New logo for The Church of England.

Thanks to the inimitable Chris Tilling.

Keep tappin'

24 seconds in pristine quality.

Ham'n knife

One video document of Spinal Tap at Wembley yesterday, playing Heavy Duty.

Please note their guest keyboard player on Hammond and Knife, especially from about 4 minutes.

Unfortunately a bit blurred picture. And the keyboard player is hidden behind an official camera man.

Other that that, a great sight.

The general idea was to have Keith getting stuck beneath the Hammond and then to be carried out on a stretcher. Though it seems he didn't stick to getting stuck after all.

Rather nutty still, as one reviewer commented.

BTW, here is Spinal Tap discussing the tune as such:



Take care. Whether there is a Hammond close by or not.

Samurai Rondo

This one I really enjoyed, especially from about 2:50. Wild and virtuosic.



Hopefully Keith enjoyed it too.

We'll be back with more about him on Wednesday.

The Bible as science

One often hears that if only the Bible had contained scientific truth, then I would believe.

Russell Blackford is one of those guys.

if a god or angel or similar being has inspired the religion's poets and prophets, or dictated actual text for inclusion in its holy books, the god or angel (or whatever) could easily reveal such facts as the true age of the Earth, the fact that it revolves around the Sun, the fact that it is spherical and rotates on its axis, and the evolutionary origin of human beings.

What then would really happen?

The questioned awakened Unklees' imagination at The Quodlibeta Forum.

Moses: Hey Aaron, how do you spell "quark" in Hebrew?
Aaron: No idea. What do you want to know that for?
Moses: It's Yahweh again. Keeps telling all this strange stuff about strangeness and charm and spin, and quarks and gravitons and dark matter. I don't mind not understanding, but I need to know how to write this stuff down.
Aaron: Tell him we're just stone-age goat-herders living a subsistence existence, and you're the only one who can read and write. Ask Him for something simpler, like why does the sun rise every morning?

Moses goes away up Mt Sinai, and returns 3 days later.

Moses: He says the sun doesn't rise in the morning, its the earth moving.
Aaron: I've felt the earth move once or twice (snigger), but not usually in the morning!
Moses: Nothing like that bro', we live on a giant ball, and it goes round and round on its axis, and that makes the sun look like it's moving.
Aaron: What's a ball?
Moses: Dunno, bro', I asked him that and he started to talk about radii and something called a pie, and the number 3.1412, but then he said "forget it!" and muttered under his breath about next time I'll just say 3.
Aaron: Did he tell you anything else?
Moses: Two more things. One was that when he said we came from the dust of the ground he meant we had gradually evolved for billions of years.
Aaron: What's billions?
Moses: Dunno mate, but I think it's a number greater than two.
Aaron: What does evolved mean?
Moses: He says it actually took him more than 6 days to make all this. I told him I didn't really care how long he took, I wasn't in any hurry.
Aaron: What was the other thing you learnt?
Moses: He said that one day people would find it easier to believe all this came about by chance than believe in him. I said, no, I was willing to believe all the other crazy stuff about quarks and pie if He said so, but I couldn't come at that!
Aaron: What did he say then?
Moses: He said, let's start again. Just write this down: "In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth" And I said, that's more like it, now you're talking my language! He just smiled and said, thanks.

I guess that's why the Bible doesn't even tell us that the universe had a beginning.

Science and religion: a history of conflict?

James Hannam is my man, this time in The Guardian.

As the battle between creationism and evolution heats up, some atheists, like Jerry Coyne, have been insisting that it is really a battle between religion and science. Coyne resists any accommodation between religious and non-religious scientists to defend Darwinism. He doesn't want to see them joining forces against the creationist common enemy in case that legitimises religion. In order for his position to make sense, he needs to show that there is some sort of existential conflict between religion and science. So it is unfortunate for him that the historical record clearly shows that accommodation and even cooperation have been the default positions in the relationship.

I anyone was in doubt about how strong this myth is, the comment section is mandatory.

12 most bombastic synth solos of all time

Or at least 12 synth solos from different players.

On the side of the angels

Massimo Introvigne of the Center for Studies on New Religions has been interviewed on Angels and Demons.

