Prince Charles and Hot Air

The Prince of Wales has delivered an interesting speech at Oxford university, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies, of which he is patron. I don't say that the speech is interesting because of the prose and the quality of what was said. It is pretty typical Charlie fayre. Boring, long winded, repetitive and veering on random tangents, almost haphazardly. And very ... VERY long!! (TRANSCRIPT HERE). Although Charles appears to be an advocate of a certain school of postmodernist thought, that decrees "Western Empiricism" (the dreaded hegemony.) is just one (very horrid) paradigm, and an "innate" Eastern Spirituality is another equally valid way at looking at the world. Thus the world is divided into immutable and exclusive blocs of thought, which I just think is slightly patronising, but that's just me. It is ironic therefore, that as this picture below points out, perhaps the one universal constant, that can surpass any intelectual boundry of thought is that Charles is a bit boring.

The speech focuses on [what he sees as] the need to apply the wisdom of "Traditional Spirituality" to combat climate change. The talk isn't a call to arms to follow Islamic practices to combat climate change as some have claimed. But is a discussion on the need to heed "traditions" which emphasised the unity of man and nature , to allow us to live in harmony with our environment - not just relying on the "materialistic rationality" of the contemporary scientific method, which elevated man beyond nature (most biology textbooks would disagree!!) and caused the problem in the first place, by borrowing from ying; to pay yang .... or something.

Now I don't have a problem with such a well known figure highlighting climate change, and indeed the perverse way the third world bears the brunt of it. Good on him for not being put off by the vocal deniers as well. However like many speeches he gives on scientific things like climate change; medicine, and technology -he has to pepper the few sensible points he makes with a lot of rather strange concepts about "soul" and "wisdom of nature." He seems to have this idea that nature has some "essence" or "spirit" that Western thought has forgotton (or hubristicly chooses to ignore.) but our ancestors, and the mystic cultures of the "East" still recognise and nurture. What he fails to grasp is that when he berates science and its "empiricism" for ignoring the "soul", is that science is (by definition) under no obligation to do so. He's making that same mistake about science. That it is just another ideology and belief, and is there to provide an all encompassing world view. It isn't! Science is just a (very effective) means of studying the world. There is no onus in factoring in unfalsifiable things like the soul, that is just a matter of opinion, and that is what Charles should be told before he sounds off.

Here's a few excerpts of what he said;

" Over the years, I have pointed out again and again that our environmental problems cannot be solved simply by applying yet more and more of our brilliant green technology – important though it is. It is no good just fixing the pump and not the well. When I say this, everybody nods sagely, but I get the impression that many are often unwilling to embrace what I am really referring to, perhaps because the missing element sits outside the parameters of the prevailing secular view. It is this “missing element” that I would like to examine today. In short, when we hear talk of an “environmental crisis” or even of a “financial crisis,” I would suggest that this is actually describing the outward consequences of a deep, inner crisis of the soul. It is a crisis in our relationship with – and our perception of – Nature, and it is born of Western culture being dominated for at least two hundred years by a mechanistic and reductionist approach to our scientific understanding of the world around us. So I would like you to consider very seriously today whether a big part of the solution to all of our worldwide “crises” does not lie simply in more and better technology, but in the recovery of the soul to the mainstream of our thinking. Our science and technology cannot do this. Only sacred traditions have the capacity to help this happen."

He tacitly admits it is just an opinion of his here. The speech is loaded with gratuitous self pity that no-one takes his received wisdom at anything more than face value (I'd say he was being generous to himself. I doubt many listen to practically anything he has to say on this matter.) He doesn't seem to understand that no one is obliged to take an unsubstantiated opinion at more than face value, and usually people don't. It's pretty much a rant about how everything would be great if it wasn't for horrid old technology.

