OPINION: Skeptics - stop preaching to the converted

Over the past few years, the rise of the skeptics, and the acceptance of rational thought as the norm, has slowly been witnessed on tv, radio, best-selling books, magazine articles and, of course, in theatre shows (mostly, it seems, hosted by Robin Ince and featuring Brian Cox). This is good; it is right and proper that science and fact and knowledge should be given more coverage.

Robin Ince and Brian Cox

There is, though, a little problem.

I think I've witnessed this change not because there has been a widespread media change but only because of the types of television programmes I watch, the brand of newspaper I get my headlines from and the books I read.

I fear that skeptics and rational thought are becoming ghettoised - and largely of their own making.

When Richard Dawkins writes a new book or fronts a new television series, who watches it? I strongly suspect that most of his audience is made up of people who already agree with him. I very much doubt that many creationists tune in to watch RD rip their beliefs to pieces.

And the same can be said of the "Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless people" and the "Uncaged Monkeys" shows - the audience is made up of those for whom rational thought is, well, rational! These events are, to all intents and purposes, rallies of supporters.

Now, there is nothing wrong with a bit of self-congratulation at times, but there comes a point when it becomes, well, pointless.

Stephen Fry has become, in recent years, a "National Treasure" as well as a "professional skeptic", and there are many others, some of whom I've already mentioned. They address meetings of skeptics, they write articles that get published in the more intelligent magazines and periodicals that tend to be read by skeptics, they... well, quite simply, they make a good living from being a skeptic.

I'm not going to protest at writers earning an honest crust from their views - far from it - but I do wish the skeptic movement (if there is such a thing) and the school of rational thought would stop contemplating its own belly button and smugly slapping each other on the back in congratulations.

Yes, we're right.

No, as the London Bus said, there almost certainly isn't a God.

Yes, Creationism and Intelligent Design are both nonsense.

Yes, homeopathy is a con.

The list could go on and on.

It's time to stick our heads above the parapet more. It's time to help others understand why we're right and why they're wrong. It's time to challenge the lies put out by religion and the anti-science lobby, not just in an amusing panel game shows that can be considered a bit naught and a bit tongue-in-cheek, but in a more serious way, and in more prominent fora.

An amusing panel game show

We need skeptics on BBC1 and ITV1, not just tucked away on BBC2 and Channel 4. We need to find ways of making rational thought attractive, interesting and entertaining. We need easy to understand articles in the red tops and in popular magazines. We need to achieve a balance.

For every "my house is haunted" story in a popular magazine there really should be something publilshed pointing out that ghosts don't exist, that they defy the laws of thermodynamics and, to be honest, there is always a better and a more obvious explanation.

For every documentary about extra-terrestrials visiting earth we need a programme that shows that, while this is an interesting and comforting idea that we're not alone in the universe, the chances of aliens from other planets having visited earth is just not worth the time calculating - they haven't visited, it's fun in a science fiction novel but it must be remembered that it's fiction.

There are many other things we, as skeptics, need - some are significant changes to the constitution of our country, others require the media to ensure a proper balance.

For starters, we, as skeptics, should demand that church and state are separated and that the head of state isn't the head of a established church. We need to rid the House of Lords of the unelected bishops. We need religion of all hues removed from state affairs and the official public arena as is the case in both France and the USA. In the 21st century there is no reason or logic for any nation to be anything other than secular.

Schools in England and Wales are still required BY LAW to have a daily act of worship of a largely Christian nature and the teaching and study of R.E. is compulsory up to the age of 16. R.E. in the curriculum does cover religions other than Christianity but the is little time for rational thought. Why do schools have to help the churches recruit?

A school assembly

The school curriculum should, instead, have philosophy or a study of world cultures rather than the horrendous child abuse that is R.E.

And yes, a daily act of worship? That's blatant indoctrination. The times I've taken assembly there have been no prayers involved. I guess there are militant Christians who think I should be locked up for that!

