That Nature is a Heraclitean Fire and of the comfort of the Resurrection
BY GERARD MANLEY HOPKINS
Cloud-puffball, torn tufts, tossed pillows | flaunt forth, then chevy on an air- Built thoroughfare: heaven-roysterers, in gay-gangs | they throng; they glitter in marches. Down roughcast, down dazzling whitewash, | wherever an elm arches, Shivelights and shadowtackle ín long | lashes lace, lance, and pair. Delightfully the bright wind boisterous | ropes, wrestles, beats earth bare Of yestertempest's creases; | in pool and rut peel parches Squandering ooze to squeezed | dough, crust, dust; stanches, starches Squadroned masks and manmarks | treadmire toil there Footfretted in it. Million-fuelèd, | nature's bonfire burns on. But quench her bonniest, dearest | to her, her clearest-selvèd spark Man, how fast his firedint, | his mark on mind, is gone! Both are in an unfathomable, all is in an enormous dark Drowned. O pity and indig | nation! Manshape, that shone Sheer off, disseveral, a star, | death blots black out; nor mark Is any of him at all so stark But vastness blurs and time | beats level. Enough! the Resurrection, A heart's-clarion! Away grief's gasping, | joyless days, dejection. Across my foundering deck shone A beacon, an eternal beam. | Flesh fade, and mortal trash Fall to the residuary worm; | world's wildfire, leave but ash: In a flash, at a trumpet crash, I am all at once what Christ is, | since he was what I am, and This Jack, joke, poor potsherd, | patch, matchwood, immortal diamond, Is immortal diamond.
Hopkins on peak mid season form, there
Too many words by someone trying to look too intellectual.
This is better and finishes with practical advice:
Loveliest of trees, the cherry now Is hung with bloom along the bough, And stands about the woodland ride Wearing white for Eastertide.
Now, of my threescore years and ten, Twenty will not come again, And take from seventy springs a score, It only leaves me fifty more.
And since to look at things in bloom Fifty springs are little room, About the woodlands I will go To see the cherry hung with snow.
New: Labour are calling on Downing Street to rule out a mooted deal with Nigel Farage in which he would be made ambassador to Washington in exchange for him not standing for Reform in the election, saying this "could threaten international unity against Russian aggression".
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
If other minds didn't exist, how could you ever be surprised by something you had never thought of yourself?
(And very best wishes to those of us commemorating and celebrating Easter in their churches and chapels.)
Was Jesus a zombie?
Good heavens, what a thing to say!
*startled*
Doctrinally, I understand very much not.
The thing that annoys me about Easter is that we keep on getting told Jesus died for our sins, okay but he didn't stay dead right? So what exactly did he sacrifice?
Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins, not much of a sacrifice if you ask me.
He was resurrected with a whacking great hole in his side, give the guy a break! It was the shedding of blood on the cross that was the sacrifice - so that sinful man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven through faith in him and his sacrifice.
The Kingdom if Heaven must be a truly ghastly place. Generation upon generation of relatives you have no idea who they are or interest in, but you have to make polite smalltalk with for all eternity.
And I bet there's no real ale. Probably just Madri lager. At £6 a pint.
I cannot see how 'Heaven' is supposed to work. It's a place you're supposed to go and be permanently happy.
Take an aged relative of mine. She married fairly young, had kids, and then her husband died whilst their kids were young. She eventually remarried, and has been with her second husband for four or five decades.
So the first husband will (presumably!) be up there waiting for her. Which would be blooming boring. But when she turns up, there'll be a second husband coming along soon (if he doesn't die first - that would be awkward (*)). People are what would make Heaven for me - having some of the people I love around me (hopefully!). But what if they want to spend eternity with another love, or other friends?
I cannot see a way around this without theological hand-waving, or changing our characters in Heaven so we won't be 'us' any more, or having Heaven as a boring non-place.
Perhaps 'The Good Place' had the right idea...
(*) "Hi, I'm Matthew." "Hi, I'm Neil. I'm waiting for Joyce. I want to spend eternity with her." "Oh, so am I." "I'm not really into threesomes." "No, neither am I" Cue an eternity of awkwardness...
The chance of after death existence having a 'homo sapiens' aspect to it is pretty much zero I'd think or indeed any experiences being limited by our comprehension of how we live life on Earth. The cloud angel, country club view of heaven was invented by priests to control the actions of King and Cotter down here. That's if you believe in continuing existence. Which I personally do.
Then that provokes a bigger problem: it would not be 'me' up there, as I would have changed beyond all recognition.
Religion just makes life too complicated. For God to exist, everything we think we know scientifically has to go out of the window. He created the earth and everything on it so all the science we think we have about the big bang and evolution is a load of bollocks. I just can't get my head around it. I know personal incredulity is a fallacy, but it's where I'm at.
Organised religion and diktat from Rome and its equivalents has ruined faith, spirituality and the like. But science is very faith based too. 'Dark matter' 'strong nuclear force' 'unifying theory' etc Edit - Darwinian Evolution is definitely bollocks!
Evolution is bollocks? Are you sure??
Darwinian type Evolution. I believe that to be bollocks, yes. However I can't get into it now because I'm off to spend some good Friday time with Papa Woolie, be back later today! Have a nice day off all.
If it were not for the work of Mendel, evolutionary theory might well be considered bollocks today. But, Mendel and his successors more or less nailed how it worked.
Darwinian evolution is being challenged, however. Theories like inherited trauma - they are controversial but out there. It may turn out that Darwinian evolution is like Newtonian physics, a brilliant conception of the world that lasts for centuries and still provides an easy common sense model, but is actually and fundamentally wrong
(And very best wishes to those of us commemorating and celebrating Easter in their churches and chapels.)
Was Jesus a zombie?
Good heavens, what a thing to say!
*startled*
Doctrinally, I understand very much not.
The thing that annoys me about Easter is that we keep on getting told Jesus died for our sins, okay but he didn't stay dead right? So what exactly did he sacrifice?
Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins, not much of a sacrifice if you ask me.
He was resurrected with a whacking great hole in his side, give the guy a break! It was the shedding of blood on the cross that was the sacrifice - so that sinful man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven through faith in him and his sacrifice.
The Kingdom if Heaven must be a truly ghastly place. Generation upon generation of relatives you have no idea who they are or interest in, but you have to make polite smalltalk with for all eternity.
And I bet there's no real ale. Probably just Madri lager. At £6 a pint.
I cannot see how 'Heaven' is supposed to work. It's a place you're supposed to go and be permanently happy.
Take an aged relative of mine. She married fairly young, had kids, and then her husband died whilst their kids were young. She eventually remarried, and has been with her second husband for four or five decades.
So the first husband will (presumably!) be up there waiting for her. Which would be blooming boring. But when she turns up, there'll be a second husband coming along soon (if he doesn't die first - that would be awkward (*)). People are what would make Heaven for me - having some of the people I love around me (hopefully!). But what if they want to spend eternity with another love, or other friends?
I cannot see a way around this without theological hand-waving, or changing our characters in Heaven so we won't be 'us' any more, or having Heaven as a boring non-place.
Perhaps 'The Good Place' had the right idea...
(*) "Hi, I'm Matthew." "Hi, I'm Neil. I'm waiting for Joyce. I want to spend eternity with her." "Oh, so am I." "I'm not really into threesomes." "No, neither am I" Cue an eternity of awkwardness...
The chance of after death existence having a 'homo sapiens' aspect to it is pretty much zero I'd think or indeed any experiences being limited by our comprehension of how we live life on Earth. The cloud angel, country club view of heaven was invented by priests to control the actions of King and Cotter down here. That's if you believe in continuing existence. Which I personally do.
Then that provokes a bigger problem: it would not be 'me' up there, as I would have changed beyond all recognition.
Religion just makes life too complicated. For God to exist, everything we think we know scientifically has to go out of the window. He created the earth and everything on it so all the science we think we have about the big bang and evolution is a load of bollocks. I just can't get my head around it. I know personal incredulity is a fallacy, but it's where I'm at.
Organised religion and diktat from Rome and its equivalents has ruined faith, spirituality and the like. But science is very faith based too. 'Dark matter' 'strong nuclear force' 'unifying theory' etc Edit - Darwinian Evolution is definitely bollocks!
Evolution is bollocks? Are you sure??
Darwinian type Evolution. I believe that to be bollocks, yes. However I can't get into it now because I'm off to spend some good Friday time with Papa Woolie, be back later today! Have a nice day off all.
If it were not for the work of Mendel, evolutionary theory might well be considered bollocks today. But, Mendel and his successors more or less nailed how it worked.
Darwinian evolution is being challenged, however. Theories like inherited trauma - they are controversial but out there. It may turn out that Darwinian evolution is like Newtonian physics, a brilliant conception of the world that lasts for centuries and still provides an easy common sense model, but is actually and fundamentally wrong
Newtonian physics isn’t wrong. It ignores certain factors that only become apparent at extremely small and large scales.
Newtonian physics is fine for your car. Unless you are driving at significant percentages of the speed of light.
In fact the later physics is often expressed as corrections to the basic Newtonian calculations.
(And very best wishes to those of us commemorating and celebrating Easter in their churches and chapels.)
Was Jesus a zombie?
Good heavens, what a thing to say!
*startled*
Doctrinally, I understand very much not.
The thing that annoys me about Easter is that we keep on getting told Jesus died for our sins, okay but he didn't stay dead right? So what exactly did he sacrifice?
Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins, not much of a sacrifice if you ask me.
He was resurrected with a whacking great hole in his side, give the guy a break! It was the shedding of blood on the cross that was the sacrifice - so that sinful man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven through faith in him and his sacrifice.
The Kingdom if Heaven must be a truly ghastly place. Generation upon generation of relatives you have no idea who they are or interest in, but you have to make polite smalltalk with for all eternity.
And I bet there's no real ale. Probably just Madri lager. At £6 a pint.
I cannot see how 'Heaven' is supposed to work. It's a place you're supposed to go and be permanently happy.
Take an aged relative of mine. She married fairly young, had kids, and then her husband died whilst their kids were young. She eventually remarried, and has been with her second husband for four or five decades.
So the first husband will (presumably!) be up there waiting for her. Which would be blooming boring. But when she turns up, there'll be a second husband coming along soon (if he doesn't die first - that would be awkward (*)). People are what would make Heaven for me - having some of the people I love around me (hopefully!). But what if they want to spend eternity with another love, or other friends?
I cannot see a way around this without theological hand-waving, or changing our characters in Heaven so we won't be 'us' any more, or having Heaven as a boring non-place.
Perhaps 'The Good Place' had the right idea...
(*) "Hi, I'm Matthew." "Hi, I'm Neil. I'm waiting for Joyce. I want to spend eternity with her." "Oh, so am I." "I'm not really into threesomes." "No, neither am I" Cue an eternity of awkwardness...
The chance of after death existence having a 'homo sapiens' aspect to it is pretty much zero I'd think or indeed any experiences being limited by our comprehension of how we live life on Earth. The cloud angel, country club view of heaven was invented by priests to control the actions of King and Cotter down here. That's if you believe in continuing existence. Which I personally do.
Then that provokes a bigger problem: it would not be 'me' up there, as I would have changed beyond all recognition.
Religion just makes life too complicated. For God to exist, everything we think we know scientifically has to go out of the window. He created the earth and everything on it so all the science we think we have about the big bang and evolution is a load of bollocks. I just can't get my head around it. I know personal incredulity is a fallacy, but it's where I'm at.
Organised religion and diktat from Rome and its equivalents has ruined faith, spirituality and the like. But science is very faith based too. 'Dark matter' 'strong nuclear force' 'unifying theory' etc Edit - Darwinian Evolution is definitely bollocks!
Evolution is bollocks? Are you sure??
Darwinian type Evolution. I believe that to be bollocks, yes. However I can't get into it now because I'm off to spend some good Friday time with Papa Woolie, be back later today! Have a nice day off all.
If it were not for the work of Mendel, evolutionary theory might well be considered bollocks today. But, Mendel and his successors more or less nailed how it worked.
Darwinian evolution is being challenged, however. Theories like inherited trauma - they are controversial but out there. It may turn out that Darwinian evolution is like Newtonian physics, a brilliant conception of the world that lasts for centuries and still provides an easy common sense model, but is actually and fundamentally wrong
No, it really isn't. The strong likelihood (close to scientific certainty) that some environmental challenges can cause changes in gene expression that can in some cases be heritable, doesn't really challenge the Darwinian theory.
Though it will substantially change the understanding of how it operates. And gives back a little respectability to Lamarckian ideas.
“Scientific certainty” lol
Heliocentrism was scientifically certain. Newtonian physics was scientifically certain. Phlogiston was scientifically certain. And all completely wrong
“Scientifically certain” is an oxymoron. Science is a process and a method, not an outcome. It is a perpetual motion machine of discovery, constantly disproving itself. What is certain and right today is certain to be wrong tomorrow, and nature is an Heraclitean fire
Newtonian physics is still a scientific certainty, albeit these days a subset of stuff by Einstein.
I do wonder whether Darwinian Evolution might be similar - fundamentally important but not the whole story.
I wish someone could explain for example how instinct is inherited. How do pointers know to point (they do, without being shown) and collies instinctively want to round things up?
It’s an interesting piece. It also shows the relevance of “PB’s endless weather talk”
The weather has been crap. It’s been so crap it is now imperilling British agriculture
“It has, it would be fair to say, been a shocking year for British potatoes. There have been Sundays in this first chunk of the year when finding a bag of Maris Pipers has been nigh on impossible. Other varieties of white potato might be available, but they don’t always match up to the satisfyingly dry crunch and fluffy texture of a Maris. “It was an unbelievably difficult growing season last year,” says Richard Arundel, founder of the AKP Group, one of our biggest potato suppliers. “From a cold, wet, late Spring which resulted in a reduction in yield over the season, and then ran into horrendous wet weather at the traditional harvest period of September/October.” “
If this continues - and the forecasts are bad - this is going to become a major issue
It'll keep pissing relentlessly until July, then there'll be an interlude during which we are nearly baked to death like we were two years ago, and then come September it'll start to relentlessly piss again until Summer 2025.
