okay, but ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.
RD: You could say that, yeah.
(HT: Tom Price)
Herschel Space Observatory
Oct 6th
PhD now submitted, I've just started a six-month contract working at Sussex on some software for the Herschel Space Observatory, which is due to be launched in 2009. Here it is:
Artist's impression of the Herschel Space Observatory
This week I'm at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Didcot, Oxfordshire, discussing the nitty-gritty of how the data processing system is going to operate. (Okay, other people are discussing the nitty-gritty, while I'm feeling pretty gormless...)
Mike Reeves on the Trinity (2) God is love
Sep 3rd
So if the Christian God is entirely different to whatever God anyone else worships, then what - or who - is this God? Mike Reeves, part 2 (with a bit of help from the Cappadocian Fathers):
God is Father, Son and Spirit loving each other. That's it.
Okay, that's a bit more appealing than Aristotle's definition. But hold on! One God or three Gods?
But this just looks to us like you've got three Gods and they just happen to like each other a lot.
What's the solution?
We're not tritheists because we don't say the Father, Son and Spirit are three individuals; we say they are three persons. ... An individual is something that can be divided off ... so it can stand all on its own. ... Persons need relationship; they can only be understood in terms of their relations. ...
God is just these three persons loving each other. But that is not to say there are three Gods here, because their love for each other is so essential to who they are that none of them would exist without the others. ...
And so, you see, Basil and the boys are really majoring on verses like 1 John 4:16, "God is love", because they're seeing love, which is the relationship between the persons, is the being of God. It makes up the divine unity. God is one because God is love, because the Father, Son and Spirit love each other.
Mike Reeves on the Trinity (1)
Aug 28th
Do you believe in God? Yes?
Whoa, hold on a minute! Which God are we talking about?
Sorry?
Which God do you believe in?
You see, the assumption is that we all know what God is; we may differ on the details, but there's no dispute about the fundamental definition. So if you were of a philosophical bent and didn't get out much, you might say:
God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God. ... It is clear then from what has been said that there is a substance which is eternal and unmovable and separate from sensible [touchable] things. It has been shown also that this substance cannot have any magnitude, but is without parts and indivisible ... . But it has also been shown that it is impassive and unalterable
Many Christians would think that's a pretty good description of God. Trouble is that it was written by a pagan philosopher from the 4th Century BC!
Those words, from Aristotle's Metaphysics, are quoted by Mike Reeves in the first of his sensational four-part series on the Trinity, the God of the Bible. The question is whether Aristotle got it right: is his description of "God" a good summary of what the Bible's God is like?
Mike Reeves' answer: No.
We need to acknowledge straight up that the Christian worships an entirely different God to whatever God anyone else worships.
Confirmation bias
Jul 25th
Professor Aardvark has a theory. His theory predicts X. So he does some experiments and presents a tentative scientific result, suggesting that X might be true.
Dr Bloggs decides to investigate it. Here's Bloggs's research diary:
- First preliminary results (finally!): disagreement with Aardvark's results, but it's probably something I've done wrong.
- New method of analysing the data. Now my results (finally!) agree with Aardvark's. Still a few issues that need addressing though...
- No progress with the outstanding issues. Getting really bored of this project!
- Paper written:
Aardvark found X. Our results, although tentative, appear to agree with their findings.
Dr Clot-Head investigates the same question and publishes the following:
Aardvark and Bloggs have shown that X is true. Our results agree with their analysis, although we haven't taken Y and Z into account, so our findings are only tentative.
Dr Dummy joins the bandwagon:
Various authors have found X (Aardvark, Bloggs, Clot-Head). Our findings, although tentative, agree with the general consensus.
Actually, X is not true and Professor Aardvark's theory is wrong. However, due to the complexity of the issue, the lack of any credible alternative theory and constraints on the researchers' time, X soon becomes part of common knowledge. Everyone knows X is true!
My question: does this actually happen in astronomy?
Religious exclusivity and world peace
Mar 26th
What is the main barrier to peace in the world?
asks Tim Keller in the first of a series of talks related to his new book, The Reason for God.
[T]oday I think most people would say that the main barrier to peace in the world is religion, and especially religious exclusivity. ... And I want to start right off by agreeing that religion, generally speaking, has a very strong tendency to divide people
So how can we deal with the divisiveness of religion? Most people hope the problem will fade if we agree on two things:
First we need to agree that all religions are equally valid paths to God. That way you won't try to convert everybody to yours or say you have the superior one. ... And secondly, the second thing we have to agree on, is that religion is good to give you strength in your private life, but never bring it out into public discourse, never argue for values in society that are based on your particular religious faith.
But Keller goes on to argue that
Neither of those statements can hold water. This strategy will not succeed.
Why not? What about the first statement: that all religions are equally valid? Seems self-evident. I mean,
Who dares to say they see the whole picture?