Anyone or any company who make a scientific claim should be forced to publish the science behind that claim in peer reviewed publications. That would, instantly, put homeopathy out of business. Or homeopathic treatments should carry large warnings on them: "YOU MAY AS WELL BE FLUSHING YOUR MONEY DOWN THE TOILET AS TAKING THIS SNAKE OIL"

Then there's smaller things. Balance in the media. Here's an example:

It is time that BBC Radio 4's Thought for the Day had regular atheist, or antitheist, contributions. On the Today Programme, of which Thought for the Day forms part, it would be expected that political coverage is balanced, so that when a government minister appears saying me thing, a member of the opposition can give their view too. Why doesn't his apply to religion, faith and rational thought?

Radio 4's The Today Programme

I cringe every time that breakfast television shows or other daytime television give over airtime to a priest - they get to say their piece but there is never (well, very rarely) a balance. If a priest is allowed on, given soft questions and able to get away with saying anything he wants, the a skeptic should be allowed to challenge every point and show what rubbish the priest is saying.

The problem is that the establishment as is relies on the lies and superstitions of the majority. Without the blind faith of the masses that inexplicably support church, monarchy and quackery, the current kakistocracy would collapse. We need to help that collapse.

I'd strongly support a more militant skepticism.

Why should "faith" be respected? Surely such lunacy deserves pity but nothing else? Those with "faith" should be considered mentally ill or poorly educated. When someone spouts nonsense they need to be challenged - and not in an apologetic way, using simple facts that demonstrate the error.

The judgmental so-called "moral majority", all wrapped in their New Testaments, have happily protested outside Jesus Christ Superstar and, more recently, Jerry Springer - the Opera - why don't skeptics protest outside some churches? Protests could highlight the church's hypocrisy with its huge investments in stocks and shares, or the massive wealth the church accrues but still has exemption from paying taxes.

Jerry Springer - the Opera

I find it sad how many people will be attending church over the next couple of weeks and genuinely think that there is any evidence of any part of the nativity story. There is barely an iota of truth in it (there may well have been shepherds in the fields near Bethlehem, but that's it). And those who justify Jesus as "well, I'm sure he existed but was probably a spiritual leader" - no the is no contemporaneous evidence of any Jesus within two generations of his supposed existence. Jesus simply didn't exist, and those writing about him were, attest, grandchildren of eyewitnesses but, in reality, were religious activists out to prove a point and gain notoriety - and, of course, like the current religious leaders, power.

I would like to hope that, in 2012, we witness the rise of rational thought and skepticism beyond the back slapping of those who already accept science and fact and into the mainstream.

I fear that the frauds that control society will get in the way, but it is a battle that is worth fighting and it is a war to which all skeptics should subscribe.

Stop the back slapping and self congratulations. Stop being nice to the frauds and con men of anti-science and religion. Start fighting for what is right on a bigger scale.

OPINION: Councils and prayers

This week, the National Secular Society has taken a case to the High Court calling on Bidedord Council to end its practise of having prayers before council meetings.

I just had to check my calendar - it is the 21st century and not 1511. What on earth is any state, government or council institution doing having prayers before meetings?

It's bad enough that their are elected officials who believe in such superstitious nonsense and believe that praying to a fictional super being will help them, it's another matter entirely that the concil endorses such behaviour by making time for it.

Sure, Bideford Council doesn't "take a register" until after the prayers are over, attendance at them is not compulsory, but what a waste of time and what an awful and bigoted message it sends out to their constituents.

The can be no justification for maintaining this tradition - and saying its a tradition is. I defence, traditions and customs change over the centuries.

In France and the USA, to name but two nations, the state and education has, by law, to be secular. "Faith" and all religious mumbo-jumbo isn't allowed. Schools aren't allowed to indoctrinate children with the daily acts of worship that we, in the UK, have by law; state occasions don't have priests, vicars, rabbis, etc. at them; and council meetings don't have prayers before them.