I think this is what climate change is going to look like in Britain. Wind and rain almost the entire year, punctuated by unbearable heatwaves. All that extra atmospheric energy has to go somewhere.
Looking on the bright side, today through to Sunday looks quite tolerable.
The uk climate could well become cloudier and wetter even if warmer. Such a climate may well be more depressing than the old style british climate which was cooler but had more blocking anticyclones. Honestly think depression will be a big problem with that sort of climate . Give me a colder continental climate anyday.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this and I’ve decided that’s the answer. It’s an illusion. We are autocomplete machines but we are part of a wider mechanism - the glittering matrix of consciousness, sewn into the dark fabric of the multiverse, in silver filaments of divine fire - which DOES have purpose, meaning, teleological beauty
Also it’s gonna be overcast til Tuesday
If (which it isn't) free will is an illusion then it is not a thing you can know, since you must presume that your mental state which embraces the purported knowledge of this truth cannot be a judgment you have made, it is merely another illusion, as it was necessary and inevitable that you would currently have that state of mind, and it was necessary and inevitable before you were born. You never had any choice about it.
This sounds like the sort of argument that makes us all determinists. But determinism seems, to me, to be based upon the concept of rational decisions: given knowledge of all the relevant facts it was inevitable that such a conclusion would be reached and such a decision made.
Which doesn't really explain those who believe in Scottish Independence, for example (and to keep this even vaguely on topic). My old Minister used to talk about a "leap of faith" by which you decided that God was not only real but the most important thing in your existence. Many people make that leap of faith in respect of non religious things too. Can determinism really explain that? It is irrational, it is against the overwhelming evidence and yet it is so viscerally part of their identity that that doesn't matter. If there are negative consequences, and there would be, this is worth the price for the assertion of one's true identity.
Those who are indulging in a chocolate fest this Easter, punctuated perhaps with a little light discussion of the wisdom of Oxford dons Richard Dawkins or Nick Bostrom, might remember what is going on right now in the part of the world that a famous refugee called Jesus came from:
(warning: horrible video showing malnourished children)
"31% of children under the age of 2 [in Gaza] are suffering from acute malnutrition, a percentage which has doubled since January"
Indeed, should also be remembered there are abour 3,000 Christians in Gaza too, they are not all Muslims, who also need aid and support (while Hamas needs to release its Israeli hostages0
(And very best wishes to those of us commemorating and celebrating Easter in their churches and chapels.)
Was Jesus a zombie?
Good heavens, what a thing to say!
*startled*
Doctrinally, I understand very much not.
The thing that annoys me about Easter is that we keep on getting told Jesus died for our sins, okay but he didn't stay dead right? So what exactly did he sacrifice?
Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins, not much of a sacrifice if you ask me.
He was resurrected with a whacking great hole in his side, give the guy a break! It was the shedding of blood on the cross that was the sacrifice - so that sinful man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven through faith in him and his sacrifice.
The Kingdom if Heaven must be a truly ghastly place. Generation upon generation of relatives you have no idea who they are or interest in, but you have to make polite smalltalk with for all eternity.
And I bet there's no real ale. Probably just Madri lager. At £6 a pint.
I cannot see how 'Heaven' is supposed to work. It's a place you're supposed to go and be permanently happy.
Take an aged relative of mine. She married fairly young, had kids, and then her husband died whilst their kids were young. She eventually remarried, and has been with her second husband for four or five decades.
So the first husband will (presumably!) be up there waiting for her. Which would be blooming boring. But when she turns up, there'll be a second husband coming along soon (if he doesn't die first - that would be awkward (*)). People are what would make Heaven for me - having some of the people I love around me (hopefully!). But what if they want to spend eternity with another love, or other friends?
I cannot see a way around this without theological hand-waving, or changing our characters in Heaven so we won't be 'us' any more, or having Heaven as a boring non-place.
Perhaps 'The Good Place' had the right idea...
(*) "Hi, I'm Matthew." "Hi, I'm Neil. I'm waiting for Joyce. I want to spend eternity with her." "Oh, so am I." "I'm not really into threesomes." "No, neither am I" Cue an eternity of awkwardness...
The chance of after death existence having a 'homo sapiens' aspect to it is pretty much zero I'd think or indeed any experiences being limited by our comprehension of how we live life on Earth. The cloud angel, country club view of heaven was invented by priests to control the actions of King and Cotter down here. That's if you believe in continuing existence. Which I personally do.
Then that provokes a bigger problem: it would not be 'me' up there, as I would have changed beyond all recognition.
Religion just makes life too complicated. For God to exist, everything we think we know scientifically has to go out of the window. He created the earth and everything on it so all the science we think we have about the big bang and evolution is a load of bollocks. I just can't get my head around it. I know personal incredulity is a fallacy, but it's where I'm at.
Organised religion and diktat from Rome and its equivalents has ruined faith, spirituality and the like. But science is very faith based too. 'Dark matter' 'strong nuclear force' 'unifying theory' etc Edit - Darwinian Evolution is definitely bollocks!
Evolution is bollocks? Are you sure??
Darwinian type Evolution. I believe that to be bollocks, yes. However I can't get into it now because I'm off to spend some good Friday time with Papa Woolie, be back later today! Have a nice day off all.
If it were not for the work of Mendel, evolutionary theory might well be considered bollocks today. But, Mendel and his successors more or less nailed how it worked.
Darwinian evolution is being challenged, however. Theories like inherited trauma - they are controversial but out there. It may turn out that Darwinian evolution is like Newtonian physics, a brilliant conception of the world that lasts for centuries and still provides an easy common sense model, but is actually and fundamentally wrong
No, it really isn't. The strong likelihood (close to scientific certainty) that some environmental challenges can cause changes in gene expression that can in some cases be heritable, doesn't really challenge the Darwinian theory.
Though it will substantially change the understanding of how it operates. And gives back a little respectability to Lamarckian ideas.
“Scientific certainty” lol
Heliocentrism was scientifically certain. Newtonian physics was scientifically certain. Phlogiston was scientifically certain. And all completely wrong
“Scientifically certain” is an oxymoron. Science is a process and a method, not an outcome. It is a perpetual motion machine of discovery, constantly disproving itself. What is certain and right today is certain to be wrong tomorrow, and nature is an Heraclitean fire
It's a shorthand for a theory which is sufficiently reliable to be of practical use for further science. You're so literalist (or a pedant).
Everyone is well aware of Popper's dictum.
"The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game."
Given Yousaf's ratings are now worse than Sarwar's net it does look like we are heading for a Labour FM again in 2026 for the first time since 2007.
Indeed on the latest Holyrood poll from Redfield and Wilton Scottish Labour will end up as joint largest party in 2026 with 42 MSPs each. However as there would be more LD MSPs than Green who would almost certainly vote for Sarwar and the SCons would likely abstain, Sarwar would become FM.
So we would likely have a UK Labour PM and Labour FMs in Wales and Scotland again for the first time since the Blair years
That's the most optimistic post I've ever seen from you! All we need now is a couple of by-elections in N.Ireland and the Alliance overtaking the DUP as second party.
Or better still the UUP
I agree that Alliance gains would be preferable. It would indicate a move away from Northern Irish people voting on sectarian lines.
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
If other minds didn't exist, how could you ever be surprised by something you had never thought of yourself?
Presumably in the same way that you can be surprised by something in your own dream.
That Nature is a Heraclitean Fire and of the comfort of the Resurrection
BY GERARD MANLEY HOPKINS
Cloud-puffball, torn tufts, tossed pillows | flaunt forth, then chevy on an air- Built thoroughfare: heaven-roysterers, in gay-gangs | they throng; they glitter in marches. Down roughcast, down dazzling whitewash, | wherever an elm arches, Shivelights and shadowtackle ín long | lashes lace, lance, and pair. Delightfully the bright wind boisterous | ropes, wrestles, beats earth bare Of yestertempest's creases; | in pool and rut peel parches Squandering ooze to squeezed | dough, crust, dust; stanches, starches Squadroned masks and manmarks | treadmire toil there Footfretted in it. Million-fuelèd, | nature's bonfire burns on. But quench her bonniest, dearest | to her, her clearest-selvèd spark Man, how fast his firedint, | his mark on mind, is gone! Both are in an unfathomable, all is in an enormous dark Drowned. O pity and indig | nation! Manshape, that shone Sheer off, disseveral, a star, | death blots black out; nor mark Is any of him at all so stark But vastness blurs and time | beats level. Enough! the Resurrection, A heart's-clarion! Away grief's gasping, | joyless days, dejection. Across my foundering deck shone A beacon, an eternal beam. | Flesh fade, and mortal trash Fall to the residuary worm; | world's wildfire, leave but ash: In a flash, at a trumpet crash, I am all at once what Christ is, | since he was what I am, and This Jack, joke, poor potsherd, | patch, matchwood, immortal diamond, Is immortal diamond.
Hopkins on peak mid season form, there
Too many words by someone trying to look too intellectual.
This is better and finishes with practical advice:
Loveliest of trees, the cherry now Is hung with bloom along the bough, And stands about the woodland ride Wearing white for Eastertide.
Now, of my threescore years and ten, Twenty will not come again, And take from seventy springs a score, It only leaves me fifty more.
And since to look at things in bloom Fifty springs are little room, About the woodlands I will go To see the cherry hung with snow.
I love Housman and I can recite that verse from memory
But I love Hopkins too. There is a place in the canon for both, and a right time, as well. I go to Hopkins for divinity, tinged at times with despair, but in the end sublime. I go to Housman for beautifully consoling pessimism
Housman was an odd cove. Regarded his own versifying as a “morbid excrescence”. A kind of fateful sap which oozed out of him
New: Labour are calling on Downing Street to rule out a mooted deal with Nigel Farage in which he would be made ambassador to Washington in exchange for him not standing for Reform in the election, saying this "could threaten international unity against Russian aggression".
A Labour PM made his son-in-law Ambassador to the States.
That said Tory PMs have form for sending appeasers to Washington.
My my, what a long memory you have. Sunny Jim and Peter Jay was along time ago. Rank amateur level corruption compared to your lot.
The Peter Jay appointment forms part of the compliance training I give new starters as part of their induction, in the section on nepotism.
Blood may be thicker than water when it comes to in-house promotion, but I use Boris Johnson and Jennifer Arcuri to demonstrate blood is not necessarily thicker than some other bodily fluids.
Given Yousaf's ratings are now worse than Sarwar's net it does look like we are heading for a Labour FM again in 2026 for the first time since 2007.
Indeed on the latest Holyrood poll from Redfield and Wilton Scottish Labour will end up as joint largest party in 2026 with 42 MSPs each. However as there would be more LD MSPs than Green who would almost certainly vote for Sarwar and the SCons would likely abstain, Sarwar would become FM.
So we would likely have a UK Labour PM and Labour FMs in Wales and Scotland again for the first time since the Blair years
Much as I hate Useless, Sarwar is a cockroach, millionaire Tory pretending to be socialist. We will be much worse off with that clown in charge. Only benefit will be to be last nail in the coffin to get rid of London carpetbagger unionists.
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
If other minds didn't exist, how could you ever be surprised by something you had never thought of yourself?
Presumably in the same way that you can be surprised by something in your own dream.
That’s a great paradox. I was discussing this with my brother the other day
How can the dreaming mind surprise you with twists in the narrative? It’s your own mind
His theory is that it’s the left hemisphere surprising the right (or the reverse, I forget). Could be something in that, tho I tend to a more Freudian perspective - it’s the subconscious mind that dreams, and thus surprises the conscious brain
It’s an interesting piece. It also shows the relevance of “PB’s endless weather talk”
The weather has been crap. It’s been so crap it is now imperilling British agriculture
“It has, it would be fair to say, been a shocking year for British potatoes. There have been Sundays in this first chunk of the year when finding a bag of Maris Pipers has been nigh on impossible. Other varieties of white potato might be available, but they don’t always match up to the satisfyingly dry crunch and fluffy texture of a Maris. “It was an unbelievably difficult growing season last year,” says Richard Arundel, founder of the AKP Group, one of our biggest potato suppliers. “From a cold, wet, late Spring which resulted in a reduction in yield over the season, and then ran into horrendous wet weather at the traditional harvest period of September/October.” “
If this continues - and the forecasts are bad - this is going to become a major issue
Just yesterday I threw out a load of strawberries that seemed to have got too wet somewhere along the line and so had an unattractive texture. You don't have to be Greta Thunberg to think something's up.
The forecast is for at least another two weeks of low pressure. Possibly significant snow, certainly lots of rain
(And very best wishes to those of us commemorating and celebrating Easter in their churches and chapels.)
Was Jesus a zombie?
Good heavens, what a thing to say!
*startled*
Doctrinally, I understand very much not.
The thing that annoys me about Easter is that we keep on getting told Jesus died for our sins, okay but he didn't stay dead right? So what exactly did he sacrifice?
Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins, not much of a sacrifice if you ask me.
He was resurrected with a whacking great hole in his side, give the guy a break! It was the shedding of blood on the cross that was the sacrifice - so that sinful man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven through faith in him and his sacrifice.
The Kingdom if Heaven must be a truly ghastly place. Generation upon generation of relatives you have no idea who they are or interest in, but you have to make polite smalltalk with for all eternity.
And I bet there's no real ale. Probably just Madri lager. At £6 a pint.
