gross inequality

Lately our local council has been conducting "clean-ups"- special removal of household waste. And so piles of "waste" - furniture, electrical goods, some building materials, etc - appear fleetingly on footpaths outside homes awaiting pick up and disposal.

One interesting outcome is the number of people scavenging through these streetside piles of discarded items looking for items they can use - building materials, scrap metal, furniture and toys that can be repaired, etc.

It's encouraging that some of the "rubbish" is recycled and re-used, but it points up the fact that our affluent society discards what would be treasured in a poorer society. Somehow we have reached a stage where either:

• we are so affluent we can afford to jettison products before their useful life ends because we want to upgrade to a more fashionable or better featured product, or
• we buy poor quality products that need replacing too quickly.

It all leaves a sour taste. There is such inequality in the world that we get to spend money on less-than-necessary stuff that we'll junk all too soon, while elsewhere people starve or struggle.

Then comes news of another burden our western society is placing on poorer countries. I have read in the past how subsistence farmers can be trapped into converting to cash crops, and then fall victim to fluctuating prices, uncertain markets and rip-off practices, and end up worse off than before.

Now it is being reported that the increased interest in biofuels in rich western countries, to prop up our petrol habits, is resulting in some former food crops having greater value as fuels, thus raising the price of food. Experts are predicting that, while many farmers may benefit financially as a result, many of the world's poorest may find foods becoming priced beyond their means.

Our western society already has en environmental footprint many times what the world can bear. Here is another way we impose ourselves on the more powerless, by denying them a productive life to feed our insatiable lust for self comfort.

George W Bush once famously said that the "American way of life is not negotiable". But unless we create some miracles of energy, water and food production and usage, the only choices will be for all of us in the west to accept a lower material standard of living, or cause great hardship and suffering to those worse off than ourselves.

Not a nice message, but necessary to consider.

listen

I read this in a book recently, based on a study of teenage prostitutes in San Francisco:

"When asked what they lacked at home that caused them to run away, the girls' answers came down almost universally to three words: 'Someone to listen'."

who believes what, who doesn't give a zot?

Despite the efforts of some high profile atheists in the English speaking world, the majority of the world's 6 billion people (92% according to Adherents.com) still believe in God, or at least follow a religion.

The best figures available (again from Adherents.com, supported by Religious Tolerance.org and others) indicates that the beliefs with the largest number of adherents are 1. Christianity (2.1m), 2. Islam (1.2-1.5m) and 3. Hinduism (0.8-0.9m). Non religious tally about 0.8-1.1m, but half of these believe in God but don't follow a religion, and half are non-believers.

This much is fairly clear (although the exact estimates of numbers vary a little). But who is growing fastest? The best estimates seem to indicate that, of the major religions, Islam is growing faster than the world's population growth, Christianity is growing at close to the world growth rate, Hinduism is static and unbelief is slowly declining. Projecting forwards, it is estimated by some that Islam will pass Christianity as the worlds largest religion sometime in the 22nd century.

However a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald, quoting historian Philip Jenkins, suggests these projections fail to account for one of the major factors in religious growth - population growth.

In his books The Next Christendom (2002) and The New Faces of Christianity (2006), Jenkins argues that population growth in the growing Christian parts of Africa, South America and Asia together with declining growth rates in many Muslim communities in the Middle East and in Europe, will change this picture.

Christians south of the equator find the agricultural, poor, sometimes oppressed and persecuted world of the Bible, with its un-modern emphasis on spirits and miracles, very familiar, and take to it more easily than sophisticated westerners often do.

Thus he concludes that the Christianity of the "south" will be remain more supernatural, traditional, yet socially radical, than the familiar Christianity of the west. And he suggests southern Christianity, already dominant numerically, will become more and more influential.

At the same time, he notes a dramatic fall in birth rates in some Islamic countries (e.g. from 6 to 2 births per woman in Iran between 1986 and 2000), and suggests this will reduce religious growth rates and lead to a modification of belief and attitudes.

aiding and a-betting

Photo: Flickr

Some of Sydney's poorer families are spending huge proportions of their disposable income on gambling, a new report reveals.