"In general, we live within a culture that does not believe very much in the soul anymore – or if it does, won’t admit to it publicly for fear of being thought old fashioned, out of step with “modern imperatives” or “anti-scientific.” The empirical view of the world, which measures it and tests it, has become the only view to believe. A purely mechanistic approach to problems has somehow assumed a position of great authority and this has encouraged the widespread secularisation of society that we see today. This is despite the fact that those men of science who founded institutions like the Royal Society were also men of deep faith. It is also despite the fact that a great many of our scientists today profess a faith in God. I am aware of one recent survey that suggests over seventy per cent of scientists do so. I must say, I find this rather baffling. If this is so, why is it that their sense of the sacred has so little bearing on the way science is employed to exploit the natural world in so many damaging ways? I suppose it must be to do with who pays the fiddler. Over the last two centuries, science has become ever more firmly yoked to the ambitions of commerce. Because there are such big economic benefits from such a union, society has been persuaded that there is nothing wrong here. And so, a great deal of empirical research is now driven by the imperative that its findings must be employed to maximum, financial effect, whatever the impact this may have on the Earth’s long-term capacity to endure. This imbalance, where mechanistic thinking is so predominant, goes back at least to Galileo's assertion that there is nothing in Nature but quantity and motion. This is the view that continues to frame the general perception of the way the world works and how we fit within the scheme of things. As a result, Nature has been completely objectified – “She” has become an “it” – and we are persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo’s scheme."

The empirical based view of the world he complains about is the only view science can take. BECAUSE IT IS A METHODOLOGY NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM!! Ditto for religious scientists (70% sounds WAY too high, but he doesn't quote the source.). They don't apply the two together, because they are two different things! As for a decline in the belief in souls, and an increase in secularisation with tech / science. That tends to happen. People rely less on supernatural explanations, as things can be explained objectively. Most of the time anyway.

"I hope you can just begin to see my point. The utter dominance of the mechanistic approach of science over everything else, including religion, has “de-souled” the dominant world view, and that includes our perception of Nature. As soul is elbowed out of the picture, our deeper link with the natural world is severed. Our sense of the spiritual relationship between humanity, the Earth and her great diversity of life has become dim. The entire emphasis is all on the mechanical process of increasing growth in the economy, of making every process more “efficient” and achieving as much convenience as possible. None of which could be said to be an ambition of God. And so, unfashionable though it is to suggest it, I am keen to stress here the need to heal this divide within ourselves. How else can we heal the divide between East and West unless we reconcile the East and West within ourselves? Everything in Nature is a paradox and seems to carry within itself the paradox of opposites. Curiously, this maintains the essential balance. Only human beings seem to introduce imbalance. The task is surely to reconnect ourselves with the wisdom found in Nature which is stressed by each of the sacred traditions in their own way."

The only view of "our deeper place in the world" that gets unfashionable is Charles opinion of humans place in it. Look in one of the many good books on popular biology / nature, for a good (and well researched too) narrative on humans role in nature. It's a zillion times more interesting than the iffy new age cobblers, based on nothing but his royal opinions, on offer here.


"Such instruction is hard to square if all you do is found your understanding of the world on empirical terms alone. Four hundred years of relying on trying and testing the facts scientifically has established the view that spirituality and religious faith are outdated expressions of superstitious belief. After all, empiricism has proved how the world fits together and it is nothing to do with a “Supreme Being.” There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God so, therefore, Q.E.D, God does not exist. It is a very reasonable, rational argument, and I presume it can be applied to “thought” too. After all, no brain scanner has ever managed to photograph a thought, nor a piece of love, and it never will. So, Q.E.D., that must mean “thought” and “love” do not exist either!"

Oh Charlie! What shall we do with you! Any study of animal / human behaviour will show evidence for love (or more accurately some kind of altruism / getting ones rocks off combination that we would class as "love" ) Ditto anything written, spoken and published, kind of hints that something we call "thought" exists. Both may be subjective terms, but science can show that the brain / hormones produce an empirically observed sensation, which can then contribute to sensations that can be called these things by the philosophers and poets. etc.. The evidence for God is bit more thin on the ground though.

"The Modernist ideology that has dominated the Western outlook for a century implies that “tradition” is backward looking. What I have tried to explain today is that this is far from true. Tradition is the accumulation of the knowledge and wisdom that we should be offering to the next generation. It is, therefore, visionary – it looks forward.