I cannot see how 'Heaven' is supposed to work. It's a place you're supposed to go and be permanently happy.
Take an aged relative of mine. She married fairly young, had kids, and then her husband died whilst their kids were young. She eventually remarried, and has been with her second husband for four or five decades.
So the first husband will (presumably!) be up there waiting for her. Which would be blooming boring. But when she turns up, there'll be a second husband coming along soon (if he doesn't die first - that would be awkward (*)). People are what would make Heaven for me - having some of the people I love around me (hopefully!). But what if they want to spend eternity with another love, or other friends?
I cannot see a way around this without theological hand-waving, or changing our characters in Heaven so we won't be 'us' any more, or having Heaven as a boring non-place.
Perhaps 'The Good Place' had the right idea...
(*) "Hi, I'm Matthew." "Hi, I'm Neil. I'm waiting for Joyce. I want to spend eternity with her." "Oh, so am I." "I'm not really into threesomes." "No, neither am I" Cue an eternity of awkwardness...
The chance of after death existence having a 'homo sapiens' aspect to it is pretty much zero I'd think or indeed any experiences being limited by our comprehension of how we live life on Earth. The cloud angel, country club view of heaven was invented by priests to control the actions of King and Cotter down here. That's if you believe in continuing existence. Which I personally do.
Then that provokes a bigger problem: it would not be 'me' up there, as I would have changed beyond all recognition.
Religion just makes life too complicated. For God to exist, everything we think we know scientifically has to go out of the window. He created the earth and everything on it so all the science we think we have about the big bang and evolution is a load of bollocks. I just can't get my head around it. I know personal incredulity is a fallacy, but it's where I'm at.
The Big Bang Theory is originally a Catholic idea...
New: Labour are calling on Downing Street to rule out a mooted deal with Nigel Farage in which he would be made ambassador to Washington in exchange for him not standing for Reform in the election, saying this "could threaten international unity against Russian aggression".
A Labour PM made his son-in-law Ambassador to the States.
That said Tory PMs have form for sending appeasers to Washington.
My my, what a long memory you have. Sunny Jim and Peter Jay was along time ago. Rank amateur level corruption compared to your lot.
The Peter Jay appointment forms part of the compliance training I give new starters as part of their induction, in the section on nepotism.
Blood may be thicker than water when it comes to in-house promotion, but I use Boris Johnson and Jennifer Arcuri to demonstrate blood is not necessarily thicker than some other bodily fluids.
If it was actually David Owen, an old friend of Peter Jay, the then Foreign Secretary who made the appointment but with the approval of Callaghan who should have vetoed it.
Apart from the nepotism angle Jay had no diplomatic experience.
Ambassador to the États-Unis is not for some diplomatic ingénue.
(And very best wishes to those of us commemorating and celebrating Easter in their churches and chapels.)
Was Jesus a zombie?
Good heavens, what a thing to say!
*startled*
Doctrinally, I understand very much not.
The thing that annoys me about Easter is that we keep on getting told Jesus died for our sins, okay but he didn't stay dead right? So what exactly did he sacrifice?
Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins, not much of a sacrifice if you ask me.
He was resurrected with a whacking great hole in his side, give the guy a break! It was the shedding of blood on the cross that was the sacrifice - so that sinful man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven through faith in him and his sacrifice.
The Kingdom if Heaven must be a truly ghastly place. Generation upon generation of relatives you have no idea who they are or interest in, but you have to make polite smalltalk with for all eternity.
And I bet there's no real ale. Probably just Madri lager. At £6 a pint.
I cannot see how 'Heaven' is supposed to work. It's a place you're supposed to go and be permanently happy.
Take an aged relative of mine. She married fairly young, had kids, and then her husband died whilst their kids were young. She eventually remarried, and has been with her second husband for four or five decades.
So the first husband will (presumably!) be up there waiting for her. Which would be blooming boring. But when she turns up, there'll be a second husband coming along soon (if he doesn't die first - that would be awkward (*)). People are what would make Heaven for me - having some of the people I love around me (hopefully!). But what if they want to spend eternity with another love, or other friends?
I cannot see a way around this without theological hand-waving, or changing our characters in Heaven so we won't be 'us' any more, or having Heaven as a boring non-place.
Perhaps 'The Good Place' had the right idea...
(*) "Hi, I'm Matthew." "Hi, I'm Neil. I'm waiting for Joyce. I want to spend eternity with her." "Oh, so am I." "I'm not really into threesomes." "No, neither am I" Cue an eternity of awkwardness...
The chance of after death existence having a 'homo sapiens' aspect to it is pretty much zero I'd think or indeed any experiences being limited by our comprehension of how we live life on Earth. The cloud angel, country club view of heaven was invented by priests to control the actions of King and Cotter down here. That's if you believe in continuing existence. Which I personally do.
Then that provokes a bigger problem: it would not be 'me' up there, as I would have changed beyond all recognition.
Religion just makes life too complicated. For God to exist, everything we think we know scientifically has to go out of the window. He created the earth and everything on it so all the science we think we have about the big bang and evolution is a load of bollocks. I just can't get my head around it. I know personal incredulity is a fallacy, but it's where I'm at.
Organised religion and diktat from Rome and its equivalents has ruined faith, spirituality and the like. But science is very faith based too. 'Dark matter' 'strong nuclear force' 'unifying theory' etc Edit - Darwinian Evolution is definitely bollocks!
Evolution is bollocks? Are you sure??
Darwinian type Evolution. I believe that to be bollocks, yes. However I can't get into it now because I'm off to spend some good Friday time with Papa Woolie, be back later today! Have a nice day off all.
If it were not for the work of Mendel, evolutionary theory might well be considered bollocks today. But, Mendel and his successors more or less nailed how it worked.
Darwinian evolution is being challenged, however. Theories like inherited trauma - they are controversial but out there. It may turn out that Darwinian evolution is like Newtonian physics, a brilliant conception of the world that lasts for centuries and still provides an easy common sense model, but is actually and fundamentally wrong
No, it really isn't. The strong likelihood (close to scientific certainty) that some environmental challenges can cause changes in gene expression that can in some cases be heritable, doesn't really challenge the Darwinian theory.
Though it will substantially change the understanding of how it operates. And gives back a little respectability to Lamarckian ideas.
“Scientific certainty” lol
Heliocentrism was scientifically certain. Newtonian physics was scientifically certain. Phlogiston was scientifically certain. And all completely wrong
“Scientifically certain” is an oxymoron. Science is a process and a method, not an outcome. It is a perpetual motion machine of discovery, constantly disproving itself. What is certain and right today is certain to be wrong tomorrow, and nature is an Heraclitean fire
Newtonian physics is still a scientific certainty, albeit these days a subset of stuff by Einstein.
I do wonder whether Darwinian Evolution might be similar - fundamentally important but not the whole story.
I wish someone could explain for example how instinct is inherited. How do pointers know to point (they do, without being shown) and collies instinctively want to round things up?
Because we’ve selected for those traits, which are expressed through brain development.
Shocking push notification from the FT, I am going to riot.
Miley Cyrus fan are we?
And Nothing Nowhere? I thought you were an O2 fan.
Flowers and her Heart of Glass cover are wonderful tracks.
I still have an o2 sim in the phone if you look closely, I also have a Three eSIM too.
o2 has been unusable in central Manchester for years.
This is what I get in central Manchester with EE and elsewhere.
EE has been unusable indoors for years.
Less of an issue with WiFi calling.
That's a fair point although Wi-Fi Calling should not be an excuse for a network not interested in providing a low band solution.
I get the arguments for why they do it as they only have 5MHz of band 20 and it doesn't actually work even in rural areas (for example my parents, where EE is 0.1Mb whereas O2 and Vodafone shared MORAN are 20) but EE is a two tier network in that sense, almost the exact reverse of Vodafone/O2 who are in general, much worse in the cities (albeit improving).
The merger which I support between Three and Vodafone, should certainly give 5MHz to EE and then all operators would have 10MHz of low band. Whether EE actually uses it is anyone's guess, they seem allergic to low band.
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
Hmm, not sure about that. I'd say the existence of 'other similar minds' has such compelling circumstantial evidence in favour that it's pretty much a done deal.
As for 'divine' vs 'non-divine' creation of the universe itself, we can't conceive of either. It's beyond our ken and always will be because it isn't a matter of not knowing enough, the question itself is beyond our frame of reference. So, yes, an equal footing in that regard.
But this doesn't mean Religion and Atheism are equally rational. They are wholly different. One is refusal to believe without evidence. The other is irrational faith rationally embraced to solve a mental problem.
(And very best wishes to those of us commemorating and celebrating Easter in their churches and chapels.)
Was Jesus a zombie?
Good heavens, what a thing to say!
*startled*
Doctrinally, I understand very much not.
The thing that annoys me about Easter is that we keep on getting told Jesus died for our sins, okay but he didn't stay dead right? So what exactly did he sacrifice?
Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins, not much of a sacrifice if you ask me.
He was resurrected with a whacking great hole in his side, give the guy a break! It was the shedding of blood on the cross that was the sacrifice - so that sinful man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven through faith in him and his sacrifice.
The Kingdom if Heaven must be a truly ghastly place. Generation upon generation of relatives you have no idea who they are or interest in, but you have to make polite smalltalk with for all eternity.
And I bet there's no real ale. Probably just Madri lager. At £6 a pint.
I cannot see how 'Heaven' is supposed to work. It's a place you're supposed to go and be permanently happy.
Take an aged relative of mine. She married fairly young, had kids, and then her husband died whilst their kids were young. She eventually remarried, and has been with her second husband for four or five decades.
So the first husband will (presumably!) be up there waiting for her. Which would be blooming boring. But when she turns up, there'll be a second husband coming along soon (if he doesn't die first - that would be awkward (*)). People are what would make Heaven for me - having some of the people I love around me (hopefully!). But what if they want to spend eternity with another love, or other friends?
I cannot see a way around this without theological hand-waving, or changing our characters in Heaven so we won't be 'us' any more, or having Heaven as a boring non-place.
Perhaps 'The Good Place' had the right idea...
(*) "Hi, I'm Matthew." "Hi, I'm Neil. I'm waiting for Joyce. I want to spend eternity with her." "Oh, so am I." "I'm not really into threesomes." "No, neither am I" Cue an eternity of awkwardness...
The chance of after death existence having a 'homo sapiens' aspect to it is pretty much zero I'd think or indeed any experiences being limited by our comprehension of how we live life on Earth. The cloud angel, country club view of heaven was invented by priests to control the actions of King and Cotter down here. That's if you believe in continuing existence. Which I personally do.
Then that provokes a bigger problem: it would not be 'me' up there, as I would have changed beyond all recognition.
Religion just makes life too complicated. For God to exist, everything we think we know scientifically has to go out of the window. He created the earth and everything on it so all the science we think we have about the big bang and evolution is a load of bollocks. I just can't get my head around it. I know personal incredulity is a fallacy, but it's where I'm at.
The Big Bang Theory is originally a Catholic idea...
In the beginning there was nothing which exploded.
Its a typically good Pratchett line but it does leave some unanswered questions.
Shocking push notification from the FT, I am going to riot.
Miley Cyrus fan are we?
And Nothing Nowhere? I thought you were an O2 fan.
Flowers and her Heart of Glass cover are wonderful tracks.
I still have an o2 sim in the phone if you look closely, I also have a Three eSIM too.
o2 has been unusable in central Manchester for years.
This is what I get in central Manchester with EE and elsewhere.
EE has been unusable indoors for years.
Less of an issue with WiFi calling.
Edit. That Speedtest was taken indoors.
As a side point, I thought I'd try Three for a week as I'd been constantly told about how good their network apparently is now.
Well these poles of wonder only seem to be existing in random places, certainly not Central London where the performance was so poor outside Victoria that I had to go back to my O2 SIM.
I have no doubt at all Three can provide these amazing speeds - but their rollout plan seems to be providing them to random fields in the middle of nowhere. Certainly not a sustainable plan.
Given Yousaf's ratings are now worse than Sarwar's net it does look like we are heading for a Labour FM again in 2026 for the first time since 2007.
Indeed on the latest Holyrood poll from Redfield and Wilton Scottish Labour will end up as joint largest party in 2026 with 42 MSPs each. However as there would be more LD MSPs than Green who would almost certainly vote for Sarwar and the SCons would likely abstain, Sarwar would become FM.
So we would likely have a UK Labour PM and Labour FMs in Wales and Scotland again for the first time since the Blair years
That's the most optimistic post I've ever seen from you! All we need now is a couple of by-elections in N.Ireland and the Alliance overtaking the DUP as second party.
Or better still the UUP
I agree that Alliance gains would be preferable. It would indicate a move away from Northern Irish people voting on sectarian lines.
Unless those gains come from the DUP/TUV and SF it wouldn't, in recent years the Alliance have just mainly taken votes from the more moderate Unionist and Nationalist parties of the UUP and SDLP on the whole
It’s an interesting piece. It also shows the relevance of “PB’s endless weather talk”
The weather has been crap. It’s been so crap it is now imperilling British agriculture
“It has, it would be fair to say, been a shocking year for British potatoes. There have been Sundays in this first chunk of the year when finding a bag of Maris Pipers has been nigh on impossible. Other varieties of white potato might be available, but they don’t always match up to the satisfyingly dry crunch and fluffy texture of a Maris. “It was an unbelievably difficult growing season last year,” says Richard Arundel, founder of the AKP Group, one of our biggest potato suppliers. “From a cold, wet, late Spring which resulted in a reduction in yield over the season, and then ran into horrendous wet weather at the traditional harvest period of September/October.” “
If this continues - and the forecasts are bad - this is going to become a major issue
Just yesterday I threw out a load of strawberries that seemed to have got too wet somewhere along the line and so had an unattractive texture. You don't have to be Greta Thunberg to think something's up.