In Fairfield in Sydney's southwest, the average annual household income in 2006 was $47,500. Of this, about $3,180 (6.7%) was considered to be "disposable" (i.e. available after necessities like food, rent, clothing, etc, were paid for). And of this, a huge 78% or $2,484 was spent on poker machines. I'm guessing some of the remaining was spent on other forms of gambling, such as lotteries, off-course horse race betting, etc.

Other suburbs had lower levels of gambling (30-50% of disposable incomes), though this may not indicate lower expenditure on pokies, but higher disposable incomes.

Almost a decade ago, annual expenditure on gambling was estimated at about $14bn, or $1000 per adult, and total stakes were about $100bn. Significant social problems, including compulsive and excessive gambling, depression and suicide, significant involvement of organised crime, and corruption of police and government, have been identified by Government inquiries.

So it is all big business. Little wonder that the two current operators of poker machines feel the heat when just one Australian state (Victoria) plans to open the market up to other companies and apply new forms of regulation to the gambling industry.

At present, all state, territory and the Commonwealth Governments are controlled by the Australian Labor Party, which supposedly represents the interests of "ordinary working families". Yet these same families are the hardest hit by the slow increase in gambling outlets, and the rich owners are the main beneficiaries. Governments gain enormous revenues from taxes on gambling.

I don't think many people seriously suggest restricting gambling opportunities to any great extent, but the whole thing still looks like it benefits the rich and the politicians more than the people. One can't help feeling there must be a better way to supply this service.

the high cost of pleasure

A report just released shows that alcohol, tobacco and illegal drug use cost Australia $56bn in 2004/5, up more than 50% in 6 years. That's almost $3,000 for every Australian. Tobacco accounts for more than half of the costs.

The costs come from illness, premature deaths, lost productivity, crime and accidents.

Read the sorry story in the Sydney Morning Herald and news.com.au.

stonehenge secrets to be revealed?

Photo: Morguefile

Stonehenge has long fascinated people. Why was it built? How was it done?

Stonehenge was built in several stages. Before 3000 BCE, earthworks and timber posts were constructed. About 2500 BCE, the first stones (the smaller bluestones, weighing about 5 tons each) were transported 380 km from Wales, probably by sea, and erected. Over the next few centuries, the bluestones were re-arranged and the massive sarsen stones were transported from 20 km away and erected.

It is generally accepted that Stonehenge had an astronomical purpose and a religious or cultic purpose - with ancient societies so dependent on weather, the two purposes may well have merged. However recently, experts have proposed another purpose - as a centre of healing (the bluestone was believed to have healing properties).

And so the first archaeological dig within Stonehenge in 40 years is commencing, with a pit being excavated to try to find bluestone chips which it is believed may have once covered the whole site, and organic material under one of the bluestones to determine an accurate date for its erection.

You can read all about the excavation, and keep up with progress, on this BBC TV site, and read background information on this English Heritage site.

the good, the bad and the ugly

Religion can bring out the best, and unfortunately the worst, in people ....

the good

The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported on Catherine Hamlin and her late husband Reg, both doctors, who have given the entire working lives helping women in Ethiopia who suffer from terrible birth injuries.

Often giving birth at a very young age, and in unhealthy conditions without medical help, these girls suffer from incontinence caused by the injuries (fistulas), which makes them socially ostracised. The Hamlins performed thousands of operation to restore good health since they went to Africa in the 1960s.

Several Fistula hospitals have been built, and Catherine, now 84, is leading a campaign to train and send out Ethiopian midwives to villages all over the country. The couple's motivation came from the words of Jesus: "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." Catherine says: "I do believe this is a God-given job".

the bad

The same issue of the SMH reported on a christian school in Australia which has been accused of defrauding the Government of $2M by falsifying enrolments to attract greater subsidies.

I won't give any further details because I don't want to be a gossip, and because the matter has not been resolved legally, but reportedly the principal has been sacked and the school closed.