Tradition is a broad school. A bunch of customs and idioms passed down through the generations. It can be visionary, profound, or complete bollocks. Starting something that becomes a tradition may be an attempt to look forward. But respecting traditions is - by the nature of tradition, "backward looking". Where the hell else are we supposed to get them from?

The entire speech (and there is a ton more of it) is pretty much in the same vein. Berating science for becoming to big for it's boots, and for technology and secularism making us lesser people, whilst materially better off. He also accuses scientists of putting profit before principle, which isn't very nice. Now perhaps our more materialistic world has made us greedier and less in tune with nature (though we seem these days to increasingly value environmental issues and technological innovations to curtail the damage man has inflicted on the planet. I also don't recall that our "spiritual" ancestors had a green party either.). If the cause of some of the damage is by the products of science and technology (and can also be objectively analysed. You can't do that with a spirit, which negates his point about science pursuing that line of action. Hey I didn't write the speech!!), then can we not use the same instruments to assess and negate the damage? Shouldn't Charles have a bit more grace, and explain that it is only his opinion that our "spirits" being out of kilter is the root cause?

For all Charles' self deprecating grumbles about how he is the shunned rebel spouting the unfashionable and unorthodox. I doubt he would have the self awareness to admit that this is all just his opinion on how to tackle these issues, and that he doesn't expect anyone to give him any more intellectual credence with that in mind. I think he would be saddened to learn that a) In a scientific context, his arguments are bunkum, and show he doesn't understand what the scientific method is.. Which is a bit a bummer if you have a lecture that goes on for 30 years about the abuse of the scientific method. b) he just isn't a good speaker, or polemic. I truly am being generous to him with my criticisms. It really is shooting fish in a barrel. Every line in that speech is utter dross. It is hard to argue with Johann Hari, when he says that the only reason any of his stuff gets airtime at all is due to his royal status. Even with all the trappings his role entails him too, that we don't have, he still has trouble with what he says getting airtime! It is testament to the appalling quality of his writing, that someone as high profile as the heir to the throne can write this, without seeing the forest for the trees. I really would stick to opening supermarkets!

"I am slightly alarmed that it is now seventeen years since I came here to the Sheldonian to deliver a lecture for the Centre that tried to do just this. I called it “Islam and the West” and, from what I can tell, it clearly struck a chord, and not just here in the U.K. I am still reminded of what I said, particularly when I travel in the Islamic world – in fact, because it was printed, believe it or not, it is the only speech I have ever made which continues to produce a small return!"

How "People Just Making Stuff Up" Conquered the World (Well Sort Of.) Part 2

The Littlejohn retraction in the previous article ties in nicely with that other story I covered in a previous post about a women and her kid who were apparently kicked off a bus by one of those horrid forriners, who couldn't stand the sight of the little mites England T shirt, because they hate this country (or something.). Well in true Adam and Jamie style on "Mythbusters" the bus company in question looked thoroughly into the complaint (who can blame them. This had the potential to be a PR disaster) and thoroughly discredited it. The sweaty waft of bullshit that accompanied the surfacing of this tale turned out -surprise surprise to be genuine after all. This is a classic case of a totally made up racial urban myth, as seen from it's false origins, to it's conclusion As we see:

A MOTHER who claimed her two-year-old was ordered off a bus for wearing an England shirt has been branded a liar.

Sam Fardon, of Trent Vale, had claimed an Eastern European driver for First Bus had described her son Dylan Hall's shirt as "offensive" when they tried to board the 34A service from Newcastle Bus Station to Chesterton.
The 27-year-old said it was only when other passengers intervened that she was allowed on the vehicle.

But a First investigation has found nothing to back up her claims.


First Bus commercial director Paul De Santis said: "We have interviewed every single driver in the vicinity at the time and have not been able to find anyone who knows anything about the incident or who matches the description given to us.


"The complainant also stated she went to the office in Newcastle later that day and reported the incident.


"We can't find anyone who knows of any report and we did not have a lady on duty that day like the complainant said."