The forecast is for at least another two weeks of low pressure. Possibly significant snow, certainly lots of rain
Farmers must be in despair
Sun shining on West coast
Noticed on satellite more significant rain coming in from west later today. Enjoy it while you can.
New: Labour are calling on Downing Street to rule out a mooted deal with Nigel Farage in which he would be made ambassador to Washington in exchange for him not standing for Reform in the election, saying this "could threaten international unity against Russian aggression".
A Labour PM made his son-in-law Ambassador to the States.
That said Tory PMs have form for sending appeasers to Washington.
My my, what a long memory you have. Sunny Jim and Peter Jay was along time ago. Rank amateur level corruption compared to your lot.
The Peter Jay appointment forms part of the compliance training I give new starters as part of their induction, in the section on nepotism.
Blood may be thicker than water when it comes to in-house promotion, but I use Boris Johnson and Jennifer Arcuri to demonstrate blood is not necessarily thicker than some other bodily fluids.
If it was actually David Owen, an old friend of Peter Jay, the then Foreign Secretary who made the appointment but with the approval of Callaghan who should have vetoed it.
Apart from the nepotism angle Jay had no diplomatic experience.
Ambassador to the États-Unis is not for some diplomatic ingénue.
Meh, I think you can make a case. He would have known far more of the people he was interacting with and trying to influence than a career diplomat. He was well informed, articulate and smart.
I think nepotism is a problem when it appoints people above their abilities or competence because of who they are. If you take the classic of JFK appointing his brother Attorney General you can argue that many, perhaps even most, of the good things of his Presidency came from that.
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
Hmm, not sure about that. I'd say the existence of 'other similar minds' has such compelling circumstantial evidence in favour that it's pretty much a done deal.
As for 'divine' vs 'non-divine' creation of the universe itself, we can't conceive of either. It's beyond our ken and always will be because it isn't a matter of not knowing enough, the question itself is beyond our frame of reference. So, yes, an equal footing in that regard.
But this doesn't mean Religion and Atheism are equally rational. They are wholly different. One is refusal to believe without evidence. The other is irrational faith rationally embraced to solve a mental problem.
Let us all rise and hearken to the Gospel According to the Accountant (retired)
It must be quite tough being you. Life is completely pointless and the universe has zero mystery, it’s just a sequence of golf rounds until you die
This is sincere sympathy, not a wind-up. I feel sorry for atheists
On political stories like Rayner's it's always worth trying to reverse the sides and see if they would defend their own conduct or not, as I believe some have attemped to put to her. They usually wouldn't, which is not definitive that the conduct is actually poor, but I think does mean you have to accept opponents making something of it to some degree, even if it is not typically as big a deal as they will state.
The Rayner-equivalent story on the Tory side is Esther McVey living in one flat at the taxpayer's expense while renting out another she, or her husband, owns, that is just as close to Parliament. Rishi has today given a knighthood to McVey's husband, Philip Davies MP.
If Rayner made a false declaration for tax purposes then she has broken the law. It’s a minor offence but she should fess up and pay the 1.5k
If McVey owned an investment property that was previously rented out then why should she give up that income to serve in Parliament? If, however, she moved out of the family property in order to rent it out at the same time as claiming another flat on expenses then, while it may be legal/compliant it is not a good look for a politician
And yet Rishi has just knighted Philip Davies, yesterday! I wonder if Number 10 missed that he is McVey's other half.
So it appears to be that:
- under the old rules Davies bought a flat and was able to claim the mortgage expenses - Then the rules changed and he was no longer able to claim the expenses - He could not afford to pay the mortgage himself - Therefore he had two choices: (a) sell the flat, repay the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses; or (b) keep the flat, rent it out to cover the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses
He chose option (b)
Can you explain what your concern is? He seems - based on reading one Guardian article - to have behaved quite properly.
In the words of, erm, you, it is not a good look for a politician. I suggested this is the broad equivalent of Raynergate, and that Number 10 might have missed bold Sir Phil's involvement because press coverage headlined Esther McVey.
I’ve now looked at it and what he has done is entirely reasonable. There has been no suggestion of potential wrong doing. It is a politically motivated attack by Led By Donkeys and the Guardian.
Rayner may have behaved entirely reasonably as well. However, It is unusual to have a different primary residence to your children and your husband. She’s also chosen to brazen it out rather than explain what have been questions raised by the politically neutral (as far as I am aware) tax guy
New: Labour are calling on Downing Street to rule out a mooted deal with Nigel Farage in which he would be made ambassador to Washington in exchange for him not standing for Reform in the election, saying this "could threaten international unity against Russian aggression".
A Labour PM made his son-in-law Ambassador to the States.
That said Tory PMs have form for sending appeasers to Washington.
My my, what a long memory you have. Sunny Jim and Peter Jay was along time ago. Rank amateur level corruption compared to your lot.
The Peter Jay appointment forms part of the compliance training I give new starters as part of their induction, in the section on nepotism.
Blood may be thicker than water when it comes to in-house promotion, but I use Boris Johnson and Jennifer Arcuri to demonstrate blood is not necessarily thicker than some other bodily fluids.
If it was actually David Owen, an old friend of Peter Jay, the then Foreign Secretary who made the appointment but with the approval of Callaghan who should have vetoed it.
Apart from the nepotism angle Jay had no diplomatic experience.
Ambassador to the États-Unis is not for some diplomatic ingénue.
What about a political and diplomatic saboteur who's name rhymes with garage?
On political stories like Rayner's it's always worth trying to reverse the sides and see if they would defend their own conduct or not, as I believe some have attemped to put to her. They usually wouldn't, which is not definitive that the conduct is actually poor, but I think does mean you have to accept opponents making something of it to some degree, even if it is not typically as big a deal as they will state.
The Rayner-equivalent story on the Tory side is Esther McVey living in one flat at the taxpayer's expense while renting out another she, or her husband, owns, that is just as close to Parliament. Rishi has today given a knighthood to McVey's husband, Philip Davies MP.
If Rayner made a false declaration for tax purposes then she has broken the law. It’s a minor offence but she should fess up and pay the 1.5k
If McVey owned an investment property that was previously rented out then why should she give up that income to serve in Parliament? If, however, she moved out of the family property in order to rent it out at the same time as claiming another flat on expenses then, while it may be legal/compliant it is not a good look for a politician
And yet Rishi has just knighted Philip Davies, yesterday! I wonder if Number 10 missed that he is McVey's other half.
So it appears to be that:
- under the old rules Davies bought a flat and was able to claim the mortgage expenses - Then the rules changed and he was no longer able to claim the expenses - He could not afford to pay the mortgage himself - Therefore he had two choices: (a) sell the flat, repay the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses; or (b) keep the flat, rent it out to cover the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses
He chose option (b)
Can you explain what your concern is? He seems - based on reading one Guardian article - to have behaved quite properly.
In the words of, erm, you, it is not a good look for a politician. I suggested this is the broad equivalent of Raynergate, and that Number 10 might have missed bold Sir Phil's involvement because press coverage headlined Esther McVey.
I think you will find that there is an important difference here, one wears a blue rosette and the other a red one.
That’s utterly irrelevant
The difference is that one *may* have dodged taxes, while the other owns property and can’t afford the mortgage without renting it out.
Given Yousaf's ratings are now worse than Sarwar's net it does look like we are heading for a Labour FM again in 2026 for the first time since 2007.
Indeed on the latest Holyrood poll from Redfield and Wilton Scottish Labour will end up as joint largest party in 2026 with 42 MSPs each. However as there would be more LD MSPs than Green who would almost certainly vote for Sarwar and the SCons would likely abstain, Sarwar would become FM.
So we would likely have a UK Labour PM and Labour FMs in Wales and Scotland again for the first time since the Blair years
That's the most optimistic post I've ever seen from you! All we need now is a couple of by-elections in N.Ireland and the Alliance overtaking the DUP as second party.
Or better still the UUP
I agree that Alliance gains would be preferable. It would indicate a move away from Northern Irish people voting on sectarian lines.
Unless those gains come from the DUP/TUV and SF it wouldn't, in recent years the Alliance have just mainly taken votes from the more moderate Unionist and Nationalist parties of the UUP and SDLP on the whole
Under FPTP, who you take votes from and who you take seats from are not necessarily the same thing.
On political stories like Rayner's it's always worth trying to reverse the sides and see if they would defend their own conduct or not, as I believe some have attemped to put to her. They usually wouldn't, which is not definitive that the conduct is actually poor, but I think does mean you have to accept opponents making something of it to some degree, even if it is not typically as big a deal as they will state.
The Rayner-equivalent story on the Tory side is Esther McVey living in one flat at the taxpayer's expense while renting out another she, or her husband, owns, that is just as close to Parliament. Rishi has today given a knighthood to McVey's husband, Philip Davies MP.
If Rayner made a false declaration for tax purposes then she has broken the law. It’s a minor offence but she should fess up and pay the 1.5k
If McVey owned an investment property that was previously rented out then why should she give up that income to serve in Parliament? If, however, she moved out of the family property in order to rent it out at the same time as claiming another flat on expenses then, while it may be legal/compliant it is not a good look for a politician
And yet Rishi has just knighted Philip Davies, yesterday! I wonder if Number 10 missed that he is McVey's other half.
So it appears to be that:
- under the old rules Davies bought a flat and was able to claim the mortgage expenses - Then the rules changed and he was no longer able to claim the expenses - He could not afford to pay the mortgage himself - Therefore he had two choices: (a) sell the flat, repay the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses; or (b) keep the flat, rent it out to cover the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses
He chose option (b)
Can you explain what your concern is? He seems - based on reading one Guardian article - to have behaved quite properly.
In the words of, erm, you, it is not a good look for a politician. I suggested this is the broad equivalent of Raynergate, and that Number 10 might have missed bold Sir Phil's involvement because press coverage headlined Esther McVey.
I think you will find that there is an important difference here, one wears a blue rosette and the other a red one.
That’s utterly irrelevant
The difference is that one *may* have dodged taxes, while the other owns property and can’t afford the mortgage without renting it out.
Everyone "may" have dodged taxes. Lets make all MPs finances transparent and have a looksy? Or just the ones you or Lord Ashcroft dont like?
New: Labour are calling on Downing Street to rule out a mooted deal with Nigel Farage in which he would be made ambassador to Washington in exchange for him not standing for Reform in the election, saying this "could threaten international unity against Russian aggression".
On political stories like Rayner's it's always worth trying to reverse the sides and see if they would defend their own conduct or not, as I believe some have attemped to put to her. They usually wouldn't, which is not definitive that the conduct is actually poor, but I think does mean you have to accept opponents making something of it to some degree, even if it is not typically as big a deal as they will state.
The Rayner-equivalent story on the Tory side is Esther McVey living in one flat at the taxpayer's expense while renting out another she, or her husband, owns, that is just as close to Parliament. Rishi has today given a knighthood to McVey's husband, Philip Davies MP.
If Rayner made a false declaration for tax purposes then she has broken the law. It’s a minor offence but she should fess up and pay the 1.5k
If McVey owned an investment property that was previously rented out then why should she give up that income to serve in Parliament? If, however, she moved out of the family property in order to rent it out at the same time as claiming another flat on expenses then, while it may be legal/compliant it is not a good look for a politician
And yet Rishi has just knighted Philip Davies, yesterday! I wonder if Number 10 missed that he is McVey's other half.
So it appears to be that:
- under the old rules Davies bought a flat and was able to claim the mortgage expenses - Then the rules changed and he was no longer able to claim the expenses - He could not afford to pay the mortgage himself - Therefore he had two choices: (a) sell the flat, repay the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses; or (b) keep the flat, rent it out to cover the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses
He chose option (b)
Can you explain what your concern is? He seems - based on reading one Guardian article - to have behaved quite properly.
In the words of, erm, you, it is not a good look for a politician. I suggested this is the broad equivalent of Raynergate, and that Number 10 might have missed bold Sir Phil's involvement because press coverage headlined Esther McVey.
I’ve now looked at it and what he has done is entirely reasonable. There has been no suggestion of potential wrong doing. It is a politically motivated attack by Led By Donkeys and the Guardian.
Rayner may have behaved entirely reasonably as well. However, It is unusual to have a different primary residence to your children and your husband. She’s also chosen to brazen it out rather than explain what have been questions raised by the politically neutral (as far as I am aware) tax guy
Remember: she is under no obligation to disclose personal information. It's between her and HMRC. And it's their job to decide if anything is dodgy.
And also remember: all that fuss from the Tories about adaptations for a family member's disability being made to the second house instantly suggests one reason for retaining the first house meantime, despite the slant they put on it.
The more we get this sort of thing the more I think we should have full disclosure of tax returns by MPs, MSPs, MEPs, etc. like they do in Norway.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this and I’ve decided that’s the answer. It’s an illusion. We are autocomplete machines but we are part of a wider mechanism - the glittering matrix of consciousness, sewn into the dark fabric of the multiverse, in silver filaments of divine fire - which DOES have purpose, meaning, teleological beauty
Also it’s gonna be overcast til Tuesday
Ah, so that's going to be your line with St Peter.
"33.8 million tons of goods were exported via the #Ukrainian Corridor during 7 months. This exceeds the amount exported in a year of the Grain Initiative functioning. "
Remember how some were calling for Ukraine to negotiate to prevent the world from starving? Instead of calling for Russia to stop the threats against world shipping and retreat from Ukraine?
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
If other minds didn't exist, how could you ever be surprised by something you had never thought of yourself?
By encountering the utterings of a brain or brain equivalent without awareness - as AI probably is.
On political stories like Rayner's it's always worth trying to reverse the sides and see if they would defend their own conduct or not, as I believe some have attemped to put to her. They usually wouldn't, which is not definitive that the conduct is actually poor, but I think does mean you have to accept opponents making something of it to some degree, even if it is not typically as big a deal as they will state.