These things just shouldn't happen. We christians need to learn that the ends never justify bad means, and that if we trust God, we should never need to cut corners.

the ugly

Christians face persecution from other religions in many places over the world:

• In Sri Lanka, a Christian pastor was shot dead in February, and since then a "wave" of attacks, including burning a church down, attacks by armed mobs, stony and threats, have been made against Christians.
• Violence against Christians in India is increasing, according to a UN representative; in many cases police are complicit or turning a blind eye. Hindu extremists have reacted in recent years to the conversion of former Hindus to Christianity - efforts to free the low Dalit caste from oppression have been particularly effective and resented.
• In Palestine, itself suffering in the ongoing "war" between Islamic militants and Israel, Christians have been murdered abused and intimidated, leading to an exodus of Christians from the country.
• Christians in Iran face imprisonment, harassment and discrimination in Iran, despite being guaranteed religious freedom in law.
• A recent court ruling in Malaysia that a woman did not have the right to convert from Islam to another religion has alarmed religious minorities in that country.

We in the west need to be careful about being too judgmental about these problems - after all similar acts are in our heritage. Humility and tolerance all round would be a start!

Sources for information include Christian Solidarity Worldwide, International Christian Concern, United Nations and Amnesty International.

earth hour, 2008

Last year, Sydney switched off many its lights as people joined in the first Earth Hour.

This year, cities and smaller settlements from scores of countries joined in. By all accounts it has been a great success. It's only a symbolic event, but awareness and willingness to change are the first steps.

Sydney city centre during Earth Hour. (Photo: Sydney Morning Herald)

Power generation represents one major source of carbon emissions (I've seen figures like 30%, but it would surely vary a lot), so cutting electricity usage by 5%, as was estimated in Sydney, is only token, but still symbolic.

Earth Hour at the local Anglican church - learning how to make simple changes
- when will someone invent a candle-powered data projector? : )

Of course the challenge is to turn this growing public goodwill into effective action, something our politicians often seem to struggle with. There are so many who say how large the problem is, but the economic costs of not acting will be even greater - the Stern report and other sources quoted by the European Union estimate that the cost of not acting now on climate change will be about 5-20% of global GDP, whereas the cost of acting will be less than 1% of GDP.

"All" it will take is for all of us to be willing to vote for, and continue to support, politicians who will make the painful decisions that will cost us now, to save our children and grandchildren far more. Surely we can do that much?

new generations and religious belief

Some recent studies have given interesting insights into the impact of religious belief on younger Australians.

One study by the Australian Catholic and Monash universities found the following beliefs among Aussie teenagers (aged 13 to 17):

• 47% said they were Christians, although only 17% were active in their faith,
• 31% had no religious belief,
• 15% had new age beliefs, and
• 7% had other beliefs.

The same study also found that "those with serious spiritual and religious beliefs were likely to donate more money, participate more in their communities and be more concerned about their society than their non-religious counterparts."

The press release for the study says: "Noting that strong engagement with a belief system is related to good citizenship, the authors pose the question: where will young people of the future learn civic values and a commitment to the common good? Who, apart from parents, is going to pass these values on to them and lead them to participate in community service?"

A University of Queensland study has found that only 8% of young adults attend church weekly. Among young adults, "Moving away from traditional religious beliefs to trendy, self-focused religions and spirituality is not making young adults happier."

Causes of lower happiness include greater risk of poor mental health and anti-social behaviour, and higher levels of anxiety and depression. "Their focus on self-fulfillment and self-improvement and the lack of emphasis on others' wellbeing appears to have the potential to undermine a person's mental health and social relationships.”

one Flew out of the cuckoo's nest?

Whatever famous people do is news. And if a famous person makes a spectacular change of direction, others take notice. So when longtime atheist and philosopher, Antony Flew, said a few years ago that he was re-considering whether there is a God, people reacted.

Flew, the son of a British clergyman, had studied at Oxford and participated in the Socratic Society, a philosophical discussion group founded by famous christian, CS Lewis. Flew embraced atheism, and had a long and distinguished career as a philosopher in several British universities, and as an author. While never as strongly anti-religion as some well known atheists today, Flew had represented atheism in debates and discussions, and was possibly the premier philosophical atheist of the English speaking world.

So when Flew spoke of his doubts about atheism, Christian friends who had been discussing these matters with him for years continued the discussion. Atheist, Richard Carrier, wrote him several letters urging him to hold the atheist line. Prominent christians and atheists (perhaps foolishly) made claims and counter claims about Flew's "real" views, and Flew himself gave somewhat enigmatic replies.