Miss Fardon was also asked by the bus company to provide details of witnesses.


But the firm says it has been unable to contact two of them, while the third gave information which conflicted with what Miss Fardon said.


Mr De Santis added: "I have come to the conclusion that, particularly from the point there was no Eastern European driving the services on the day in question, that the incident did not happen. Nothing we have subsequently done in terms of contacting drivers and speaking to witnesses has changed that."


Miss Fardon has now withdrawn her complaint. She said today: "I have continued to use the buses."


But it has emerged that several drivers have had problems with customers following publicity surrounding the complaint.

Mr De Santis added: "There have been one or two unsavoury incidents with our members of staff over the incident. We are very concerned that this has caused that and our drivers are not happy their reputation has been damaged. We now want to draw a line under this and get on with doing our job."


It has also emerged that Miss Fardon was prosecuted in 2004 for stealing from a couple who let her live with them in Swindon.


She was ordered to perform 200 hours of community service after appearing in court charged with five counts of obtaining property by deception, after admitting forging a signature on cheques.


Miss Fardon was also given further community service for charges of obstructing the police and theft."

Whether or not First Bus decide to take action against Farden is for them to know. It is just depressing to think that drivers have been victimised for a fictional event dreamt up by a compulsive liar. No witnesses or drivers to substantiate the story. A highly damaging story that should have been easily dismissed as nonsense, was printed as truth, due to over reliance on unsubstantiated wire stories, and it hitting the right emotional buttons in certain sections.

How uplifting.

How "People Just Making Stuff Up" Conquered the World (Well Sort Of.) Part 1

It's always nice to see that Britain's most highly paid columnist is really doing all the top notch research that justifies every penny of his 6 figure salary. So its not nice to see that this aforementioned columnist (AKA Richard Littlejohn) is doing no research at all. That's why he had to issue a retraction after a headteacher contacted him to say his "elf n safety" story about her banning football, was out of line, due to the fact that she hadn't actually banned it. A small error then;

"SHOULD I STAND IN THE CORNER, MISS?

On Friday, I reported that parents of children at a primary school in Essex were angry that playground football had been banned during the World Cup.

I've since heard from Marion Smith, the head of Thomas Willingale Primary, in Debden, who tells me she has only ever suspended playground football for a week to punish bad behaviour.

She has asked parents to give children lightweight balls to prevent injury, but was devastated by claims that she had banned it completely.

Ofsted has commended the school for its outstanding commitment to all sports, including football.

My comments were based on emails from parents and a report in the local newspaper, but the responsibility is all mine. I owe Mrs Smith and her staff an unqualified apology."

You Reckon??!!

Now I'm not a multimillionaire columnist, but even I know that the simplest and best way to verify the veracity of this story, is to ask the person who issued the ban that wasn't. Rather than rely on a few iffy e-mails. Wouldn't want a head to have to placate a load of parents who take news paper reports at face value do we?

It has been speculated that Littlejohn is not that popular at Mail HQ. That may explain why the comments he gets on the site tend to be more hostile than normal. (Or it could be due to the fact that he writes crap as well) So we end up with some good ones like these getting through the stringent moderators. (that were in the red though. Christ he admitted to screwing up, and still comments lambasting him for sloppy writing get marked down. Jeez!!!!)

"My comments were based on emails from parents and a report in the local newspaper, but the responsibility is all mine. i owe Mrs smith and her staff an unqualified apology".

Having bored us all with pompous calls for politicos to step down for playing fast and loose with the truth over the years I reckon Littlejohn should do the decent thing and resign!"

"See, that's what happens when you don't bother to do basic research before slinging round your kneejerk criticisms: innocent people like Marion Smith who have done nothing wrong get hurt. I hope that this might lead you to doing a bit of work in future checking your facts."

