polydaidaloi.com

30 years ago July 27, 1979 a simple, powerful riff using A, D (with a F# in the bass – very important that) and G announced that AC/DC were ready for world domination.

For the past 6 years they had toured relentlessly, first in Australia and then Europe and the US building a fierce, loyal, following. The two prior studio albums, Powerage and Let There Be Rock, had firmed the foundations of AC/DC’s sound. The live album If You Want Blood… captured the intensity of their live performances. At that time, AC/DC were the best live act in the world. No-one in their right mind wanted to follow them on stage.

But true success had still eluded them. The next album was going to need to be a big one to capitalise on the following that they had built. After an abortive attempt at producing the album with Eddie Kramer Robert “Mutt” Lange was brought on board. He was the perfect choice.
More »

Ok, so not about science, but when members of progressive think tanks are so clueless the results are the same: people begin to mistrust the institution they represent. Via Deadspin via the Washington Post , John Pendergast of the Center for American Progress when asked who Americans trust most in the wake of Walter Cronkite’s death, says:

“There are a few. Joel Osteen: Americans are looking increasingly to the pulpit for spiritual direction in uncertain times, and the biggest televangelist-author of all of them is Osteen. Chris Berman, HBO [sic]: If you are a sports fan, and there are tens of millions of them in the U.S., this choice requires no explanation. When the Boomer speaks, people listen. Oprah Winfrey: One of the tag lines of the 21st century has become, ‘It must be true; I heard it on Oprah.’”

Reading that results in two immediate responses- no wonder no one trusts think tanks and does this guy read any popular media beyond “Entertainment Weekly”?

For those not in the states, Joel Osteen is a televangelist who offers the populist version of Christianity that posits that faith and prayer answer all your needs (which is why his ministry charges nothing for his books and services). What makes this choice even worse is the idea that popularity is an indication of well place trust. That’s like saying McDonald’s must offer healthy food since so many people eat there. What the fuck.

Then we have Chris Berman as the most trusted sports reporter? WHAT? Berman, for those who don’t know, was one of the original anchors of ESPN, has a set of annoying catch phrases and gimmicks, and has the journalistic instincts you’d expect in a person who has a crush on the people he’s supposed to cover. In fact, no one who has any interest in sports journalism takes ESPN seriously.

His third choice is Oprah. Oprah? Oprah. In a discussion of Walter Cronkite one of the main issues is that he had no agenda, he just reported the news, and this led to people saying, “if Uncle Walt says it it must be true”. When he said the Viet Nam war was unwinnable it influenced popular opinion way beyond the protests of the hippies. The reason Opray doesn’t belong anywhere near Cronkite is precisely because she has an agenda, and that agenda does NOT include journalistic reporting. She has had two authors she supported turn out to be fakes. She has foisted “The Secret” on her audience, not to mention Dr. Phil on the world. I believe a much better phrase would be, “I heard it on Oprah, it might be complete bullshit.”

Given that this kind of thinking could come from a member of a “think tank” we have to accept that journalism as we know it may well be over. A televangalist, an inane sports anchor and a populist credulous talk show host are presented as heirs to the most trusted newsman ever. Fuck me.

Frank Schaeffer is apparently a New York Times best selling author. If that doesn’t impress you then his article Do Atheists’ Borrow Religion’s Morality? likely won’t either.

Schaeffer’s argument is that:

few atheists are willing to admit that they’re borrowing ethical and aesthetic cultural traditions from religion while others, like atheist philosopher Richard Rorty and ethicist Peter Singer, have tried to avoid all assumptions of religious moral norms in their writing.

Leaving the aesthetic argument to one side, I’m at a loss to understand what ethical traditions atheists borrow from religion. Is it the ethical tradition found in Sharia law or the Old Testament longings of Christian fundamentalists? I don’t think many atheists borrow from those ethical traditions. And I’m not sure if any borrow from the New Testament that much at all. Buddhism? The Talmud? How about Dianetics? Schaeffer is vague about that religious ethics may include.
More »

There seems to be, at least here in the States, a debate about “framing” science. For the uninitiated framing is how you communicate ideas that are foreign, difficult or controversial so that those without expertise will accept them. One of the areas that seems to have caused a great deal of argument is the influx of the so-called “New Athiests”, also know as hard atheists or militant atheists.