Nevertheless, for a while, it seemed that Flew had heeded Carrier's pleas, and ceased to question his disbelief, but late last year, Flew dropped a bombshell. His latest book was released (he is co-author) and it is titled "There is a God".

Christians welcomed it and atheists were shocked. Amazingly (perhaps) most of the discussion since then has not been on the merits of the case Flew presents for his change of mind, but whether he was of sound mind. Based mostly on an interview Flew gave to a New York Times reporter, atheists argued that their former spokesperson was confused, misled by christians, failing in memory and possibly senile. Accusations that the book was not Flew's writing, but someone else's released under Flew's name, were made, only to be rebutted by Flew - most of the thoughts were his, he said, and most of the words were his co-author's.

It does seem that Flew's memory and strength are failing - he admits it himself (he is now in his 80s) - but it also seems certain that he has changed his views. He has always said that he was not a dogmatic atheist, he would follow wherever the evidence led him, and that he regularly reviewed his beliefs. Many say this, but it seems he actually believes it! Whatever the merits or otherwise of his reasons, it seems arrogant and insensitive of atheists to attack his integrity rather than address his arguments.

So what are the arguments that convinced him? I haven't read the book yet, but reviews indicate the main reasons were the fact that nature (our universe) exists, that nature obeys such rational and well-ordered laws, and that human beings are so rational and purpose driven. He concludes that “the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence”.

Currently he is unwilling to believe in any established religion (he describes himself as a deist - someone who believes in a God who is not active in the world), but he says that christianity is the best candidate and is currently reviewing the evidence for it. He has included in an appendix a discussion of the resurrection of Jesus (a subject he has many times debated with christians), written by New Testament scholar NT Wright.

Cuckoos are birds which lay their eggs in other birds' nests, so they don't actually have nests of their own. Has Antony Flew finally found his true home?

Read about the book There is a God, a review of the book by a christian, the interview in the New York Times, comments by Richard Carrier and comments by another christian..

death of a great pioneer

Larry Norman, pioneer christian musician, died early this week at age 61.

I was a Larry Norman fan. In the 1960s, when rock music was in one of its most innovative phases, with great artists like the Beatles, Dylan, Van Morrison, Yes, Jethro Tull, the Beach Boys, Eric Clapton, Jefferson Airplane, etc, christian music was back in the 1950s, with some wimpish gospel country sort of stuff. (I guess there was some good black gospel, but I never heard it.)

Enter Larry Norman, with some good, though not great music, but with superbly crafted words and attitude. He blazed the way for others to follow (though I'm pretty sure he would have hated the too nice, predictable, middle-of-the-road and big money thing christian music has become). He became a leader in the post-hippie Jesus movement and christian counter-culture. But in the end, his attitude probably brought him undone, as he was difficult to get on with (they say) and he alienated the christian establishment. In the past two decades, he was often badly unwell and he didn't produce much music of note.

Here's a sample of his lyrics, illustrating his blend of faith and politics (it's from "The Great American Novel" on the 1972 album "Only Visiting This Planet", but it some of it sounds eerily current):

you kill a black man at midnight just for talking to your daughter
then you make his wife your mistress and you leave her without water
and the sheet you wear upon your face is the sheet your children sleep on
at every meal you say a prayer that you don't believe but still you keep on

and your money says "in God we trust", but its against the law to pray in school
you say we beat the russians to the moon, and i say you starved your children to do it

you are far across the ocean in a war that's not your own
and while you're winning theirs you're gonna lose the one at home
do you really think the only way to bring about the peace
is to sacrifice your children and kill all your enemies

you say all men are equal, all men are brothers
then why are the rich more equal than others
don't ask me for the answers i've only got one
that a man leaves his darkness when he follows the son

Farewell Larry, I'll see you "in another land".

Read an obituary here and the notice on his website.

super-size me - and my ambulance

Obesity is increasing! One not so little indication of this is that the state of New South Wales is doubling (from 3 to 6) its fleet of "mega-lift ambulances", which are designed to carry people weighing more than 180 kgs and too large to fit in a normal ambulance.

It is estimated that the economic cost of obesity to the Australian health system is about $873 million per year.

Read the Sydney Morning Herald report here.

a well documented miracle?