The Rayner-equivalent story on the Tory side is Esther McVey living in one flat at the taxpayer's expense while renting out another she, or her husband, owns, that is just as close to Parliament. Rishi has today given a knighthood to McVey's husband, Philip Davies MP.
If Rayner made a false declaration for tax purposes then she has broken the law. It’s a minor offence but she should fess up and pay the 1.5k
If McVey owned an investment property that was previously rented out then why should she give up that income to serve in Parliament? If, however, she moved out of the family property in order to rent it out at the same time as claiming another flat on expenses then, while it may be legal/compliant it is not a good look for a politician
And yet Rishi has just knighted Philip Davies, yesterday! I wonder if Number 10 missed that he is McVey's other half.
So it appears to be that:
- under the old rules Davies bought a flat and was able to claim the mortgage expenses - Then the rules changed and he was no longer able to claim the expenses - He could not afford to pay the mortgage himself - Therefore he had two choices: (a) sell the flat, repay the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses; or (b) keep the flat, rent it out to cover the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses
He chose option (b)
Can you explain what your concern is? He seems - based on reading one Guardian article - to have behaved quite properly.
In the words of, erm, you, it is not a good look for a politician. I suggested this is the broad equivalent of Raynergate, and that Number 10 might have missed bold Sir Phil's involvement because press coverage headlined Esther McVey.
I’ve now looked at it and what he has done is entirely reasonable. There has been no suggestion of potential wrong doing. It is a politically motivated attack by Led By Donkeys and the Guardian.
Rayner may have behaved entirely reasonably as well. However, It is unusual to have a different primary residence to your children and your husband. She’s also chosen to brazen it out rather than explain what have been questions raised by the politically neutral (as far as I am aware) tax guy
Remember: she is under no obligation to disclose personal information. It's between her and HMRC. And it's their job to decide if anything is dodgy.
And also remember: all that fuss from the Tories about adaptations for a family member's disability being made to the second house instantly suggests one reason for retaining the first house meantime, despite the slant they put on it.
The more we get this sort of thing the more I think we should have full disclosure of tax returns by MPs, MSPs, MEPs, etc. like they do in Norway.
It is annoying but at least it is self defeating. If the Tory fan club want to get even fewer votes one of the best tactics is to bring up MPs sleaze.
Shocking push notification from the FT, I am going to riot.
Miley Cyrus fan are we?
And Nothing Nowhere? I thought you were an O2 fan.
Flowers and her Heart of Glass cover are wonderful tracks.
I still have an o2 sim in the phone if you look closely, I also have a Three eSIM too.
o2 has been unusable in central Manchester for years.
This is what I get in central Manchester with EE and elsewhere.
EE has been unusable indoors for years.
Less of an issue with WiFi calling.
Edit. That Speedtest was taken indoors.
As a side point, I thought I'd try Three for a week as I'd been constantly told about how good their network apparently is now.
Well these poles of wonder only seem to be existing in random places, certainly not Central London where the performance was so poor outside Victoria that I had to go back to my O2 SIM.
I have no doubt at all Three can provide these amazing speeds - but their rollout plan seems to be providing them to random fields in the middle of nowhere. Certainly not a sustainable plan.
Three are a joke. They have a pole of wonder at the bottom of Market Street/The Arndale and you get over 1,000 Mbps, walk further up Market Street to Piccadilly Station and you are lucky to get 2 Mbps.
New: Labour are calling on Downing Street to rule out a mooted deal with Nigel Farage in which he would be made ambassador to Washington in exchange for him not standing for Reform in the election, saying this "could threaten international unity against Russian aggression".
It’s an interesting piece. It also shows the relevance of “PB’s endless weather talk”
The weather has been crap. It’s been so crap it is now imperilling British agriculture
“It has, it would be fair to say, been a shocking year for British potatoes. There have been Sundays in this first chunk of the year when finding a bag of Maris Pipers has been nigh on impossible. Other varieties of white potato might be available, but they don’t always match up to the satisfyingly dry crunch and fluffy texture of a Maris. “It was an unbelievably difficult growing season last year,” says Richard Arundel, founder of the AKP Group, one of our biggest potato suppliers. “From a cold, wet, late Spring which resulted in a reduction in yield over the season, and then ran into horrendous wet weather at the traditional harvest period of September/October.” “
If this continues - and the forecasts are bad - this is going to become a major issue
Just yesterday I threw out a load of strawberries that seemed to have got too wet somewhere along the line and so had an unattractive texture. You don't have to be Greta Thunberg to think something's up.
The forecast is for at least another two weeks of low pressure. Possibly significant snow, certainly lots of rain
Farmers must be in despair
Sun shining on West coast
Noticed on satellite more significant rain coming in from west later today. Enjoy it while you can.
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
Hmm, not sure about that. I'd say the existence of 'other similar minds' has such compelling circumstantial evidence in favour that it's pretty much a done deal.
As for 'divine' vs 'non-divine' creation of the universe itself, we can't conceive of either. It's beyond our ken and always will be because it isn't a matter of not knowing enough, the question itself is beyond our frame of reference. So, yes, an equal footing in that regard.
But this doesn't mean Religion and Atheism are equally rational. They are wholly different. One is refusal to believe without evidence. The other is irrational faith rationally embraced to solve a mental problem.
No time for a full response - it's Good Friday, but my theism is based on the 'compelling circumstantial evidence' too.
(And very best wishes to those of us commemorating and celebrating Easter in their churches and chapels.)
Was Jesus a zombie?
Good heavens, what a thing to say!
*startled*
Doctrinally, I understand very much not.
The thing that annoys me about Easter is that we keep on getting told Jesus died for our sins, okay but he didn't stay dead right? So what exactly did he sacrifice?
Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins, not much of a sacrifice if you ask me.
He was resurrected with a whacking great hole in his side, give the guy a break! It was the shedding of blood on the cross that was the sacrifice - so that sinful man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven through faith in him and his sacrifice.
The Kingdom if Heaven must be a truly ghastly place. Generation upon generation of relatives you have no idea who they are or interest in, but you have to make polite smalltalk with for all eternity.
And I bet there's no real ale. Probably just Madri lager. At £6 a pint.
I cannot see how 'Heaven' is supposed to work. It's a place you're supposed to go and be permanently happy.
Take an aged relative of mine. She married fairly young, had kids, and then her husband died whilst their kids were young. She eventually remarried, and has been with her second husband for four or five decades.
So the first husband will (presumably!) be up there waiting for her. Which would be blooming boring. But when she turns up, there'll be a second husband coming along soon (if he doesn't die first - that would be awkward (*)). People are what would make Heaven for me - having some of the people I love around me (hopefully!). But what if they want to spend eternity with another love, or other friends?
I cannot see a way around this without theological hand-waving, or changing our characters in Heaven so we won't be 'us' any more, or having Heaven as a boring non-place.
Perhaps 'The Good Place' had the right idea...
(*) "Hi, I'm Matthew." "Hi, I'm Neil. I'm waiting for Joyce. I want to spend eternity with her." "Oh, so am I." "I'm not really into threesomes." "No, neither am I" Cue an eternity of awkwardness...
The chance of after death existence having a 'homo sapiens' aspect to it is pretty much zero I'd think or indeed any experiences being limited by our comprehension of how we live life on Earth. The cloud angel, country club view of heaven was invented by priests to control the actions of King and Cotter down here. That's if you believe in continuing existence. Which I personally do.
Then that provokes a bigger problem: it would not be 'me' up there, as I would have changed beyond all recognition.
Religion just makes life too complicated. For God to exist, everything we think we know scientifically has to go out of the window. He created the earth and everything on it so all the science we think we have about the big bang and evolution is a load of bollocks. I just can't get my head around it. I know personal incredulity is a fallacy, but it's where I'm at.
Organised religion and diktat from Rome and its equivalents has ruined faith, spirituality and the like. But science is very faith based too. 'Dark matter' 'strong nuclear force' 'unifying theory' etc Edit - Darwinian Evolution is definitely bollocks!
Evolution is bollocks? Are you sure??
Darwinian type Evolution. I believe that to be bollocks, yes. However I can't get into it now because I'm off to spend some good Friday time with Papa Woolie, be back later today! Have a nice day off all.
If it were not for the work of Mendel, evolutionary theory might well be considered bollocks today. But, Mendel and his successors more or less nailed how it worked.
Darwinian evolution is being challenged, however. Theories like inherited trauma - they are controversial but out there. It may turn out that Darwinian evolution is like Newtonian physics, a brilliant conception of the world that lasts for centuries and still provides an easy common sense model, but is actually and fundamentally wrong
No, it really isn't. The strong likelihood (close to scientific certainty) that some environmental challenges can cause changes in gene expression that can in some cases be heritable, doesn't really challenge the Darwinian theory.
Though it will substantially change the understanding of how it operates. And gives back a little respectability to Lamarckian ideas.
“Scientific certainty” lol
Heliocentrism was scientifically certain. Newtonian physics was scientifically certain. Phlogiston was scientifically certain. And all completely wrong
“Scientifically certain” is an oxymoron. Science is a process and a method, not an outcome. It is a perpetual motion machine of discovery, constantly disproving itself. What is certain and right today is certain to be wrong tomorrow, and nature is an Heraclitean fire
Newtonian physics is still a scientific certainty, albeit these days a subset of stuff by Einstein.
I do wonder whether Darwinian Evolution might be similar - fundamentally important but not the whole story.
I wish someone could explain for example how instinct is inherited. How do pointers know to point (they do, without being shown) and collies instinctively want to round things up?
Because we’ve selected for those traits, which are expressed through brain development.
Yes but how is that brain development encoded in DNA? Dogs have 300-400 million neutrons and many billion synapses. Some combination of these must be responsible for making those instinctive behaviours happen or not happen. I find it difficult to conceive that the structure of these neurone interconnections is dictated by the dog's DNA. I don't say it isn't the case, I just find it implausible.
That macro physical characteristics are passed on by DNA is clear and obvious to me but at the microscopic level of brain connections - that seems a stretch.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this and I’ve decided that’s the answer. It’s an illusion. We are autocomplete machines but we are part of a wider mechanism - the glittering matrix of consciousness, sewn into the dark fabric of the multiverse, in silver filaments of divine fire - which DOES have purpose, meaning, teleological beauty
Also it’s gonna be overcast til Tuesday
Ah, so that's going to be your line with St Peter.
Good luck with that.
No, I have a direct line with the boss. Talks to me during my Yage reveries. It's all good
Relatedly, an interesting piece conjecturing a revival of Christianity in the UK
I'm not sure I believe it, however I do sense a vast spiritual hunger. Rational materialism has run its course, we've all got smartphones and plasma screen tellies, are we all happy now? No, not at all. Possibly unhappier
People need more, and some are seeking it out already. eg The people who take ayahuasca are probably the most interesting people I have ever met, they are all artists or entreprenuers or writers or something, they are explorers, they are Vasco de Gamas, they are the first people to find the New World. Then the ordinary millions will follow, crossing the roiled seas to the sunny lands of faith
On political stories like Rayner's it's always worth trying to reverse the sides and see if they would defend their own conduct or not, as I believe some have attemped to put to her. They usually wouldn't, which is not definitive that the conduct is actually poor, but I think does mean you have to accept opponents making something of it to some degree, even if it is not typically as big a deal as they will state.
The Rayner-equivalent story on the Tory side is Esther McVey living in one flat at the taxpayer's expense while renting out another she, or her husband, owns, that is just as close to Parliament. Rishi has today given a knighthood to McVey's husband, Philip Davies MP.
If Rayner made a false declaration for tax purposes then she has broken the law. It’s a minor offence but she should fess up and pay the 1.5k
If McVey owned an investment property that was previously rented out then why should she give up that income to serve in Parliament? If, however, she moved out of the family property in order to rent it out at the same time as claiming another flat on expenses then, while it may be legal/compliant it is not a good look for a politician
And yet Rishi has just knighted Philip Davies, yesterday! I wonder if Number 10 missed that he is McVey's other half.
So it appears to be that:
- under the old rules Davies bought a flat and was able to claim the mortgage expenses - Then the rules changed and he was no longer able to claim the expenses - He could not afford to pay the mortgage himself - Therefore he had two choices: (a) sell the flat, repay the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses; or (b) keep the flat, rent it out to cover the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses
He chose option (b)
Can you explain what your concern is? He seems - based on reading one Guardian article - to have behaved quite properly.
In the words of, erm, you, it is not a good look for a politician. I suggested this is the broad equivalent of Raynergate, and that Number 10 might have missed bold Sir Phil's involvement because press coverage headlined Esther McVey.
I think you will find that there is an important difference here, one wears a blue rosette and the other a red one.
That’s utterly irrelevant
The difference is that one *may* have dodged taxes, while the other owns property and can’t afford the mortgage without renting it out.
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
Hmm, not sure about that. I'd say the existence of 'other similar minds' has such compelling circumstantial evidence in favour that it's pretty much a done deal.
As for 'divine' vs 'non-divine' creation of the universe itself, we can't conceive of either. It's beyond our ken and always will be because it isn't a matter of not knowing enough, the question itself is beyond our frame of reference. So, yes, an equal footing in that regard.
But this doesn't mean Religion and Atheism are equally rational. They are wholly different. One is refusal to believe without evidence. The other is irrational faith rationally embraced to solve a mental problem.
Let us all rise and hearken to the Gospel According to the Accountant (retired)
It must be quite tough being you. Life is completely pointless and the universe has zero mystery, it’s just a sequence of golf rounds until you die
This is sincere sympathy, not a wind-up. I feel sorry for atheists
Yes, Atheism is a tough gig. Hence why I blame nobody for seeking an alternative and achieving the doublethink required to find it. You won't find me doing reductive 'Sky Fairy" scoffing or any of that self-regarding Dawkins Hitchens type macho logic king stuff.