But the example of the elephant helps to show that
the only way you could possibly know that every religion only sees part of the truth is if you assume that you see all of the truth ... the only way you could know that religions only see part of the truth is if you assume you have the whole truth, which is the very thing you say nobody's got!
And
when you say, "No one has a superior take on spiritual reality," that is a take on spiritual reality, which you say is superior to everybody else's. And when you say, "No one should convert everybody else to your view of religious reality," that is a view of religious reality that you want the listener to convert to!
Okay, so we've all got our own exclusive beliefs. But what about the second statement: surely we can keep our religious beliefs private? Apparently not.
What is religion? ... Religion is a set of answers to the big questions. ... Nobody can operate in life without a set of answers to these questions.
So, Keller argues, the idea of leaving religious beliefs outside of public life doesn't make sense. But when people say we should do that, what do they mean? What religious values are we allowed to take into the public realm, if we cannot function in life without any religious values?
Therefore if you say, "Keep your religion out of the public realm," what you really are meaning is, "My Enlightenment Western individualistic faith assumptions about human nature are privileged over yours."
He quotes Michael Perry as saying
To say, "Religious reasoning must be kept out of the public square because it's faith based and it's controversial," is itself a faith-based statement which is incredibly controversial and therefore on its own terms ought to be thrown out.
So both statements turn out, on closer examination, to be mistaken: we all have exclusive religious beliefs, and we all bring our exclusive religious beliefs into the public sphere.
So what's the solution? We can't get rid of religious exclusivity: that's logically impossible. But what we need to do is look at the various exclusive beliefs and ask
Which set of exclusive beliefs can produce loving, inclusive, reconciling, peaceful behaviour?
He then draws attention to those aspects of Christian belief that make it totally different from other religions and concludes that
Everyone has got a set of exclusive beliefs, and Christianity's got a set of exclusive beliefs, but which set of beliefs leads to the most inclusive behaviour? I submit this:
- take moralistic religion into your life and you'll feel superior to the secularists,
- take secularism into your life and you'll feel superior to all those stupid religious people,
- take the Gospel into the centre of your life and you'll be humbled before people who don't believe what you believe, you'll seek to serve the people who don't believe what you believe, and you'll know that a man who loves people who don't love him is what your whole life is built on.
In summary, Keller argues that we must have exclusive beliefs, and we cannot keep exclusive beliefs out of the public realm. But which exclusive beliefs, when genuinely held, will stop people from acting superior to those who disagree with them and therefore be conducive to world peace? Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Discuss.
Advice to an archbishop
Feb 9th
So in a lecture Rowan Williams, admittedly in a display of "political ineptitude", makes some carefully reasoned and apparently reasonable (if obfuscatory) suggestions about how a single, unitary legal system (same laws for every citizen) might accommodate a diversity of religious and cultural practices on "certain carefully selected matters". Then what happens?
For a thoughtful analysis we can turn to David Field. Inane reactions are less difficult to find: "Arch enemy: bash the bishop ... in a damning You The Jury poll [b]y last night, 14,683 had called for his dismissal. Just 631 said he should stay", "barrage of criticism", "fatuous remarks".
And we turn up our noses when some Muslims react violently to an academic lecture by the Pope.
So my advice to Dr Williams, if he is reading, is this: keep it simple. If you can't make your point in half a dozen monosyllabic words, just don't say anything. Don't expect us to make an effort really to understand you. We won't. And be warned: if you get it wrong, we might form a mob and stone you (albeit with sponges).
Opto ergo sum (4) free to choose
Jan 17th
To be free to choose is to be free from commitment
... because to be committed means you've chosen already.
To be free to choose is to be free from belonging
... because if you belong you won't choose not to belong.
To be free to choose is to be free from making choices
... because once you've made a choice you are no longer free to choose.
To be free to choose is to be free from any ties
... because ties limit your choices.
To be free to choose is to be free from certainty
... because if your mind is closed you are not free to consider new ideas.
To be free to choose is to be free from needing anything
... because if you depend on something you can't choose to be without it.
To be free to choose is death.
Moving files to trash from the Mac command line
Jan 8th
Ever wished you could move files to the trash from the command line on the Mac? Here's how.
First, buy a Mac. Then
New category for boring posts
Dec 9th
Tedious and technical posts related to my research in astronomy are henceforth to have a home on this blog (update: I've made a separate Research Blog for them).
[old bits snipped]
In case you suddenly fear you'll be missing out, "my research in astronomy" roughly translates as "how I finally persuaded the computer to do X, and why in hindsight X is pointless and I should have made the computer do Y instead".
Opto ergo sum (3) you are what you listen to
Sep 22nd
You're at a party. Talking to someone new. It's someone of the opposite sex. Thought goes through your mind (again): maybe this could be the one? Who knows? How could you tell? Nice weather, mmm. Really? I've been there too! What did you think? Small talk, small talk. But how to find out what this person is like...? Let's get beyond the superficialities. Ah!