In August last year (miracles happen?) I reported several cases of apparent healing miracles. I have done a little more checking up of one of these, and found some independent news reports.

The case concerned a Florida USA heart specialist and a man who failed to respond to emergency treatment after a massive heart attack, and was pronounced dead. But after a "voice" in his head told him to pray for the man, the heart specialist did so and the man revived.

The apparent miracle was first recorded by the International Press Association and on several christian websites, including the World Christian Doctors Network (which gave no details), and ASSIST. But when I found that some people won't accept a miracle account from a christian source, I checked out some secular accounts - the American College of Radiology, Fox News WSVN7, Florida, Fox News and Palm Beach Daily News archive.

These accounts give some extra information (although the reporting is not always clear) and include an interview with the healed man. I am trying to find further info to provide further verification.

Please let us know you've visited, and tell us what you think, by leaving a comment using the link below.

sorry

I have blogged before (don't drink the water) about the poor treatment received by Australia's indigenous peoples at the hands of the European settlers (or should we call them "invaders"?) over two centuries. One of the grossest injustices was the forced removal of children from parents over the first three quarters of the 20th century.

It has been recognised for some time that reconciliation is needed, and one of the things most sought by the indigenous people was an apology from the Government - the simple word "sorry".

The Government has baulked at this for some time, but last November a new Government was elected, and today, to the joy of most indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, apologised and said "sorry". And he did it so well, sincerely, humanely and without qualification.

There are many who believe and hope that aboriginal Australians can now enter a new era as a result. It has been a good day for Australia.

Read a news report about the Prime Minister's apology.

hate, hate, hate?

Are we getting angrier and more hateful? Or have we always been the same? See what you think about these three examples .....

hate 1

Christians are supposed to be following a religion of love and forgiveness, but sometimes they seem to forget this. One example of this is the homophobic behaviour of some American Christians. It seems that some US Christians' hatred of gays over-rides Jesus' teaching on loving even your enemies.

Some years ago, I saw (I think on a Michael Moore TV show) a funeral of a gay man who had died of AIDS. Standing across the road was a pack of Christians with signs saying hateful (and I believe inaccurate) things like "God hates faggots" and "AIDS cures homosexuality". It made me feel angry and disgusted at the insensitivity and the distortion of Jesus' teachings.

Just last week, I saw something almost as bad - a young Christian girl responding to actor Heath Ledger's death by arguing he was in hell because he played a gay man in the film "Brokeback Mountain".

Regardless of whether we think homosexual behaviour is acceptable to God or not, it seems these people have missed the point, and their actions are promoting hatred rather than God's good news.

hate 2

Militant atheism has become more prominent in recent years, possibly partly in reaction to the Christian hatred reported above. But unfortunately it too has led to a rise of intolerance and even hatred.

Go to an atheist website or read the posts on an atheist forum, and you may find a lot that is unattractive and even nasty. Christians are "delusional" to hold the beliefs they do and they use no logic, so rude and confrontational behaviour is justified against them. Try to mount a logical argument against these views and you'll likely find your argument dismissed in derogatory terms, with very little logic and evidence. Their view appears to have become as much an item of blind faith as the religious views they are reacting against.

Some enthusiasts seem to be itching to go further. Here are a few quotes:

• "I feel that derision is a more powerful rhetorical technique than simple confrontation."
• "religion is an intellectual desease [sic] and we must find a cure"
• "Treat their ideas with respect and they might mistake your actions for a belief that they have any merit whatsoever. I see no reason even to give them that much. These people need to be educated and cured of their delusions, not pandered to...... I have no time for this wishy-washy nonsense."
• "I'm not a mental health professional. Though I might think theists of most stripes could do with seeing one."
• "To call holders of such beliefs delusional is to be unnecessarily kind."
• "Do you really not see how desperate your position is. You don't want to appear delusional by admitting you believe in talking snakes, but you know in your heart you are. I don't think you are capable of being honest with yourself"

hate 3

Ann Coulter is an American political commentator. I'd never heard of her before, but apparently she is famous, or perhaps notorious. She says she likes to "stir up the pot", but some of her reported comments seem nastier than that. For example:

• she called the Democratic party "the spawns of Satan"
• she said of Democrat candidate John Edwards: "you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot" so I'm - kind of at an impasse..."
• and she said of four women whose husbands died in the World Trade Centre attacks: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much"

Of course, these days, getting noticed by being controversial is the strategy of some media people, but I don't believe that justifies such language.