The Fox Attacks and Nature of Nature

The story of the mauling of nine month old twins Lola and Isabella Kouparis; by a fox in the bedroom of their London home, has become big news. Primarily because fox attacks on humans are rare, and secondly any attack on such small children is terrible, and invokes a "there but for the grace of god; go I" feeling in many parents. It's a story people can easily get emotionally involved. Of course the media are describing the attack in highly lurid prose. We have lots of emotive verbs like "savaging" and "mauls". How else were they going to handle it? No; - I was interested by the tone of the debate on the attacks on listening to today's Jeremy Vine show on R2. (a habit I picked up doing a repetitive clerical job.) The fox (I shall be pedantic and explain that "fox" means the red fox; Vulpes vulpes we see in UK), seemingly more than any other creature in Britain seems to elicit a very emotive response from its detractors. Fox haters seem to have a deep personal grudge against them, it is quite bizarre. Listen to a fox hunter, or someone who has lost livestock to them. They will describe them as evil, or vicious killers. Other "problem" species such as rats or mice never seem to elicit such hatred. Yeah they aren't liked, but it is accepted that they are just that way, because they are that way. Too bad for them when they have to be controlled. But the fox seems to be seen as an almost demonic, aberration of an animal. It is claimed they will kill livestock for the hell of it -regardless of their dietary needs. Gruesome tales of a whole coop of headless chickens being found, and the cute cuddly pet rabbit taken from its pen. They are the red furred Hannibal Lector of nature.

I don't know how much of this stuff is true. I know naff all about farming, and rearing livestock. Fending for myself is bad enough, let alone sheep, hens and a manky looking cow. The fox is a wild animal and a predator. It will instinctively attack small livestock, and have that blood lust. It unfortunately seems that a hazardous side effect of foxes being attracted to suburbia's waste bins full of treats, and well intentioned but IMO; slightly naive people who actually feed them (they are wild animals. Emphasis on wild.), that the more adventurous animals are losing thier innate fear of humans, and tragically in this case, went for the most vulnerable - the young.

Unlike a lot of the commentators on Vines show, I don't think that foxes are intrinsically "evil". Evil is a human concept. You can't apply human standards to wild animals. It's facile. Nor does this anthropomorphacised view of nature that seems so prevalent in this country, help in how we deal with the man made world / natural world balance. These ARE wild, carnivorous creatures. They can be dangerous. I don't support fox hunting. But I do see the need to try and keep them out the cities and towns. They aren't bushy tailed semi pets. (Perhaps on some level the dislike of them is due to their similarity to dogs. How can something so superficially like or cute; waggy tailed friends act so viciously?)

Michael Hanlon. How do you do it?

Michael Hanlon must have the most thankless job in Fleet Street. The mails science editor. I suppose that must sometimes feel like being the president of Al Quiedas LGBT society. Paul Dacre and science aren't exactly bedfellows. Scientists are only too often portrayed as sinister authoritarians who want to poison our kids (MMR scare), want to perform freak experiments on animals, or grotesque ambitions to change the face of humanity as we know it (any scare story on genetic engineering; cloning, or embryology.) A dangerous cabal of zealots who want to play god, you know the spiel. That great scene from the comedy, "The IT crowd" where they fool the women about "the elders of the Internet." is an apt parody of some sections of societies view of science (and computers) as a closeted Freemason like sect, unknowable and following its own secretive agenda. But I also noticed something else when I read Michael Hanlons new blog (it's very good as well.), as well as other articles he has done in the past. He is a very good popular science writer (and we need more of those), and he actually knows about science, rather than being a journalist who has to explain as best they can, science stories via secondary information. He should be perhaps better known; publication wise - to the public than he is. However it is striking reading his work - and now his blog as well; how much he can "get away with" in his articles. Stuff other columnists wouldn't.