France and the USA, both very religious countries, realise that "faith" is a private matter and has no place in state or educational matters.

It is time we left the Dark Ages and moved to having a secular society - and when that's achieved we can look more closely a why so man still believe the lies of the churches and see if improved eduction might cure them of their "faith" illness.

OPINION: The Occupy movement - are they going for the right targets?

A few weeks ago, when the Occupy Wall Street protests began in New York, I felt a sympathy for their cause - the anger at corporate greed, the world financial crisis and, the increasingly pantomime villains, the bankers.

This weekend the movement has moved its protests beyond lower Manhattan and had "occupations" in many of the world's major cities - certainly in most of the world's financial centres. On the whole, these protests were peaceful and well organised (Rome being the main exception). In the City of London the protestors "occupied" the London Stock Exchange. well, no, they didn't they stood outside the London Stock Exchange to shout slogans and wave banners on a day that the Exchange is closed. Indeed, as is the case most Saturdays, very little of the Square Mile that makes up the City of London was open for business. The chances of a single banker hearing the chants or reading the banners was minimal unless they happened to watch the television news on Saturday evening.

So, having rather shot themselves in the foot with a silly and pointless attention-seeking protest, #OccupyLSX decided they need to camp out for the big, to continue their protest today. It wasn't long before the organisers announced on their Twitter account that they were now "occupying St. Paul's". There are many who, I'm sure, will consider this odd. maybe they were just seeking a safe haven, protection from the authorities, the sort of thing that the Christian church has done in the past for those who need a place of safety.

It made me wonder, though. Why protest at a closed Stock Exchange but only seek a pitch for your tent in a cathedral yard?

Then I realised, the protestors were actually attacking the wrong target.

The churches, of all denominations, are huge corporations. They have billions of pounds/dollars in real estate throughout the world. They have incredible investments in stocks and shares. In many pension funds some of the biggest investors are various churches.

Aren't the churches, in fact, the fat cats that we should be protesting about?

And, worse still, because they do some charitable work (and it is only some) they pay very little on nothing in taxation on huge swathes of their income. massive tax avoidance on a scale that would put most bankers to shame.

Take a look at the Salvation Army, just down towards the Millennium Bridge from St. Paul's overlooking the Thames towards the Tate Modern. I'm sure many see them as friendly, nice folks who wear slightly odd Toytown soldier outfits, play Christmas carols outside Tesco and rattle their tambourines. They are, though they cover it well, dangerous fundamentalists, loony creationists who believe the Bible word for word (and ignore the various nonsenses and contradictions that it contains). Their International HQ, built in recent years, wouldn't look out of place as the head office of a firm of accountants or an investment bank. It's on a piece of prime real estate and, in the open market, would have cost millions to build. It is plush and very comfortable. Some might say it was luxurious. I'm sure the hundreds of homeless they help each week are glad that so much was spent to make their pen pushers and senior churchmen work in such luxury. The Army get donations of billions of pounds/dollars each year - a small percentage is spent for anything most people would consider a good cause - most is spent on promotion, publications and indoctrination - but they pay little in tax despite being such a huge global corporation.

The Church of England and the Roman Catholic church also avoid tax on a major scale despite uh of the money donated for good causes gong into investments of stocks and shares.

Yes, those who camped outside St. Paul's cathedral last night needed somewhere to camp. Yes, they sought safe haven so the authorities couldn't round them up, arrest or move on - though there was no evidence that was happening. But, while they're there why not properly Occupy St. Paul's.

* We need an openness, currently not happening, about the funding of religious organisations.

* We need an openness about the tax paid by religious organisations.

* We need an openness about how donations to religious organisations is used and how much is in stocks and shares and bonds.

To my mind, the churches are corrupt international corporations that have been allowed to have a position above the law.

This must stop.

OCCUPY ST. PAUL'S!

Churchyard Photos

Here's some photos I took of the churchyard at St. Mary the Virgin Church, South Darley, Derbyshire.