What kind of music do you like?
As if that could matter! What a strange question! What about her background? What does her father do? Or her grandfather? Where has her family lived? Where do they originate from? What was her up-bringing like? What kind of school was she sent to? Is her family religious? Where do they stand in the social ladder? Surely these are the questions you should be asking if you want to find out what she is like!
Don't be silly.
Those questions have nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with what sort of person you are. They are about what you inherit by virtue of your birth, not by any fault - choice - of your own.
On the other hand, your choice of music - what you listen to on your iPod or other similar/superior device - ultimately has absolutely nothing to do with your birth. True, in childhood you may have been limited both in what you knew about and what you had access to. But that is no longer the case. Nor is your choice of music affected by anyone else. It makes no difference to them, and it's none of their business. There are no constraints on what you listen to in private. It is one of the freest choices you will ever make. And if you value your ability to choose, your choice of music will be very close to your heart.
You are most human when your choices are least constrained.
What you listen to is your own free and unconstrained choice, and therefore it is an indicator of who you are.
You are what you listen to.
Don't you think?
Stellarium
Sep 17th
If, like me, you know virtually nothing about astronomy, wouldn't know which way to look through a telescope, but would quite like to be able to identify more than three objects in the sky, then Stellarium is just what you've been looking for. (Much more suitable than Google Earth-Sky or Sky-map.org for this particular purpose, if you ask me.)
As a very slightly geeky person, I found it easiest to navigate Stellarium using the keyboard: press 'H' for help, and 'M' to change the settings (location, time, etc.).
Galaxy Zoo
Jul 12th
Galaxy Zoo is a project to get ordinary people (that's you) to help look through pictures of a million galaxies, labelling each one as a spiral galaxy, elliptical galaxy, etc. (People are better than computers at doing this sort of task.)
They'll have to be careful about drawing conclusions from this project, but it seems an excellent way to get the public to appreciate the vastness of the Universe and the beauty and diversity of some of the billions of galaxies that populate it. (And bear in mind that each galaxy contains billions of stars.)
Go on, join in!
Tolerance, equality and diversity
Jun 10th
Tolerance, equality and diversity: three words that reflect the core values of our culture. But what do they mean?
A tolerant person is one who believes that all lifestyles and beliefs (within reason) are equally valid, and is therefore quite happy for people to hold these beliefs.
In contrast, intolerant people have a different (inferior) view of reality, thinking that different lifestyles and beliefs are not all equally valid. These intolerant people will try to persuade other people to change their beliefs. Tolerant people think that intolerant people are wrong about how they view reality: intolerant people need to learn that they are wrong to think of their own beliefs as superior to others and that it is wrong to try to persuade other people to change their beliefs. A tolerant society should not put up with intolerance.
A person is said to value equality if they consider all lifestyles and beliefs (within reason) to be equal. In contrast, people who do not share this conviction do not value equality and therefore should not expect to receive the same treatment as everyone else. This is because such people are responsible for the division and hatred that permeate society.
People may be described as welcoming diversity if they believe that the differences between various lifestyles and beliefs (within reason) are insignificant and certainly not differences in how right or valid they are. Holding this belief helps them to embrace diversity; anyone who draws attention to differences in a judgemental way is a hindrance to this.
If these definitions are accurate, it follows that
- "tolerant" people are intolerant of those who truly disagree with them
- people who value "equality" think that if people are truly different (in their beliefs), they should not be treated equally, and
- welcoming "diversity" is the same as hating true diversity.
I hope I'm wrong.
Recitals in May
May 1st
I'll be trying my hand at singing a couple of solo recitals this month, with James Lloyd Thomas accompanying me on the piano, and with a guest appearance from Gavin Ashenden (tenor) at one of the performances.
Here's the programme:
- Mozart: In diesen heil'gen Hallen, from The Magic Flute
- Handel: I rage, and O ruddier than the cherry, from Acis and Galatea
- Schubert: The Fisher-maiden, Stänchen and The Erl-King (see picture)
- Piano solo (Brahms Intermezzo, perhaps)
- Elgar: Like to the damask rose
- Finzi: Let us garlands bring
- (Tuesday 8th only) Bizet: The Pearl Fishers Duet, with Gavin Ashenden (tenor)
Do come if you can - they are free! Details:
- Tuesday 8th May, 1.20-2.10pm, Meeting House, University of Sussex
- Saturday 12th May, 3-3.45pm, St Paul's Church, West Street, Brighton
I live in York and I'm a research fellow in 
Loading ...
All religious beliefs are equal ...
Dec 29th
Posted by Anthony in Comment
2 comments
... but some beliefs are more equal than others.
At least it seems that way when "equality" legislation is applied to justify the withdrawal of funding from a Brighton care home because its Christian ethos might deter gay people from applying.
Update 9 Feb 2009: Funding restored to Christian care home.