The tales of Dacre's controlling nature in his editorial role are pretty infamous. He is obsessed with every sentence in the paper toeing his party line. Even something as innocuous as the film reviewer, Chris Tookey seems to be possibly being memoed to write shrill fire and brimstone "video nasty" reviews of films like "Kick Ass.", which aren't actually reviews at all, but "ban this filth" polemics. Suspicious Dacre soundbites appear in seemingly unrelated articles. He runs a tight ship, like some ultra controlling patriarch, dictating every aspect of his families lives to an obsessive degree. Hanlon however doesn't seem to be under as much scrutiny. He has produced sensible and well argued articles on climate change, easily shrugging off the deniers "claims". He has dismissed scare stories his own paper has pushed. He has only published about 5 blog articles so far. But is striking how much of it runs counter to the papers official "stance". His article about the vast clean up of the seas around Britain, highlight (supportively) the EU's role in bringing about legislation that allowed that to happen. Whilst simultaneously he damns the privatised utilities for putting profit ahead of public well being (isn't that what Dacre would call socialism?) He supports tax payers money funded manned space missions, and thinks it serves a more profound, emotional purpose to humanity, than just for military or commercial profit. He wonders why many scientists are left liberal, and astonishingly for a Mail writer; doesn't hold this against them. He is critical of the decay of scientific funding and prestige under Thatcher (ironically a PM with a science degree!), and the contempt the Bush government had for science. There's more! He defends Craig Venter, the biologist who created the "syntia" bacteria, by constructing its genome in a lab and transplanting it into a prokaryote. He doesn't denounce him as a monster who is building hideous new megabacteria to wipe out mankind, and puts what he achieved in context. That we aren't at a stage where a new life form can be built totally from scratch. This is bordering on heresy! I reckon by next week, we may have articles on the benefits to the scientific community of an experiment in which Paul Dacres mother is hit in the face with cricket bats; by two professors in lab coats, and that scientists have discovered that conservatives are more likely to have lower IQ's, smaller penises and uglier wives than liberals.

Is it possible that Dacre feels that science is such a fringe interestsw to his readership that he gives Michael Hanlon carte blanche to publish anything he likes? Does he even know who Michael Hanlon even is? Is Hanlon forced to work in a closet under the stairs. Has anyone in the Mails office even had contact with him in the past 5 years? Does he exist at all? Is he a Tyler Durden like figure existing only in Max Hastings mind? I have a feeling Michael Hanlon is so marginalised at Mail HQ, that he can be found at the papers Christmas party standing glumly on his own, sadly staring at the vol au vents, wondering when the alcohol will start to kick in and it doesn't matter that no guests wants to talk to him, and don't even know who he is. For that my friends is the status of science in our wonderful mass media. Bastards.

The Shootings in Cumbria

There is really little more that can be said about the massacre of thirteen people in Cumbria, by Derick Bird on Wednesday, that has already been said. The dreadful scale of events really speak for themselves, a senseless bloodbath of a family member, a work colleague and solicitor, then random passers by who had that perennial awful fate of just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, by a lone gunman with a grudge - perhaps only ever known to him, and to no one else when he turned the gun to himself.

The media of course are running the story as lead. It is every bit as bad as is made out, a shooting frenzy that now takes its place in a ghastly trilogy, Hungerford; Dunblane and now the Lakes shootings. Of course the press and TV media are keen to look into Birds background. We hear tales of work troubles and arguments with other colleagues [taxi drivers] over fare touting, money troubles, disputes over a will with his murdered brother. There were dubious blown up photos of his son and his daughter in laws (who have nothing to do with the shootings) reactions to the crime. There was an equally dubious interview with a 9 year old kid who had a gun pointed at him; asking how it felt to have a gun in his face. Though the headlines are no where near as lurid (so far) as they could have been, and there is nothing as equally disgusting as the Sunday Express expose on the survivors of Dunblane coming of age, showing facebook pictures of them having parties and getting drunk. Bird seems to have been a quiet, ordinary man, not the local weirdo with a dodgy background; who just cracked. The blame game has begun in some quarters, with the police being accused of reacting too slowly. The police counter by saying Cumbria is a large county with a smallish police force, and has low levels of crime, so was swamped by the freak enormity of the crime. Both may be valid points. One commentator asked why they could quickly corner a wild cat on the M11 motorway in a relatively quick time, but not a gunman (presumably because tigers don't carry guns, and drive taxis, is a fair answer to his rhetorical question?) Littlejohn accused the chief of police in that area of insensitivity (he would know, the master of tact that he is.) after he said the area was now safe and "back in business", whether pragmatic damage limitation, or tactless, is really a matter of opinion. There will also be the eternal firearms availability debate, with the ultra prohibitionist on one side, and the pro guns on the other side. The weird phrase "guns don't kill people, people do" has already showed up on on line commentaries.