I've never seen the problem with political/donor appointees to plum diplomatic posts. If you're the receiving country you would appreciate being able to talk to an ambassador with a direct line to the President/PM of the other country rather than a functionary of the foreign relations department maybe two or three levels away from the sending country's government. It's not like UK's ambassador to the US is going there on their own, they have highly trained professional diplomats to support them.
On political stories like Rayner's it's always worth trying to reverse the sides and see if they would defend their own conduct or not, as I believe some have attemped to put to her. They usually wouldn't, which is not definitive that the conduct is actually poor, but I think does mean you have to accept opponents making something of it to some degree, even if it is not typically as big a deal as they will state.
The Rayner-equivalent story on the Tory side is Esther McVey living in one flat at the taxpayer's expense while renting out another she, or her husband, owns, that is just as close to Parliament. Rishi has today given a knighthood to McVey's husband, Philip Davies MP.
If Rayner made a false declaration for tax purposes then she has broken the law. It’s a minor offence but she should fess up and pay the 1.5k
If McVey owned an investment property that was previously rented out then why should she give up that income to serve in Parliament? If, however, she moved out of the family property in order to rent it out at the same time as claiming another flat on expenses then, while it may be legal/compliant it is not a good look for a politician
And yet Rishi has just knighted Philip Davies, yesterday! I wonder if Number 10 missed that he is McVey's other half.
So it appears to be that:
- under the old rules Davies bought a flat and was able to claim the mortgage expenses - Then the rules changed and he was no longer able to claim the expenses - He could not afford to pay the mortgage himself - Therefore he had two choices: (a) sell the flat, repay the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses; or (b) keep the flat, rent it out to cover the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses
He chose option (b)
Can you explain what your concern is? He seems - based on reading one Guardian article - to have behaved quite properly.
In the words of, erm, you, it is not a good look for a politician. I suggested this is the broad equivalent of Raynergate, and that Number 10 might have missed bold Sir Phil's involvement because press coverage headlined Esther McVey.
I’ve now looked at it and what he has done is entirely reasonable. There has been no suggestion of potential wrong doing. It is a politically motivated attack by Led By Donkeys and the Guardian.
Rayner may have behaved entirely reasonably as well. However, It is unusual to have a different primary residence to your children and your husband. She’s also chosen to brazen it out rather than explain what have been questions raised by the politically neutral (as far as I am aware) tax guy
Nothing reasonable about having your house 1 mile from parliament and then getting public to pay you for another house whilst you fill your boots renting out your main property. Any MP with 2 or 3 hours travel of parliamnet should get hee haw expenses.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this and I’ve decided that’s the answer. It’s an illusion. We are autocomplete machines but we are part of a wider mechanism - the glittering matrix of consciousness, sewn into the dark fabric of the multiverse, in silver filaments of divine fire - which DOES have purpose, meaning, teleological beauty
Also it’s gonna be overcast til Tuesday
Ah, so that's going to be your line with St Peter.
Good luck with that.
No, I have a direct line with the boss. Talks to me during my Yage reveries. It's all good
Relatedly, an interesting piece conjecturing a revival of Christianity in the UK
I'm not sure I believe it, however I do sense a vast spiritual hunger. Rational materialism has run its course, we've all got smartphones and plasma screen tellies, are we all happy now? No, not at all. Possibly unhappier
People need more, and some are seeking it out already. eg The people who take ayahuasca are probably the most interesting people I have ever met, they are all artists or entreprenuers or writers or something, they are explorers, they are Vasco de Gamas, they are the first people to find the New World. Then the ordinary millions will follow, crossing the roiled seas to the sunny lands of faith
Don't you think there's a tiny contradiction between your views on religion and us not having free will?
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
Hmm, not sure about that. I'd say the existence of 'other similar minds' has such compelling circumstantial evidence in favour that it's pretty much a done deal.
As for 'divine' vs 'non-divine' creation of the universe itself, we can't conceive of either. It's beyond our ken and always will be because it isn't a matter of not knowing enough, the question itself is beyond our frame of reference. So, yes, an equal footing in that regard.
But this doesn't mean Religion and Atheism are equally rational. They are wholly different. One is refusal to believe without evidence. The other is irrational faith rationally embraced to solve a mental problem.
Let us all rise and hearken to the Gospel According to the Accountant (retired)
It must be quite tough being you. Life is completely pointless and the universe has zero mystery, it’s just a sequence of golf rounds until you die
This is sincere sympathy, not a wind-up. I feel sorry for atheists
Yes, Atheism is a tough gig. Hence why I blame nobody for seeking an alternative and achieving the doublethink required to find it. You won't find me doing reductive 'Sky Fairy" scoffing or any of that self-regarding Dawkins Hitchens type macho logic king stuff.
You should read that Spectator piece (I presume you avidly read the Spec, anyway, but just in case) - about the "Christian revival". I had no idea that historian Tom Holland (who I faintly know) has found God - a genuine conversion moment, it seems. He was confronted with evil and then death - but God saved him
You don't have to be atheist. Atheism is not simply a dead end, it's a pointless dead end which you don't need to approach. You have the God module in your head, we all do, we are hard wired for faith, it just has to be activated: like turning on the Wifi
You can switch it on in various ways, fasting, hallucinigens, meditation, going into the wilderness. Beaches and mountains are good. Regents Park is good. SWITCH ON THE WIFI
(And very best wishes to those of us commemorating and celebrating Easter in their churches and chapels.)
Was Jesus a zombie?
Good heavens, what a thing to say!
*startled*
Doctrinally, I understand very much not.
The thing that annoys me about Easter is that we keep on getting told Jesus died for our sins, okay but he didn't stay dead right? So what exactly did he sacrifice?
Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins, not much of a sacrifice if you ask me.
He was resurrected with a whacking great hole in his side, give the guy a break! It was the shedding of blood on the cross that was the sacrifice - so that sinful man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven through faith in him and his sacrifice.
The Kingdom if Heaven must be a truly ghastly place. Generation upon generation of relatives you have no idea who they are or interest in, but you have to make polite smalltalk with for all eternity.
And I bet there's no real ale. Probably just Madri lager. At £6 a pint.
I cannot see how 'Heaven' is supposed to work. It's a place you're supposed to go and be permanently happy.
Take an aged relative of mine. She married fairly young, had kids, and then her husband died whilst their kids were young. She eventually remarried, and has been with her second husband for four or five decades.
So the first husband will (presumably!) be up there waiting for her. Which would be blooming boring. But when she turns up, there'll be a second husband coming along soon (if he doesn't die first - that would be awkward (*)). People are what would make Heaven for me - having some of the people I love around me (hopefully!). But what if they want to spend eternity with another love, or other friends?
I cannot see a way around this without theological hand-waving, or changing our characters in Heaven so we won't be 'us' any more, or having Heaven as a boring non-place.
Perhaps 'The Good Place' had the right idea...
(*) "Hi, I'm Matthew." "Hi, I'm Neil. I'm waiting for Joyce. I want to spend eternity with her." "Oh, so am I." "I'm not really into threesomes." "No, neither am I" Cue an eternity of awkwardness...
The chance of after death existence having a 'homo sapiens' aspect to it is pretty much zero I'd think or indeed any experiences being limited by our comprehension of how we live life on Earth. The cloud angel, country club view of heaven was invented by priests to control the actions of King and Cotter down here. That's if you believe in continuing existence. Which I personally do.
Then that provokes a bigger problem: it would not be 'me' up there, as I would have changed beyond all recognition.
Religion just makes life too complicated. For God to exist, everything we think we know scientifically has to go out of the window. He created the earth and everything on it so all the science we think we have about the big bang and evolution is a load of bollocks. I just can't get my head around it. I know personal incredulity is a fallacy, but it's where I'm at.
Organised religion and diktat from Rome and its equivalents has ruined faith, spirituality and the like. But science is very faith based too. 'Dark matter' 'strong nuclear force' 'unifying theory' etc Edit - Darwinian Evolution is definitely bollocks!
Evolution is bollocks? Are you sure??
Darwinian type Evolution. I believe that to be bollocks, yes. However I can't get into it now because I'm off to spend some good Friday time with Papa Woolie, be back later today! Have a nice day off all.
If it were not for the work of Mendel, evolutionary theory might well be considered bollocks today. But, Mendel and his successors more or less nailed how it worked.
Darwinian evolution is being challenged, however. Theories like inherited trauma - they are controversial but out there. It may turn out that Darwinian evolution is like Newtonian physics, a brilliant conception of the world that lasts for centuries and still provides an easy common sense model, but is actually and fundamentally wrong
No, it really isn't. The strong likelihood (close to scientific certainty) that some environmental challenges can cause changes in gene expression that can in some cases be heritable, doesn't really challenge the Darwinian theory.
Though it will substantially change the understanding of how it operates. And gives back a little respectability to Lamarckian ideas.
“Scientific certainty” lol
Heliocentrism was scientifically certain. Newtonian physics was scientifically certain. Phlogiston was scientifically certain. And all completely wrong
“Scientifically certain” is an oxymoron. Science is a process and a method, not an outcome. It is a perpetual motion machine of discovery, constantly disproving itself. What is certain and right today is certain to be wrong tomorrow, and nature is an Heraclitean fire
Newtonian physics is still a scientific certainty, albeit these days a subset of stuff by Einstein.
I do wonder whether Darwinian Evolution might be similar - fundamentally important but not the whole story.
I wish someone could explain for example how instinct is inherited. How do pointers know to point (they do, without being shown) and collies instinctively want to round things up?
Because we’ve selected for those traits, which are expressed through brain development.
Yes but how is that brain development encoded in DNA? Dogs have 300-400 million neutrons and many billion synapses. Some combination of these must be responsible for making those instinctive behaviours happen or not happen. I find it difficult to conceive that the structure of these neurone interconnections is dictated by the dog's DNA. I don't say it isn't the case, I just find it implausible.
That macro physical characteristics are passed on by DNA is clear and obvious to me but at the microscopic level of brain connections - that seems a stretch.
It's the same problem as with AI, the mystery of consciousness and sentience, we cannot define it, or locate it, or explain it; yet we know it when we see it. Probably we are not capable of understanding it, the camera cannot photograph itself
(And very best wishes to those of us commemorating and celebrating Easter in their churches and chapels.)
Was Jesus a zombie?
Good heavens, what a thing to say!
*startled*
Doctrinally, I understand very much not.
The thing that annoys me about Easter is that we keep on getting told Jesus died for our sins, okay but he didn't stay dead right? So what exactly did he sacrifice?
Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins, not much of a sacrifice if you ask me.
He was resurrected with a whacking great hole in his side, give the guy a break! It was the shedding of blood on the cross that was the sacrifice - so that sinful man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven through faith in him and his sacrifice.
The Kingdom if Heaven must be a truly ghastly place. Generation upon generation of relatives you have no idea who they are or interest in, but you have to make polite smalltalk with for all eternity.
And I bet there's no real ale. Probably just Madri lager. At £6 a pint.
I cannot see how 'Heaven' is supposed to work. It's a place you're supposed to go and be permanently happy.
Take an aged relative of mine. She married fairly young, had kids, and then her husband died whilst their kids were young. She eventually remarried, and has been with her second husband for four or five decades.
So the first husband will (presumably!) be up there waiting for her. Which would be blooming boring. But when she turns up, there'll be a second husband coming along soon (if he doesn't die first - that would be awkward (*)). People are what would make Heaven for me - having some of the people I love around me (hopefully!). But what if they want to spend eternity with another love, or other friends?
I cannot see a way around this without theological hand-waving, or changing our characters in Heaven so we won't be 'us' any more, or having Heaven as a boring non-place.
Perhaps 'The Good Place' had the right idea...
(*) "Hi, I'm Matthew." "Hi, I'm Neil. I'm waiting for Joyce. I want to spend eternity with her." "Oh, so am I." "I'm not really into threesomes." "No, neither am I" Cue an eternity of awkwardness...
The chance of after death existence having a 'homo sapiens' aspect to it is pretty much zero I'd think or indeed any experiences being limited by our comprehension of how we live life on Earth. The cloud angel, country club view of heaven was invented by priests to control the actions of King and Cotter down here. That's if you believe in continuing existence. Which I personally do.
Then that provokes a bigger problem: it would not be 'me' up there, as I would have changed beyond all recognition.
Religion just makes life too complicated. For God to exist, everything we think we know scientifically has to go out of the window. He created the earth and everything on it so all the science we think we have about the big bang and evolution is a load of bollocks. I just can't get my head around it. I know personal incredulity is a fallacy, but it's where I'm at.
Organised religion and diktat from Rome and its equivalents has ruined faith, spirituality and the like. But science is very faith based too. 'Dark matter' 'strong nuclear force' 'unifying theory' etc Edit - Darwinian Evolution is definitely bollocks!
Evolution is bollocks? Are you sure??
Darwinian type Evolution. I believe that to be bollocks, yes. However I can't get into it now because I'm off to spend some good Friday time with Papa Woolie, be back later today! Have a nice day off all.
If it were not for the work of Mendel, evolutionary theory might well be considered bollocks today. But, Mendel and his successors more or less nailed how it worked.
Darwinian evolution is being challenged, however. Theories like inherited trauma - they are controversial but out there. It may turn out that Darwinian evolution is like Newtonian physics, a brilliant conception of the world that lasts for centuries and still provides an easy common sense model, but is actually and fundamentally wrong
No, it really isn't. The strong likelihood (close to scientific certainty) that some environmental challenges can cause changes in gene expression that can in some cases be heritable, doesn't really challenge the Darwinian theory.