As a rather conservative catholic it is no surprise he is somewhat critical. Not to mention scathing.

And it all goes to show the truth in the Second Law of Davidsen: If Dan Brown has said something it is probably wrong.

The interview has a lot of good stuff on Illuminati and secret societies. Introvigne knows his facts when it comes to "La Purga" as well.

And about the alleged castration of Rome's pagan statues. As so often with Dan Brown, the story is rather the other way around.

Did the “great castration” of the “pagan” statues by the Blessed Pius IX (1792-1878) really happen?

Introvigne: No, it didn’t. The legend dates back to English-language anti-clerical pamphlets of the late 19th century. What is true is that certain statues had their prominent genitalia covered by fig leaves. This happened at various stages during the 17th, 18th, and 19th century (not only in Rome) and was certainly not a new idea of Pius IX. The claim in the movie that pagan statues in the center of Rome were destroyed by Pius IX “at the end of the 19th century” is preposterous. At “the end of the 19th century” Pius IX was dead, and the center of Rome was administered by the (quite anti-clerical) Kingdom of Italy. If anything, Pius IX had a keen interest in archeology and in restoring the ancient historical and artistic monuments of Rome. He was even criticized for this by Catholics who believed that supporting Roman archeology was not part of the Church’s mission, or a waste of its resources.

He even tackles the one dollar question.

But wasn’t the back part of the Great Seal of the United States, the one we still see on the dollar bill, a symbol of the Illuminati?

Introvigne: No, no matter how many books (and movies) claim it. The pyramid and eye symbol is never found among the Illuminati. Actually it is not even a Masonic symbol, although there are similar symbols in Freemasonry, where a fascination with Egypt was widespread in the 18th and 19th century. The particular pyramid used in the Great Seal was derived from Pyramidographia, a book published in 1646 in London by John Greaves (1602-1652), based on his trip to Egypt. The eye was introduced by Congress Secretary Charles Thomson (1729-1824) – who was not a Freemason – in his 1792 speech prior to the seal’s Congressional acceptance as a very Christian “eye of the Providence” presiding over the destiny of the United States. As such, it is featured in a number of Christian churches and symbols, quite apart from, and well before, its use within the frame of Masonic rituals.

One interview you will not regret reading.

Science and faith - The Movie

Is is possible to improve this?

Not at all. Not for a nanosecond. Or a millenium.

Long live Bertrand Russell! And James of Hannam.

Death to The Church!

Hollywood hypes Hypatia

The neoplatonic philosopher Hypatia is a fascinating figure from late antiquity.

Not the least as she has been used so often and intensely to symbolise and propagate the myth about the Church's "Warfare with Science", another of those Icons of Modernity painted in the 18th and 19th Century.

Fortunately a new film may provide ample opportuinity to set the story more straight. At least it is a good sign that it so quickly has been denounced for the nonsense it is.

As an atheist, I'm clearly no fan of fundamentalism - even the 1500 year old variety (though modern manifestations tend to be the ones to watch out for). And as an amateur historian of science I'm more than happy with the idea of a film that gets across the idea that, yes, there was a tradition of scientific thinking before Newton and Galileo. But Amenabar has taken the (actually, fascinating) story of what was going on in Alexandria in Hypatia's time and turned it into a cartoon, distorting history in the process.

However, as Christianity is the in-thing to slam these days (and has been for a century or two), all is allowed in the name of love and science.

From the press release timed to co-incide with the film's screening at Cannes this week:

Played by Oscar-winning British actress Weisz, Hypatia is persecuted in the film for her science that challenges the Christians' faith, as much as for her status as an influential woman.

From bloody clashes to public stonings and massacres, the city descends into inter-religious strife, and the victorious Christians turn their back on the rich scientific legacy of antiquity, defended by Hypatia.

So we are being served up the idea that Hypatia was persecuted and, I'll assume, killed because "her science ... challenges the Christians' faith". And why have a movie with one historical myth in it when you can have two:

"Agora" opens with the destruction of the second library of Alexandria by the Christians and Jews -- after the first, famous library which was destroyed by Julius Caesar.