It is hard to try to explain the unexplainable. Why someone would be driven to blast away both family and complete strangers, even summoning them to their unwitting deaths. It shocks our common sense of humanity, and causes us to try to rationalise it, and human nature, with these debates mentioned above. Is it possible that there is in practice; nothing we can really do to completely stop these thankfully rare -terrible events from occurring?

Dawkins Vs the Pope... Or Not

It's been rocky times for the Catholic church these past few years. Pope Benedict XVI seems to have this ability to alienate his church from the rest of the wider world. He upset the Muslim world by requoting 14th century Christian leader Manuel Paleologus, who vented his spleen about Islamic wrongdoing, presumably after having a bad day in the office when the people he was sounding off against took Constantinople. He upset the Jewish community by lifting the excommunication writ on a bishop who was a vocal holocaust denier. He upset the Anglican church by starting an initiative to get the more "harder" proponents to jump ship to Rome, thus robbing the C of E of its finest tombola operators. (I doubt jumble sales in this country can ever be revived after this.) He caused upset in South America by saying that the native inhabitants had been silently really happy to have discovered Christs light when the Europeans showed up. How they felt about all the other "benefits" I think we can guess. Yes if you aren't a Roman Catholic and follow the teachings of a deity or religious belief, chances are Joseph Ratzinger has pissed you off with a Papal pop at your religion. And if you aren't religious (and if you are too), then the awful scale of the child abuse cover ups that have come to light in the Vatican, should engender similar feelings about how his church can act.

In an attempt to try and mend a few fences, the Vatican has decided to revive the "Courtyard of the Gentiles.", which isn't a bad 19th century novel; but a foundation set up by the current Popes more liberal predecessor (Benedict is apparently personally not to hot about it.) to improve relations with other faiths, and even with atheists / agnostics / light deists -through debates and dialogues throughout the year. I can see why the Vatican may have persuaded his popeness to do this sort of thing, even if he has reservations. They have been badly (and rightly so) battered by the child abuse cover ups, and some form of damage limitation is needed [from their perspective]. In an ideal world, it would also be a brave move in the current climate as well. The so - called "4 horsemen" of the vocal atheists; Sam Harris, Dan Dennet, and the Lennon and McCartney of the "new atheist movement; Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, have been capitalising on the scandals that have engulfed the church of Rome. Their criticisms becoming more vocal, and in my own personal opinion; more justified and relevant as well. This would be an ideal time for the Vatican to address them. So that is why they err....., not to put a finer point on it. Aren't. I quote:

" The foundation, he [President of the Popes council for culture] said, would only be interested in "noble atheism or agnosticism, not the polemical kind – so not those atheists such as [Piergiorgio] Odifreddi in Italy, [Michel] Onfray in France, [Christopher] Hitchens and [Richard] Dawkins".

Such atheists, he added, only view the truth with "irony and sarcasm" and tend to "read religious texts like fundamentalists".

Hmmmmm.

Call me cynical, but "noble atheist" sounds like code for "atheist who doesn't ask awkward questions." What the horsemen may call the "believer in belief". The atheist who doesn't believe themselves, but is not anti-theistic to any degree. Yes I don't have a problem with them being debated with, but if you are serious about dialogue, you have to debate with anti theists as well. Debate on your own terms isn't debate at all.

As for the reading of religious texts? Are they just symbolic metaphor or analogy, or the fundamental;- revealed word of God? Or whatever suits at a given time?

It is hard to find an example of such blatant evasiveness of public discourse as this. This kind of own goal in a damage limitation exercise for Gawds sake! It shows how much of a bubble the Vatican seems to live in. The new atheist movement will have an utter field day with this. Will the Vatican bite the bullet and take on the challenge? Watch this space!