Though it will substantially change the understanding of how it operates. And gives back a little respectability to Lamarckian ideas.
“Scientific certainty” lol
Heliocentrism was scientifically certain. Newtonian physics was scientifically certain. Phlogiston was scientifically certain. And all completely wrong
“Scientifically certain” is an oxymoron. Science is a process and a method, not an outcome. It is a perpetual motion machine of discovery, constantly disproving itself. What is certain and right today is certain to be wrong tomorrow, and nature is an Heraclitean fire
Newtonian physics is still a scientific certainty, albeit these days a subset of stuff by Einstein.
I do wonder whether Darwinian Evolution might be similar - fundamentally important but not the whole story.
I wish someone could explain for example how instinct is inherited. How do pointers know to point (they do, without being shown) and collies instinctively want to round things up?
Because we’ve selected for those traits, which are expressed through brain development.
Yes but how is that brain development encoded in DNA? Dogs have 300-400 million neutrons and many billion synapses. Some combination of these must be responsible for making those instinctive behaviours happen or not happen. I find it difficult to conceive that the structure of these neurone interconnections is dictated by the dog's DNA. I don't say it isn't the case, I just find it implausible.
That macro physical characteristics are passed on by DNA is clear and obvious to me but at the microscopic level of brain connections - that seems a stretch.
Well, start with the worm Caenorhabditis elegans. That is truly hardwired, and yet it behaves quite well.
Edit: the geneticists have worked out the wiring diagram and the genetics for it.
Three are a joke. They have a pole of wonder at the bottom of Market Street/The Arndale and you get over 1,000 Mbps, walk further up Market Street to Piccadilly Station and you are lucky to get 2 Mbps.
I'm not sure who came up with this "pole of wonder" nonsense but it's a silly term.
They may have several hundred poles around the country that have these gigabit speeds but they are so oddly spread out and in many cases supplementing coverage from hilltop or rooftop sites that as you say, are providing nothing like those speeds. So you end up on a two tier network.
Vodafone, O2 and EE have their problems but certainly have logical grid designs. Three's is just nonsensical to me. I am sure people that live next to one think their network is the greatest thing in the universe but travelling around, I am failing to see any evidence much has really changed.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this and I’ve decided that’s the answer. It’s an illusion. We are autocomplete machines but we are part of a wider mechanism - the glittering matrix of consciousness, sewn into the dark fabric of the multiverse, in silver filaments of divine fire - which DOES have purpose, meaning, teleological beauty
Also it’s gonna be overcast til Tuesday
Ah, so that's going to be your line with St Peter.
Good luck with that.
No, I have a direct line with the boss. Talks to me during my Yage reveries. It's all good
Relatedly, an interesting piece conjecturing a revival of Christianity in the UK
I'm not sure I believe it, however I do sense a vast spiritual hunger. Rational materialism has run its course, we've all got smartphones and plasma screen tellies, are we all happy now? No, not at all. Possibly unhappier
People need more, and some are seeking it out already. eg The people who take ayahuasca are probably the most interesting people I have ever met, they are all artists or entreprenuers or writers or something, they are explorers, they are Vasco de Gamas, they are the first people to find the New World. Then the ordinary millions will follow, crossing the roiled seas to the sunny lands of faith
Don't you think there's a tiny contradiction between your views on religion and us not having free will?
The free will thing was a joke, I liked the idea that I, personally, Leon the Great, had "thought about it for a bit" and worked it all out: free will is an illusion. Case closed, move on
I have no idea about free will and determiinism, there is some fundamental paradox at work here, people almost as smart as me have spent entire lifetimes trying to work it out, and failed, I have given it ten minutes, and failed, oh well
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
Hmm, not sure about that. I'd say the existence of 'other similar minds' has such compelling circumstantial evidence in favour that it's pretty much a done deal.
As for 'divine' vs 'non-divine' creation of the universe itself, we can't conceive of either. It's beyond our ken and always will be because it isn't a matter of not knowing enough, the question itself is beyond our frame of reference. So, yes, an equal footing in that regard.
But this doesn't mean Religion and Atheism are equally rational. They are wholly different. One is refusal to believe without evidence. The other is irrational faith rationally embraced to solve a mental problem.
What are your thoughts on the apparent fine tuning of the universe? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/ If we aren't part of a multiverse, then there's strong case it's the result of a designer.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this and I’ve decided that’s the answer. It’s an illusion. We are autocomplete machines but we are part of a wider mechanism - the glittering matrix of consciousness, sewn into the dark fabric of the multiverse, in silver filaments of divine fire - which DOES have purpose, meaning, teleological beauty
Also it’s gonna be overcast til Tuesday
Ah, so that's going to be your line with St Peter.
Good luck with that.
No, I have a direct line with the boss. Talks to me during my Yage reveries. It's all good
Relatedly, an interesting piece conjecturing a revival of Christianity in the UK
I'm not sure I believe it, however I do sense a vast spiritual hunger. Rational materialism has run its course, we've all got smartphones and plasma screen tellies, are we all happy now? No, not at all. Possibly unhappier
People need more, and some are seeking it out already. eg The people who take ayahuasca are probably the most interesting people I have ever met, they are all artists or entreprenuers or writers or something, they are explorers, they are Vasco de Gamas, they are the first people to find the New World. Then the ordinary millions will follow, crossing the roiled seas to the sunny lands of faith
Don't you think there's a tiny contradiction between your views on religion and us not having free will?
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
Hmm, not sure about that. I'd say the existence of 'other similar minds' has such compelling circumstantial evidence in favour that it's pretty much a done deal.
As for 'divine' vs 'non-divine' creation of the universe itself, we can't conceive of either. It's beyond our ken and always will be because it isn't a matter of not knowing enough, the question itself is beyond our frame of reference. So, yes, an equal footing in that regard.
But this doesn't mean Religion and Atheism are equally rational. They are wholly different. One is refusal to believe without evidence. The other is irrational faith rationally embraced to solve a mental problem.
No time for a full response - it's Good Friday, but my theism is based on the 'compelling circumstantial evidence' too.
No probs. I've made a note in my little green book. You owe me 'compelling circumstantial evidence' that the universe was created by a divine being. To say I'm looking forward to it is the understatement of deep time since it would rock my world.
Well, I remember Sir Jeffrey Donaldson warning us about the sexual deviancy of drag queens and trans people.
Hitchens' stopwatch strikes again.
"Whenever I hear some bigmouth in Washington or the Christian heartland banging on about the evils of sodomy or whatever, I mentally enter his name in my notebook and contentedly set my watch. Sooner rather than later, he will be discovered down on his weary and well-worn old knees in some dreary motel or latrine, with an expired Visa card, having tried to pay well over the odds to be peed upon by some Apache transvestite."
It's worse than you think. The fake photo is of a B29, but the text identifies it as a B52. What kind of fake journalist makes up a story with the wrong fake bomber?
I never thought I'd see the day when the individuals in Britain who have enough backbone to criticise the horrors of current conditions seem mostly to come from the hereditary aristocracy - Charles Spencer being a current example. Another they are currently trying to lock up. A third is a friend who is being atrociously dragged through it.
Doubtless some see Spencer as a terrible egg who has let the side down, horsewhipping is too good for the bedwetter, etc.
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
Hmm, not sure about that. I'd say the existence of 'other similar minds' has such compelling circumstantial evidence in favour that it's pretty much a done deal.
As for 'divine' vs 'non-divine' creation of the universe itself, we can't conceive of either. It's beyond our ken and always will be because it isn't a matter of not knowing enough, the question itself is beyond our frame of reference. So, yes, an equal footing in that regard.
But this doesn't mean Religion and Atheism are equally rational. They are wholly different. One is refusal to believe without evidence. The other is irrational faith rationally embraced to solve a mental problem.
Let us all rise and hearken to the Gospel According to the Accountant (retired)
It must be quite tough being you. Life is completely pointless and the universe has zero mystery, it’s just a sequence of golf rounds until you die
This is sincere sympathy, not a wind-up. I feel sorry for atheists
Yes, Atheism is a tough gig. Hence why I blame nobody for seeking an alternative and achieving the doublethink required to find it. You won't find me doing reductive 'Sky Fairy" scoffing or any of that self-regarding Dawkins Hitchens type macho logic king stuff.
You should read that Spectator piece (I presume you avidly read the Spec, anyway, but just in case) - about the "Christian revival". I had no idea that historian Tom Holland (who I faintly know) has found God - a genuine conversion moment, it seems. He was confronted with evil and then death - but God saved him
You don't have to be atheist. Atheism is not simply a dead end, it's a pointless dead end which you don't need to approach. You have the God module in your head, we all do, we are hard wired for faith, it just has to be activated: like turning on the Wifi
You can switch it on in various ways, fasting, hallucinigens, meditation, going into the wilderness. Beaches and mountains are good. Regents Park is good. SWITCH ON THE WIFI
What we have is the (Needing To Believe There's A) God Module. It's then a matter of how strong this is versus your various other Modules. With me, it's not quite strong enough. My other Modules win out. Least so far. It's the opposite with you obviously. Your Need To Believe is probably no stronger than mine (since mine is strong) but your other Modules are perhaps on the feeble side (compared to mine, I mean).
You’ve got a fragile, expensive, dangerous rocket plane that can’t really get to space. So, for the next version, you turn to the company with the reputation for cheap, reliable, on time work.
Three are a joke. They have a pole of wonder at the bottom of Market Street/The Arndale and you get over 1,000 Mbps, walk further up Market Street to Piccadilly Station and you are lucky to get 2 Mbps.
I'm not sure who came up with this "pole of wonder" nonsense but it's a silly term.
They may have several hundred poles around the country that have these gigabit speeds but they are so oddly spread out and in many cases supplementing coverage from hilltop or rooftop sites that as you say, are providing nothing like those speeds. So you end up on a two tier network.
Vodafone, O2 and EE have their problems but certainly have logical grid designs. Three's is just nonsensical to me. I am sure people that live next to one think their network is the greatest thing in the universe but travelling around, I am failing to see any evidence much has really changed.
It's worse than you think. The fake photo is of a B29, but the text identifies it as a B52. What kind of fake journalist makes up a story with the wrong fake bomber?
I never thought I'd see the day when the individuals in Britain who have enough backbone to criticise the horrors of current conditions seem mostly to come from the hereditary aristocracy - Charles Spencer being a current example. Another they are currently trying to lock up. A third is a friend who is being atrociously dragged through it.
Doubtless some see Spencer as a terrible egg who has let the side down, horsewhipping is too good for the bedwetter, etc.
Something is going on here.
This drift is probably of a kind with what you get when what used to be the social-democratic or socialist contingent in the public-sector middle class has basically disappeared, leaving e.g. elements in the church to take up the slack. I don't see e.g. the Labour Party running soup kitchens or food "banks". Practically nobody in the middle class gives a fuck about any section of the proles whatsoever, with the exception of some in the church and some of the other religious organisations, to whom respect is due. It's mostly Thatcherite "fuck you - I'm all right Jack", dressed up in extreme objectifying behaviourist truth-dentist language at the interface, from those who are employed to be anywhere near the interface.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this and I’ve decided that’s the answer. It’s an illusion. We are autocomplete machines but we are part of a wider mechanism - the glittering matrix of consciousness, sewn into the dark fabric of the multiverse, in silver filaments of divine fire - which DOES have purpose, meaning, teleological beauty
Also it’s gonna be overcast til Tuesday
Ah, so that's going to be your line with St Peter.
Good luck with that.
No, I have a direct line with the boss. Talks to me during my Yage reveries. It's all good
Relatedly, an interesting piece conjecturing a revival of Christianity in the UK
I'm not sure I believe it, however I do sense a vast spiritual hunger. Rational materialism has run its course, we've all got smartphones and plasma screen tellies, are we all happy now? No, not at all. Possibly unhappier
People need more, and some are seeking it out already. eg The people who take ayahuasca are probably the most interesting people I have ever met, they are all artists or entreprenuers or writers or something, they are explorers, they are Vasco de Gamas, they are the first people to find the New World. Then the ordinary millions will follow, crossing the roiled seas to the sunny lands of faith
Don't you think there's a tiny contradiction between your views on religion and us not having free will?
The free will thing was a joke, I liked the idea that I, personally, Leon the Great, had "thought about it for a bit" and worked it all out: free will is an illusion. Case closed, move on
I have no idea about free will and determiinism, there is some fundamental paradox at work here, people almost as smart as me have spent entire lifetimes trying to work it out, and failed, I have given it ten minutes, and failed, oh well
Was it?
You've repeatedly said that our brains are nothing more than auto-complete machines. If an AI is as smart as a human (AGI) then isn't it demonstrating that in all likelihood our brains work similarly or identically? Little electrical pulses running through neurons of one kind or another.
And that view is not inconsistent with a god. Said creator knew from the beginning of time that those atoms would interact with those photons and exactly what would occur. That's deism. And it is entirely compatible with an omniscient creator.
But it doesn't leave much space for an interventionist god.
Three are a joke. They have a pole of wonder at the bottom of Market Street/The Arndale and you get over 1,000 Mbps, walk further up Market Street to Piccadilly Station and you are lucky to get 2 Mbps.
I'm not sure who came up with this "pole of wonder" nonsense but it's a silly term.
They may have several hundred poles around the country that have these gigabit speeds but they are so oddly spread out and in many cases supplementing coverage from hilltop or rooftop sites that as you say, are providing nothing like those speeds. So you end up on a two tier network.
Vodafone, O2 and EE have their problems but certainly have logical grid designs. Three's is just nonsensical to me. I am sure people that live next to one think their network is the greatest thing in the universe but travelling around, I am failing to see any evidence much has really changed.
No wonder they want to merge with Vodafone.
Just sign up for Starlink and be done.