The argument in opposition to these vocal and dismissive atheists is that since most of them are scientists or associated with science to some degree, whatever good they may do for science is off-set by the marginalizing of the faithful, who only hear and respond to their anti-theist diatribes.

There are other lesser charges as well. Some argue that in books these secularists have authored facts and conclusions are muddled or just plain wrong. Others insist that there is a divide between science and religion and what each investigates or tries to understand. In this case the detractors argue that science is trying to investigate one thing and religion something else, and both have their place and their specialty.

A final argument is that some of these radical atheists go too far in their criticism or actions against doctrinal belief and ritual; ie, P.Z. Myers desecrating a sacrament.

Having once believed that mutual respect for different beliefs is a natural and logical compromise in a civil society, I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong and these criticisms are wrong for may reasons. I will start with the main arguments as described in the above paragraphs and present my rebuttals.

The argument that those who frame the world in terms of their religious belief hear only shrill bleating for science and rude criticism of their beliefs can only be made by people who have no understanding of human nature. Of COURSE they can’t hear constructive criticism, of course everything sounds like an attack. That’s the nature of belief- nothing else matters if it conflicts with something you invest your faith in.  What I don’t understand is, how will any alternative to direct criticism, regardless of how vehement or fiery, make a difference? This faith arose in the face of nearly universal agreement with the idea of a religious belief,  and respectful acceptance by nearly all of science. So the answer is to keep doing what we’ve always done? Why? Who can honestly say the don’t believe in the religious construction of nature and yet still respect it and have a degree of honesty?

This brings us to the “other ways of knowing” and/or “different approaches to different things” argument. I am not a philosopher nor an expert in the ways of logic, but it seems to me that “knowing” something by “faith” assumes you can’t know it by natural phenomenon alone. It seems a small step to argue that this is another way of “knowing” but knowing what? Your feeling that there is something more in the world? That whatever science can’t yet answer is supernatural by default? What do you know with your “other way” beyond what you believe and is this “knowledge” universal or subject to your singular perception? If a group of researchers interviewed every believer of every kind of religion would they get the same description of god? If a group of researchers interveiwed the adherents to every religion would they get the same history of the Earth?

“Knowing” denotes “Knowledge”. Are these various ways of knowing, in fact, knowledge of some truth? If I were to say I KNOW that hockey is the best sport every played would anyone consider that knowledge, or some expression of a universal truth? Could you compare the evidence I have for that knowledge with, say, the evidence for evolution?

I will say that I not only don’t respect religion of any kind, but I don’t respect the argument that religious faith is just another way of “knowing” the world. It may reflect a personal perspective, but since I reject the precepts of that perspective I feel no responsibility to respect the method of arriving at it.

Nor do I feel it is necessary for an author to impose a false sense of respect for that “knowledge”. There have been countless examples in which religious leaders and followers have shown no sense of acceptance of science or secular thought. My argument is not that if they do it so should these authors, it is that there is a monumental hypocrisy in demanding respect where there is none given. Further, no self respecting historian will argue that the benefits of religious belief have given humanity what science has. Indeed, just looking at the AIDS crisis in Africa and the Catholic church’s adherence to its no-condom rules is but one example of religion harming innocent people. Am I to believe that I should not feel or express anger at that situation and those who perpetuate it because of their contention that an invisible force somewhere in the universe demands it? How am I, as an atheist, to subdue my anger, disgust, and outrage? By accepting that these people really believe they are doing God’s will? Or to put it another way, that they are obeying an entity I don’t recognize which results in the death of thousands?

Does anyone with a Western understanding of biology, sociology and philosophy really think Muslims should be forgiven their centuries long abuse and belittling of women, or that we should be polite at this point in condemning it? If you assume that we are a bound humanity do you not percieve that these women are your sisters and your daughters? How do you really think you should or would react to the abuse of you sister or daughter?

