Faith ≠ Doubt

From an Another Voice in The Spectator by Matthew Parris

Some apologists are argueing that doubt strengthens faith. That it is natural to doubt, especially in the face of claims made by religions, but that faith is a step beyond doubt.

Parris doesn't buy it.

Because of increasing skepticism and secularism, many apologists attempt to redifine "faith". They want to apply the word faith to the kind of belief that we have about things which are firly certain. Like faith that the sun will rise in the morning. But that goes against the traditional and biblical sense of the word. "Real faith involves not a calculated risk, but an abandonment of human doubt."

Parris gives some examples of why, outside of religion faith is an estemed quality. Especially in the realms of having faith, as in putting your trust, in other people. "An ability, once committed, to commit absolutely even if the decision to commit was only taken on the balance of probabilities."

But the leap having been taken, all doubt must fly. And here progressive theology confounds the foundations of its own logic. You who have faith may show sympathy and understanding towards me, who doubts. But you should not share my doubt. Not if you have faith.

If you are wondering, as I am, what Parris' beliefs are, is he atheist, is he agnostic or theist,the final paragraph of this article seems to sum it up.

You are living, dear reader, at a watershed in human history. This is the century during which, after 2,000 years of what has been a pretty bloody marriage, faith and reason must agree to part, citing irreconcilable differences. So block your ears to the cooing voices on Thought for the Day, and choose your side.
“But how can you be sure?” Oh boy, am I sure. Oh great quivering mountains of pious mumbo-jumbo, am I sure. Oh fathomless oceans of sanctified babble, am I sure. Words cannot express my confidence in the answer to the question whether God cured a nun because she wrote a Pope’s name down. He didn’t. Mere language does no justice to my certainty about whether God might be waiting for the return to their Biblical lands of the Israelites, before arranging the Second Coming. He isn’t.
Shout it from the rooftops. Write it on walls. Carve it into rock. He didn’t. He isn’t. He won’t.

The blogosphere to be policed - UK

From the Telegraph

Under the proposals, the new internet watchdog would operate in a similar way to other industry bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission, which enforces a code of practice for the UK newspaper and magazine industry, covering accuracy, discrimination and intrusion.
The watchdog would not have any statutory powers to impose fines but would investigate complaints and most likely publish its decisions in instances when its guidelines have been breached.
It is understood that it would also be able to order bloggers and social networking sites such as Bebo and MySpace to take down offensive messages or photographs.

Oh my aching nerves.

It's quite simple. If you find a blog offensive, don't read it, and don't visit it again. What if there were proposals to police offensive books? If someone writes a crap book, it doesn't sell.

A source who has seen the report said that the committee wanted to give the public "a form of redress" "At the moment consumers don't know where to go if they want to complaint about something they have seen on the internet," the source said. "The absence of any industry body is leading to a great deal of confusion and to widely differing practices.

To use the book analogy again, if a book is published and it contains information that is libelous, incorrect or offensive, there are a few options. Revisionist history for example, critics and other historians publish books that debunk the errors. Authors get taken to court for libel or hate crime. And guess what? Similar laws already exist as a "form of redress" because the article goes on to state:

A British businessman was last week awarded £22,000 libel damages from a school friend who made false accusations against him on a fake Facebook profile.
Mathew Firscht launched the High Court action after inaccurate claims about his sexuality and political viewers were posted on the site.

So it seems there are adequate forms redress already.

As the Devil said in his Kitchen:

Blogs are governed by the same libel laws that newspapers are: that is a form of regulation. As for the idea that "internet users will be protected from abusive bloggers" it's a great pile of shit: internet users get protected from abusive bloggers by not reading the fucking blog. You don't like abuse? Fine, fuck off.
And if you find this blog offensive... well... that's free speech for you. You do not have the right not to be offended, OK?

and

Make no mistake, this is about sparing the blushes of our government; not only that, it's about blogs doing the media's job and actually finding out facts and throwing them back in the government's face. It is about stifling dissent.

You Bastards

Physicists have 'solved' mystery of levitation says the headline.
And look at the picture that goes with the story.

I was really excited. And it IS an exciting story. But why do newspapers have to dumb down the thing by showing pictures of 'levitating' objects that have nothing to do with the physics involved.

You can click my pic to enlarge it or follow the link above.


The article is about manipulating the Casimir force on the nano level to possibly create frictionless nano machines.
The picture has no caption, but a mouse over caption reveals 'Beijing saleswoman demonstrates toy which levitates by magnetic force'
I hate shit like that.