So is it just me, or are we enjoying tearing apart people we disagree with these days? Is hate too strong a word? It seems that we are seeing things in black and white, them and us, the goodies and the baddies. It makes it easier to justify our position if we can demonise our opponents and make them out to be almost inhuman. And that approach has led to some terrible things in the past.

I think it is important to make a deliberate stand against all this.

science, open minds and wild guesses

I've just returned from holidays, when I did a bit of reading on the "finely tuned universe" (see my blog, was it all planned?).

In brief, science has discovered a number of areas where the laws or facts of cosmology seem to be exactly right to allow the universe to develop as it has, and only miniscule variations would have prevented the universeas we know it from existing, and certainly prevented the development of life on earth. It seems to be highly improbable that this could have happened by chance.

Some scientists simply ask the question why, some argue that these facts demonstrate the God exists, others argue that the facts can be explained without God.

One argument suggests that it is both wrong in theory and impossible in practice to draw any conclusions about the probability of a universe being "well designed" - see for example this paper.

Despite this, well qualified scientists have had a go:

• Oxford mathematician and cosmologists Roger Penrose, who worked with Stephen Hawking in developing understanding of black holes, has estimated that the odds of all of these scientific facts being 'just right', as they are, are 1 in 10^10^123 - that's 10 raised to the power of 10 to the power of 123, a number so large it cannot be written out, so large that the odds are effectively zero. i.e. Penrose was saying that the universe could not possibly have happened by chance. (It is worth noting that Penrose is coy about the question of whether he believes in God, but it would appear that he is not part of any conventional religion.)

• On the other hand, Victor Stenger, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii, and an atheist, has examined the question via a computer simulation and concluded (in a paper) that if four of the most important variables are allowed to take up a large range (plus or minus 10 orders of magnitude), it is more than 50% likely that a viable universe (one that would last for at least a billion years) could form.

It would be an understatement to say that these two views are very different! We might explain some of the difference by the fact that Stenger's model and criteria are very limited - e.g. he only considers 4 out of perhaps 15 constants, his ranges are small compared to the possible ranges, and that surviving a billion years without any reference to what form the universe takes is not a very useful criterion. We might suspect that atheist Stenger doesn't approach the question with an open mind, whereas Penrose may. We may also conclude that Penrose has the better scientific credentials.

But having said all that, what do we make of such an impossibly vast difference in the conclusions of two well qualified scientists applying their science to this question. At the very least, it's a challenge to scientific objectivity on this subject.

it's just not cricket?

Photo: Morguefile. The Australian team at a Sydney match in happier times.

Cricket has been one of Australia's most popular summer sports for more than a century. It is supposed to be a polite game, played in the spirit of English gentlemen, but over the years it has had its share of controversies.

It began as a pastime for gentlemen, who played for fun and honour, not money, but money and gambling have long been part of cricket. And in the past few decades, it has become increasingly professional. Although players cannot earn nearly as much as professional golfers and tennis players, cricket provides a good income for the select few, and in many countries an escape from poverty.

Unfortunately, with increasing professionalism has come a deterioration in behaviour. Sledging (abusing the opponent, often in an attempt to gain a psychological advantage - I think sometimes called "trash talking" in the US) has become common, and the occasional source of confrontation between players.

For the past decade or more, Australia's cricket team has been pretty much the best in the world - and pretty much the worst at sledging.

It's no surprise therefore that things came to a head in the recent match in Sydney against India, a side not far behind Australia in ability and with a bit of form in sledging. Some poor umpiring decisions, some sledging by both sides, a close result (Australia won a five day match in the last 10 minutes) and some bad sportsmanship almost led to India cancelling the rest of the tour.

Interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, the Australian sporting public seemed to agree with the Indians that the Aussie team had lost its way and had developed an unsportsmanlike culture.

Defence of the team, by some noted former players and the team captain was based on the concept that Australia play it hard but fair, and there was nothing to criticise in that. But critics feel that the team has failed to see the difference between playing hard and being unpleasant. The first is in the spirit of cricket, but the second is not.