I have tried to show my contempt for the idea that we should “frame” or subdue our criticism of religion and the conclusion I have come to. We are left with the act of sacrilege or blasheme to discuss. As I said, I have no level of respect with the perspective that religious belief imposes,  but I admit I have even less respect for the useless rituals of religion. Every single act from praying to attending church to communion fills me with distaste, not because of the faith it demonstrates, but because of the Pavlovian response repetition induces in subjects. These rituals are meant precisely to deepen faith not represent it, to invoke a learned response and dependence on the acts. Having reached this conclusion I find I can not be outraged by any act that draws attention to the ridiculousness of these acts. I do not believe there is anything holy in the sacrament and putting a nail through it is no more blasphemous than the idea of cannibalism. Some Catholics may disagree, and I feel that is their right, but they have no basis to impose the idea of that sacredness on anyone outside their faith. Indeed, for those who argue that what P.Z. Myers was wrong, do you make the same argument for women who get abortions or men who use condoms? They too are breaking traditional strictures of the church, or do you find yourself thinking that it isn’t the Catholic  church’s business what people outside their belief do? Where, then, do you draw the line? Is it some ethereal line that demarks “normal behavior” from “in your face” blaspehemy? I’d love to hear your arguments in support of that.

For thousands of years religious belief has been used to sanction all manner of sins, from conquest to slavery. It has no intrinsic logic, no real moral authority and certainly has no record of making the world better. To ask, then, that we treat it with respect because many believe otherwise is to ask that we ignore the obvious truth. I’m not advocating the belittling of those who believe, but I am defending the right to confront, and if desirable, to attack the silliness of those beliefs in the face of great evidence to the contrary. I have never heard a defense of God or any of the thousands of religions the world has hosted as eloquent or believable as a the Theory of Evolution or any other accepted theory of science. So long as believers pit themselves in devoted opposition to based on outdated belief systems I find nothing unaccpetable in attacking that opposition.

In the comments in a post at the Hoydenistas’ homstead it was noted by fuckpoliteness that some people at Triple-J think:

Then there’s the ‘Oh but women dominate in pop, that’s more women’s music, and alternative/heavy music, that’s definitely man music’ – well okay but I reckon that Patti Smith and Courtney Love have a few words to say in your ear amongst others.

In affirmation I wrote:

The Runaways, The Donnas, Girlschool, Crucified Barbara, The Sahara Hotnights, L7, Sleater-Kinney, Kittie etc are all women bands who are various degress of heavy or alternative.

Then you have Joan Jett and Lita Ford (solo after the Runaways), Susie Demarchi (Baby Animals), CJ Sleez, Doro, Angela Gossow (Arch Enemy), Juliette Lewis (Juliette and the Licks) etc who all fronted bands that definitely were not pop.

But why take my word for it when you can hear and see for yourself (oh, I stuck one extra band in at the end).

More »

Apparently there are some that think that lost now found hiker, Jamie Neal, had staged it all. This was discussed on Richard Glover’s show which I was listening to fighting my way through the homeward bound traffic this afternoon.

This story was being discussed by three journos and Richard. The idea that Neal had faked all this was attributed to a rise in cynicism. Now I have no idea if society is experiencing more cynicism than usual. But there was a comment that implied children are taught to be cynical at school.

This comment is perplexing as I believe that the person responsible has conflated cynicism with skepticism. They are indeed very different.

Been a long time since I’ve been to school but I do hope that students are still taught how to critically evaluate both writing and speech. It is a positive skill that opens you to inquiry and knowledge. This leads to skepticism. And as skepticism is just as much as it is an investigation to determine the truth, it is also open to being wrong and subsequently changing one’s views if indeed this is the case. Cynicism is quite a negative, jaded view of the world that tends to reaffirm prejudices and not lead one to knowledge.

A cynical world is not a progressive place. However, healthy skepticism is something to be encouraged.

Over at Richard Dawkins’ website there was a discussion concerning Robert Wright’s quite wrong article about political leanings of the “New Atheists” in regards to foreign policy. I came across this comment:

The Tamil Tigers have a secular goal, yes, but most are hindu. It’s hard to believe that people who do not believe in an afterlife or some form of spiritual enlightenment would willingly blow themselves up to kill civilians.