At least he's done his homework enough to realise that the decline of the Great Library was a long, slow deterioration and not a single catastrophic event. But he still clings to Gibbon's myth that a Christian mob was somehow responsible. And rather niftily invents a "second library of Alexandria" so he can do so.

With an imagination like that, who need sources?

Make sure you read more of the excellent review here. And heed the moral:

Unfortunately for those who cling to the "conflict thesis", the history of science actually has very few genuine martyrs at the hands of religious bigots. The fact that a mystic and kook like Giordano Bruno gets dressed up as a free-thinking scientist shows how thin on the ground such martyrs are, though usually those who like to invoke these martyrs can fall back on citing "scientists burned by the Medieval Inquistion", despite the fact this never actually happened. Most people know nothing about the Middle Ages, so this kind of vague hand-waving is usually pretty safe.

Unlike Giordano Bruno, Hypatia was a genuine scientist and, as a woman, was certainly remarkable for her time. But she was no martyr for science and science had zero to do with her murder. Exactly how much of the genuine, purely political background to her death Amenabar puts in his movie remains to be seen. It's hoped that, unlike Sagan and many others, the whole political background to the murder won't simply be ignored and her killing won't be painted as an act of ignorant rage against her science and scholarship. But what is clear from his interviews and the film's pre-publicity is that he has chosen to frame the story in Gibbonian terms straight from the "conflict thesis" textbook - the destruction of the "Great Library", Hypatia victimised for her learning and her death as a grim harbinger of the beginning of the "Dark Ages".

And, as usual, bigots and anti-theistic zealots will ignore the evidence, the sources and rational analysis and believe Hollywood's appeal to their prejudices. It makes you wonder who the real enemies of reason actually are.

If nothing else it also proves how dangerous it can get when blind faith gets in the way of facts. Which rarely is seen clearer than in the blind faith in the Warfare between Religion and Science.

Gospels studies - The Next big thing in New Testament studies

At least according to the two archangels, Micael Barber at Singinginthereign and Michael Bird.

Micael Barber reports, of course neutral as always, on the situation.

By form-criticism let me explain what I mean. The form-critical model to which I am referring to holds that the following should be taken as irrefutable historical fact and as foundational for research:

1. Before the sayings of Jesus were incorporated into the Gospels they circulated for a long time through oral tradition which was essentially transmitted anonymously, without authoritative tradents.

2. These sayings were passed along independently of each other.

3. The Jesus tradition was passed along only in small units.

4. Over time elements which were not traceable to the historical Jesus crept into the tradition. For example, the utterances of Christian prophets who spoke “in the name of the Risen Jesus” who accepted as coming truly from the Lord. In fact, the early church was not careful to distinguish what went back to the historical Jesus and so the Jesus tradition was expanded to include large portions of non-historical elements.

5. Many of these non-historical sayings were introduced to help address the needs of the church. For example, sayings were accepted into the tradition which helped answered critical questions facing the church. In essence, when the church wondered, “What would Jesus have said about x?”, a saying was kindly obliged by someone such as a Christian prophet who could speak for the Lord.

6. The elements of the Jesus tradition―which of course now included features that were not authentic―came to be crystallized in various forms: e.g., parables, pronouncement stories, individual sayings, miracle stories, etc.

7. By carefully analyzing the Gospels one can “get behind the text” and happily answer all of the following questions:

―What were the original forms in which the sayings of Jesus were circulated?

―How were these sayings used in the early church at this oral stage?

―Which elements came from Jesus and which came from the early Church?

Keep in mind, for form-criticism to really be carried out the above presuppositions cannot simply be loosely held. This is either what happened or not. To question the basic assertions of the form-critical model is to be unable to use it.

Now, it took about a hundred years but most scholars are now recognizing how ridiculous the schema is.

Not a second too early.

On and off

This English blog is unfortunately rather on and off, compared to my native musings.

The reason is not that I write too little, it is more that I do it too much. After a heavy round of articles and book chapters, the energy and time to type fast and furiously in a foreign language (and checking for typos) is not all that present.

Still, there is hope for some updates the next days. And not only if Dawkins keep it coming.