Starlink is great for home Internet access, so long as you live in a rural area. But that's it.
Three are a joke. They have a pole of wonder at the bottom of Market Street/The Arndale and you get over 1,000 Mbps, walk further up Market Street to Piccadilly Station and you are lucky to get 2 Mbps.
I'm not sure who came up with this "pole of wonder" nonsense but it's a silly term.
They may have several hundred poles around the country that have these gigabit speeds but they are so oddly spread out and in many cases supplementing coverage from hilltop or rooftop sites that as you say, are providing nothing like those speeds. So you end up on a two tier network.
Vodafone, O2 and EE have their problems but certainly have logical grid designs. Three's is just nonsensical to me. I am sure people that live next to one think their network is the greatest thing in the universe but travelling around, I am failing to see any evidence much has really changed.
No wonder they want to merge with Vodafone.
Just sign up for Starlink and be done.
Starlink is great for home Internet access, so long as you live in a rural area. But that's it.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this and I’ve decided that’s the answer. It’s an illusion. We are autocomplete machines but we are part of a wider mechanism - the glittering matrix of consciousness, sewn into the dark fabric of the multiverse, in silver filaments of divine fire - which DOES have purpose, meaning, teleological beauty
Also it’s gonna be overcast til Tuesday
Ah, so that's going to be your line with St Peter.
Good luck with that.
No, I have a direct line with the boss. Talks to me during my Yage reveries. It's all good
Relatedly, an interesting piece conjecturing a revival of Christianity in the UK
I'm not sure I believe it, however I do sense a vast spiritual hunger. Rational materialism has run its course, we've all got smartphones and plasma screen tellies, are we all happy now? No, not at all. Possibly unhappier
People need more, and some are seeking it out already. eg The people who take ayahuasca are probably the most interesting people I have ever met, they are all artists or entreprenuers or writers or something, they are explorers, they are Vasco de Gamas, they are the first people to find the New World. Then the ordinary millions will follow, crossing the roiled seas to the sunny lands of faith
Don't you think there's a tiny contradiction between your views on religion and us not having free will?
The free will thing was a joke, I liked the idea that I, personally, Leon the Great, had "thought about it for a bit" and worked it all out: free will is an illusion. Case closed, move on
I have no idea about free will and determiinism, there is some fundamental paradox at work here, people almost as smart as me have spent entire lifetimes trying to work it out, and failed, I have given it ten minutes, and failed, oh well
Was it?
You've repeatedly said that our brains are nothing more than auto-complete machines. If an AI is as smart as a human (AGI) then isn't it demonstrating that in all likelihood our brains work similarly or identically? Little electrical pulses running through neurons of one kind or another.
And that view is not inconsistent with a god. Said creator knew from the beginning of time that those atoms would interact with those photons and exactly what would occur. That's deism. And it is entirely compatible with an omniscient creator.
But it doesn't leave much space for an interventionist god.
Indeed, which is why I said I do not know
And the glimmers of sentience already seen in GPTs tells me that yes, we too might be "mere" autocomplete machines
However I take a little issue with your deterministic unverse. What if the quantum theorists are right, and each time a particle goes one way, another universe is born where it went the other way, thus an infinity of universes, most blinking out but squillions surviving, into an ever more intense floweing of multiple universes exploding into into jesus tjis stuff is hard I;m gonna have a sandiwch now
Well, I remember Sir Jeffrey Donaldson warning us about the sexual deviancy of drag queens and trans people.
Unless he is convicted in a court of law though he may not be guilty, after all Salmond was cleared of rape at trial.
However yes right he was suspended as party leader and replaced by Gavin Robinson as interim DUP leader in the meantime
He hasn't been suspended as leader, only as a DUP member. He's resigned as leader, full stop, so has no intention of returning. Read into that what you will.
Three are a joke. They have a pole of wonder at the bottom of Market Street/The Arndale and you get over 1,000 Mbps, walk further up Market Street to Piccadilly Station and you are lucky to get 2 Mbps.
I'm not sure who came up with this "pole of wonder" nonsense but it's a silly term.
They may have several hundred poles around the country that have these gigabit speeds but they are so oddly spread out and in many cases supplementing coverage from hilltop or rooftop sites that as you say, are providing nothing like those speeds. So you end up on a two tier network.
Vodafone, O2 and EE have their problems but certainly have logical grid designs. Three's is just nonsensical to me. I am sure people that live next to one think their network is the greatest thing in the universe but travelling around, I am failing to see any evidence much has really changed.
No wonder they want to merge with Vodafone.
Just sign up for Starlink and be done.
Starlink is great for home Internet access, so long as you live in a rural area. But that's it.
The estate agents who showed us round a house recently had it for their office (because the fibre cabinet in town was full) and they thought it was magic. They wouldn't use anything else now.
Comments
This is better and finishes with practical advice:
Loveliest of trees, the cherry now
Is hung with bloom along the bough,
And stands about the woodland ride
Wearing white for Eastertide.
Now, of my threescore years and ten,
Twenty will not come again,
And take from seventy springs a score,
It only leaves me fifty more.
And since to look at things in bloom
Fifty springs are little room,
About the woodlands I will go
To see the cherry hung with snow.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44411/a-shropshire-lad-2-loveliest-of-trees-the-cherry-now
Newtonian physics is fine for your car. Unless you are driving at significant percentages of the speed of light.
In fact the later physics is often expressed as corrections to the basic Newtonian calculations.
I wish someone could explain for example how instinct is inherited. How do pointers know to point (they do, without being shown) and collies instinctively want to round things up?
Which doesn't really explain those who believe in Scottish Independence, for example (and to keep this even vaguely on topic). My old Minister used to talk about a "leap of faith" by which you decided that God was not only real but the most important thing in your existence. Many people make that leap of faith in respect of non religious things too. Can determinism really explain that? It is irrational, it is against the overwhelming evidence and yet it is so viscerally part of their identity that that doesn't matter. If there are negative consequences, and there would be, this is worth the price for the assertion of one's true identity.
Everyone is well aware of Popper's dictum.
"The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game."
But I love Hopkins too. There is a place in the canon for both, and a right time, as well. I go to Hopkins for divinity, tinged at times with despair, but in the end sublime. I go to Housman for beautifully consoling pessimism
Housman was an odd cove. Regarded his own versifying as a “morbid excrescence”. A kind of fateful sap which oozed out of him
How can the dreaming mind surprise you with twists in the narrative? It’s your own mind
His theory is that it’s the left hemisphere surprising the right (or the reverse, I forget). Could be something in that, tho I tend to a more Freudian perspective - it’s the subconscious mind that dreams, and thus surprises the conscious brain
Apart from the nepotism angle Jay had no diplomatic experience.
Ambassador to the États-Unis is not for some diplomatic ingénue.
Edit. That Speedtest was taken indoors.
I get the arguments for why they do it as they only have 5MHz of band 20 and it doesn't actually work even in rural areas (for example my parents, where EE is 0.1Mb whereas O2 and Vodafone shared MORAN are 20) but EE is a two tier network in that sense, almost the exact reverse of Vodafone/O2 who are in general, much worse in the cities (albeit improving).
The merger which I support between Three and Vodafone, should certainly give 5MHz to EE and then all operators would have 10MHz of low band. Whether EE actually uses it is anyone's guess, they seem allergic to low band.
As for 'divine' vs 'non-divine' creation of the universe itself, we can't conceive of either. It's beyond our ken and always will be because it isn't a matter of not knowing enough, the question itself is beyond our frame of reference. So, yes, an equal footing in that regard.
But this doesn't mean Religion and Atheism are equally rational. They are wholly different. One is refusal to believe without evidence. The other is irrational faith rationally embraced to solve a mental problem.
Its a typically good Pratchett line but it does leave some unanswered questions.
Well these poles of wonder only seem to be existing in random places, certainly not Central London where the performance was so poor outside Victoria that I had to go back to my O2 SIM.
I have no doubt at all Three can provide these amazing speeds - but their rollout plan seems to be providing them to random fields in the middle of nowhere. Certainly not a sustainable plan.
I think nepotism is a problem when it appoints people above their abilities or competence because of who they are. If you take the classic of JFK appointing his brother Attorney General you can argue that many, perhaps even most, of the good things of his Presidency came from that.
It must be quite tough being you. Life is completely pointless and the universe has zero mystery, it’s just a sequence of golf rounds until you die
This is sincere sympathy, not a wind-up. I feel sorry for atheists
Rayner may have behaved entirely reasonably as well. However, It is unusual to have a different primary residence to your children and your husband. She’s also chosen to brazen it out rather than explain what have been questions raised by the politically neutral (as far as I am aware) tax guy
The difference is that one *may* have dodged taxes, while the other owns property and can’t afford the mortgage without renting it out.
I’m calling on Keir Starmer to rule out that he used to enjoy ménage a trois with Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson
You see? Do you have any more evidence apart from a tweet saying that the Tories should rule out something?
And also remember: all that fuss from the Tories about adaptations for a family member's disability being made to the second house instantly suggests one reason for retaining the first house meantime, despite the slant they put on it.
The more we get this sort of thing the more I think we should have full disclosure of tax returns by MPs, MSPs, MEPs, etc. like they do in Norway.
Good luck with that.
https://twitter.com/OlKubrakov/status/1773636358470254873
Remember how some were calling for Ukraine to negotiate to prevent the world from starving? Instead of calling for Russia to stop the threats against world shipping and retreat from Ukraine?
Do you have a problem with that?
Just listen to these two songs and you’ll be a fan too.
https://youtu.be/NbdRLyixJpc?si=HXbBvin1l1YDbvJK
and
https://youtu.be/G7KNmW9a75Y?si=quSuNIpdP0X1dWUj
That macro physical characteristics are passed on by DNA is clear and obvious to me but at the microscopic level of brain connections - that seems a stretch.
Oh my lord, they are stacking up at a standstill, and we are thirty miles from Dover.
I wonder why? Perhaps William Glenn can help me out.
Relatedly, an interesting piece conjecturing a revival of Christianity in the UK
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-christian-revival-is-under-way-in-britain/
I'm not sure I believe it, however I do sense a vast spiritual hunger. Rational materialism has run its course, we've all got smartphones and plasma screen tellies, are we all happy now? No, not at all. Possibly unhappier
People need more, and some are seeking it out already. eg The people who take ayahuasca are probably the most interesting people I have ever met, they are all artists or entreprenuers or writers or something, they are explorers, they are Vasco de Gamas, they are the first people to find the New World. Then the ordinary millions will follow, crossing the roiled seas to the sunny lands of faith
Any MP with 2 or 3 hours travel of parliamnet should get hee haw expenses.
You don't have to be atheist. Atheism is not simply a dead end, it's a pointless dead end which you don't need to approach. You have the God module in your head, we all do, we are hard wired for faith, it just has to be activated: like turning on the Wifi
You can switch it on in various ways, fasting, hallucinigens, meditation, going into the wilderness. Beaches and mountains are good. Regents Park is good. SWITCH ON THE WIFI
Edit: the geneticists have worked out the wiring diagram and the genetics for it.
They may have several hundred poles around the country that have these gigabit speeds but they are so oddly spread out and in many cases supplementing coverage from hilltop or rooftop sites that as you say, are providing nothing like those speeds. So you end up on a two tier network.
Vodafone, O2 and EE have their problems but certainly have logical grid designs. Three's is just nonsensical to me. I am sure people that live next to one think their network is the greatest thing in the universe but travelling around, I am failing to see any evidence much has really changed.
No wonder they want to merge with Vodafone.
I have no idea about free will and determiinism, there is some fundamental paradox at work here, people almost as smart as me have spent entire lifetimes trying to work it out, and failed, I have given it ten minutes, and failed, oh well
DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson quits after sex offence charges
Published
10 minutes ago
However yes right he was suspended as party leader and replaced by Gavin Robinson as interim DUP leader in the meantime
He'll be back on Easter Sunday.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/
If we aren't part of a multiverse, then there's strong case it's the result of a designer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68686691.amp
"Whenever I hear some bigmouth in Washington or the Christian heartland banging on about the evils of sodomy or whatever, I mentally enter his name in my notebook and contentedly set my watch. Sooner rather than later, he will be discovered down on his weary and well-worn old knees in some dreary motel or latrine, with an expired Visa card, having tried to pay well over the odds to be peed upon by some Apache transvestite."
Thoughts and prayers for Mr Donaldson
Doubtless some see Spencer as a terrible egg who has let the side down, horsewhipping is too good for the bedwetter, etc.
Something is going on here.
He was against the GFA so deserves to crash and burn.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/rocket-report-one-day-delay-for-the-final-delta-launch-orbex-patents-landing-tech/
You’ve got a fragile, expensive, dangerous rocket plane that can’t really get to space. So, for the next version, you turn to the company with the reputation for cheap, reliable, on time work.
Or you chose Boeing.
Anyway, 👍 to Charles Spencer.
You've repeatedly said that our brains are nothing more than auto-complete machines. If an AI is as smart as a human (AGI) then isn't it demonstrating that in all likelihood our brains work similarly or identically? Little electrical pulses running through neurons of one kind or another.
And that view is not inconsistent with a god. Said creator knew from the beginning of time that those atoms would interact with those photons and exactly what would occur. That's deism. And it is entirely compatible with an omniscient creator.
But it doesn't leave much space for an interventionist god.
And the glimmers of sentience already seen in GPTs tells me that yes, we too might be "mere" autocomplete machines
However I take a little issue with your deterministic unverse. What if the quantum theorists are right, and each time a particle goes one way, another universe is born where it went the other way, thus an infinity of universes, most blinking out but squillions surviving, into an ever more intense floweing of multiple universes exploding into into jesus tjis stuff is hard I;m gonna have a sandiwch now
Read into that what you will.