This sentiment is similar to that of Sam Harris:

Several readers followed Pape’s and put forward the Tamil Tigers as a rebuttal to my claim that suicidal terrorism is a product of religion. But it is misleading to describe the Tamil Tigers as “secular,” as Pape often does. While the motivations of the Tigers are not explicitly religious, they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death.

The mistake the commentor and Sam Harris make is one of assuming that correlation implies causation.
More »

Tony Abbott claims to have come to terms with the 2007 election “through a process akin to grieving and was prepared to stay in politics over the long term.”

Abbott also thinks that the best way to win back an electorate that rejected Howard is to take up Howard’s mantle of conservatism but now with added Catholicism. Abbott’s suggestion that divorce laws should be changed to include a reversion back to a fault based system of divorce is his claim to inherent the Liberal’s conservative conscience.

Abbott obviously yearns for those days where families lived behind white picket fences and women knew their place. The father was a breadwinner and the little woman just stayed at home and cooked and cleaned and raised the children. And if her lot was so suffer domestic violence then all she had to do was somehow document it for a year or so and then if successful, she won freedom, societal shame and a precarious existence as financial independence for women was very difficult back then.

Abbott’s wonderful idea has strangely received little support. Even private investigators think it is bad idea. The stories from the PIs show a farcical side of the divorce laws, illustrating the absurdity of how the then regulations were enforced.

Abbott seems to have an issue with women allowed freedom to make their own decisions. There may be good arguments for reforming certain section divorce laws and how they apply to families. But a call to go back to a time when the system was stacked against women is not the way forward.

Abbott is one of the politicians whose ambition and self opinion greatly exceeds what the electorate thinks. He is even less popular than Turnbull (note the link goes to a pdf). Hopefully his public utterances will reveal the lack of intellectual rigour in conservative thinking and eventually return Abbott to a North Shore seminary.

Australia has had a lesson in why democracy is the least worst of political systems. The Triple-J Hottest 100 of All Time has been found to be curiously short of women artists. The Hoydens have a great collection of links discussing the controversy as they do themselves and LP has its own battle raging.

The criticism of Triple-J is warranted. There is a sense of betrayal as many of us feasted on Triple-J in our 20s and early 30s. They seemed hip and above the usual sexual politics of the industry. But Triple-J is mainstream now (no matter how hip they think they are) and I don’t care what the mainstream thinks. It doesn’t cater for my tastes and I’m not interested in my favourite musicians being validated by a poll.

If you are upset folks then leave Triple-J behind. The wonders of the internet will allow you to discover many more artists than commercial radio will allow.

And in that spirit, instead of arguing about what shoulda been, let’s talk about some fine women musicians. And one bloke.

The bloke is Dave Alvin, one of the United States’ finest roots artists. His new album features some of the United States finest musicians as his band. And they just all happen to be women. Cindy Cashdollar, Nina Gerber, Laurie Lewis, Christy McWilson, Sarah Brown, Amy Farris and Lisa Pankratz.

Don’t be concerned that the women are seemingly in a support role. Their contributions to this fine album of country, blues and rock’n'roll are not secondary to Alvin’s vocals and songs. They compliment Alvin and are equal in every way on this very fine album.

Indeed, what I love is how the musicians support each other. They all get a chance to shine but the solos are seemless parts of the song. Not egotistical intrusions which can happen on projects like this. Nina Gerber’s guitar playing is a sublime lesson in how to play for the song. A lesson I wish I could have learned 20 years ago. And Christy McWilson’s vocals add so much to the album. The contrast and harmonies between her voice and Alvin’s on Don’t Make Promises makes the song.

Dave Alvin and the Guilty Women is a superb album of Americana. You can hear selections of the album here. Of course you won’t hear it Triple-J but who gives a fuck about them? Your music doesn’t need approval from commercial radio.

Dave Alvin and the Guilty Women – Live at SxSW

It’s damn easy if you try.

The Minnesota Atheists have put together a list of top 30 atheist songs. An interesting list but I just want to make one point.

That would be this atheist’s utopian vision.
More »