Competitiveness, abuse, bending the rules (including illegal drug-taking) and ego are all unfortunate parts of modern sport, but most Australians feel that cricket should rise above most of this. If the players can't help succumbing, probably the rules will have to be amended to legislate a better standard of personal behaviour - a pity, but better than the alternative.

Is the world of 2008 a better place than the world of 1958? Hard to say, but it's doubtful that the world of sport is better mannered. And it seems likely that the stars' bad behaviour rubs off on the kids who are such avid fans.

Read about the cricket "crisis" from respected journalist and former English county captain Peter Roebuck, plus previous columns on the bad taste left by the match and his calls for the Australian captain to be sacked.

'twas the night before christmas .....

Inner & Outer Space tends to concentrate on human foibles and things we need to learn to do better. But at Christmas time, we need some good news. Of course there's the best news of all, the good news of forgiveness and new life that was the original source of Christmas, but is there anything else?

I came across some interesting figures in the Sydney Morning Herald today. Paul Sheehan, at the end of an article mostly about other things looks at statistics on global poverty. And using either of two standard measures, the situation is at least improving, and rapidly.

• If poverty is measured by those whose income is no more than $US1 per day, then the percentage of people worldwide living in poverty declined from 15.4% in 1970 to 5.7% in 2000. When the rising world population is factored in, the numerical decline was 43%, from 540 million to 310 million.
• If an alternative measure of poverty is used, of $US3 per day, the decline was from 47% to 21%, with about 400 million people rescued from poverty in 30 years.

Either way, we can feel very pleased.

However much more needs to be done. The great majority of those released from poverty live in east Asia, but Africa remains a real problem. And we can all do something - maybe sponsor a child in Africa?

Here are a few suitable organisations:

• Compassion
• Children International
• Foster Parents Plan
• World Vision
• Save the Children
• TEAR Fund

Merry Christmas and best wishes to all who read this.

P.S. It may be 20:13 on December 23 in Blogger time, but in Australia it's just after 3:00 pm on Christmas Eve.

dawkins vs god - the latest score

Richard Dawkins has long been a popular science writer, but has achieved a greater level of public recognition through his book, The God Delusion. He has stated that his aim in writing the book is to lead readers to disbelief in any god.

I'm not sure how well he's succeeded in that, but he's certainly generated loads of reaction, both positive and negative - newspaper articles, interviews, a zillion blogs, and several books in reply. I have referred to Alister McGrath's two books previously, and now another book has been published: Darwin's Angel by John Cornwell from Cambridge University.

I have not read either Dawkins' book nor Cornwell's, but I am interested here more in the public reaction and debate.

When confronted with a wide range of strongly-held opinions, I usually downplay the views of those at either end of the debate (we all know what militant atheists and fundamentalist christians will think about Dawkins and his critics), and look for fair-minded people closer to the centre, or people who are willing to criticise their own viewpoint or see merit in the opposition.

Thus it is easy to find strong atheist criticism of Cornwell (they think he's too cute by half, playing the man and not the ball, misrepresents Dawkins, or simply presents weak arguments) - these Amazon reviews, these comments on the Richard Dawkins website and this blog contain some of this. But is not so easy finding christian supporters, perhaps because Cornwell is more of an agnostic or liberal Catholic rather than an evangelical christian.

But, although there are those who are underwhelmed by or have mixed feelings about Cornwell's book, most of those closer to the middle, including journalists, and fair-minded atheists and theists, seem to be fairly consistent in their support of Cornwell's critique of Dawkins. The following seem to be the main criticisms (Wikipedia provides a useful summary of Cornwell's points):

• Dawkins tends to judge all theists using the worst excesses and extremes he can find, which is not what we should expect from a world class scientist.
• He tends to blame religion for all of the world's ills, when studies show that many apparently religious conflicts and acts of terrorism are in fact motivated by national and racial issues.
• Dawkins' understanding of philosophy, theology and sociology seem to be at a very low undergraduate level at best, leading him to miss or distort much of the evidence and to propose ideas that have been shown to be incorrect.
• Dawkins uses extreme, almost fanatical language himself, leaving scientific objectivity far behind, and verging on promoting hate and derision towards believers, who he presents as, in a sense, diseased and delusional.

These criticisms echo comments by many thoughtful people, including even some of Dawkins' fellow atheists:

• The lack of balance and evidence in Dawkins' assessment of religion is criticised by prominent humanist Richard Norman, respected journalist William Rees Mogg and journalist Salley Vickers in the Times Online.
• The lack of scholarship is highlighted by biology & anthropology professor, David Sloane Wilson, professor of English Terry Eagleton, and professor of biology H Allen Orr quoted in a previous post.

Dawkins has not, of course, been silent, and his responses include this response to Cornwell's book, this reply to David Sloane Wilson, and this general reflection. He has argued that it is not necessary to be well-read in theology because that is the study of something non-existent.

So what's the score?

It seems that Dawkins has succeeded in putting "strong atheism" well into the public consciousness, in providing reluctant cultural christians with support for their move into more overt disbelief, and stirred up the believers. Few people are convinced by rational argument to change their beliefs (just ask christian evangelists and apologists), but he may also have succeeded in promoting a more subtle change in our culture, strengthening the irreligious prevailing view.

On the other hand, the responses from McGrath, Cornwell and others are also likely to strengthen the conviction of many believers, and Dawkins' own belligerence seems to be a turn-off for many agnostics, in this age of postmodern tolerance.

I think the militant atheism wars have a good way to run yet, and it's probably too soon to call, but I'm guessing he will have had some small wins in the short term, but may prove a bit of a storm in a teacup in the longer term.

Read a summary of the current state of play in the atheism vs theism war from the Australian newspaper.

the very weird world of quantum physics

Quantum physics goes against a lot of what we "know" to be true, and has long fascinated me (in a very non-expert kind of way!).

Quantum physics deals with atomic and sub-atomic particles and radiation, and the relationship between them. The word "quantum" (= "a small discrete unit of energy or mass") is based on the fact that radiation, such as light, while generally regarded as a continuous wave, can be considered to be composed of discrete energy packets which behave like particles.

There are many curious aspects of quantum physics which seem very unusual, even impossible:

• In the world we experience every day, things are solid, and they are either in one place or another. But in the quantum world, things are composed of very small particles surrounded by relatively large spaces, and we cannot be sure where a particle may be - we can only say where it probably will be (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).
• In our world, things are there whether we know about them or not. The tree really does crash down in the forest, whether anyone sees it, hears it or cares, or not. But in the quantum world, things aren't necessarily "there" until we observe them - and when we observe them we change them. And if we measure some aspects of a particle (say its position) we may be unable to measure other aspects (say its velocity) - it just can't be done.
• In the "normal" world, things happen because of detectable cause and effect. You push a barrow and it moves, don't push it and it stays still - and if you are too far away from it, you can't push it. But in the quantum world, action can happen "at a distance", with no discernible connecting forces. Particles which have once become "entangled" (they have each been created or affected by some process which leads to them being linked) remain linked even across great distances, so that what happens to one will affect what happens to the other, even if there is no physical connection between them. It's impossible, but it's been proved to occur.

The combination of these and other findings of quantum physics can lead to bizarre outcomes, where measuring a particle beam in one part of a laboratory changes the state of an entangled beam in another part of the laboratory, even though the only connection between the two beams occurred in the past and some distance away.

Einstein famously was suspicious of quantum physics because it seemed too peculiar, and because it was difficult to see how it could be integrated into his theory of relativity to create a "grand unified theory of everything". Yet it has been experimentally proven, and forms the basis of much modern physics.

However a view is coming into vogue that there may be an even more fundamental understanding of physics (just as quantum physics is more fundamental than the classical physics that we are all familiar with), that will one day be discovered to explain the quantum peculiarities in a simple and logical (and non-peculiar!) way. The key seems to be in using a different form of mathematics than we usually use.

I have read a few research scientists who say that inspiration and a general feeling of the "fitness" of things play a big part in their developing of ideas, which they then flesh out using the familiar route of scientific hypothesis, data and hypothesis-testing. I find it interesting that we somehow expect the world to be logical, ordered, mathematical and explicable, even if we believe it to have occurred by random chance.

Check out Quantum Physics and Entanglement in Wikipedia, or new theories and speculations in New Scientist and a science forum.