Sir David's Pear Shaped Eggs

It fell to the august Sir David Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE FRS FZS FSA to present the BBC’s Radio 4 ‘Tweet of the Day’ this morning. The bird of the moment was the guillemot and the great naturalist said that the guillemot’s egg “is pear shaped to prevent it from rolling off the narrow rock ledges”

[You can hear the tweet on the BBC website for yourself, at time of writing, here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01sbyzk#auto ]

Sir David, when asked in a BBC Four interview with Mark Lawson, if he at any time had any religious faith, replied simply, "no". He said "It never really occurred to me to believe in God". He has explained that he feels the evidence all over the planet clearly shows evolution to be the best way to explain the diversity of life. Yet in today’s ‘Tweet’ he was careless enough to make a statement that will gladden the heart of Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design.

has stated publicly (see the link below) th§had any religious faith and ‘it never really occurred to me to believe in God’. Yet in today’s ‘Tweet’ he was careless enough to make a statement that will gladden the heart of Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design.

The guillemot’s egg is not “pear shaped to prevent it from rolling off the narrow rock ledges”. What Sir David undoubtedly meant and should have said was ‘the egg is pear shaped which prevents it rolling off the narrow rock ledges’, or, more fully, ‘the egg evolved to be pear shaped which prevents it from rolling off the narrow ledges as would an oval egg’.

Sir David is considered a ‘national treasure’ and named among the ‘100 greatest Britons’, but his careless statement this morning lends succour to the Creationists who so damage the proper teaching of science to children in schools. In evolution things don’t happen ‘for a reason’, things happen by chance mutations - minute errors in copying genes - and the chance mutations sometimes improve the fitness of the species to survive.

Of course, it works the other way round too, and much more frequently: minute errors in copying genes normally worsen the likelihood of survival of a species. 

By saying ‘to prevent it from rolling off the ledges’ instead of ‘the effect of which stops it rolling off the ledges’ Sir David has damaged a proper understanding of evolution and gladdened the hearts of Creationists. Oh, Sir David! How could you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#Attitude_to_religion_and_creationism 

Note: You can read my sonnet about guillemot chicks by following this link:

http://www.dunkerley-tuson.co.uk/Pages/MPAmoralStory.aspx

P.S. In The Economist ‘Scientific Quarterly’ of May 7th, 2022 it refers to: “the composition of the gut microbiome, the trillions of bacteria residing in the gut whose collective job is to process what we eat.” Oh, that’s ‘it’s job’ is it? I suppose the Creator wrote that spec into the ‘job description’ then? 

[See https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/05/02/apps-interpreting-data-from-wearable-devices-are-helping-people-to-live-better ] 

Jesus of Nazareth - Dissident and Protestor

I was brought up by loving parents in the Christian Anglican tradition. When only fifty seven days old I was baptised and I won my first prize, for good attendance, at Sunday School just four years later. I was confirmed when 13 years old. Although there was a strand of the sceptic in me I was in thrall to Christianity, on and off, until after both of my parents had died. Only then, aged fifty-eight, did I finally break away from the embrace of religion.

It really shouldn’t have been that way - after all when I was 22 I became a graduate geologist with a good understanding of evolution and deep time. Somehow I seemed content to separate matters of the head from matters of the heart, including religion and morality. Only now, ten years after coming out as non-religious, have I wanted to try and look objectively at what Christianity actually is.

What triggered my interest was reading ‘Jesus, The Son of Man’ by the poet Kahlil Gibran. There seemed much that is plausible in Gibran's semi-fictional narrative and I decided to re-read the four New Testament gospels with a critical eye. There, together with parables, miracles and the reported fulfilment of Old Testament prophesies, I found the description of a remarkable man. A man who set himself against the corrupt, self-serving and hypocritical religious authorities of his time, spoke up for the downtrodden, drew crowds wherever he went, and ultimately upset the Jewish hierarchy so much that they contrived to have him put to death by the Roman administrators of Jerusalem.

I feel no need to question the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure - on this point the New Testament combined with the known development of Christianity seems plausible. The earliest independent historical reference, which appears genuine, occurs in Tacitus’ ‘Annals’. He mentions a community of Christians in the year 64 CE / AD in Rome, followers of ‘Christus’ who was put to death in Judea at the hands of Pontius Pilate (see Footnote).

However, as a beneficiary of the scientific knowledge of the twenty-first century, it is obvious to me that such essential elements of Christian faith as the Virgin Birth, the miracles, the Resurrection and a prayer-answering God are simply impossible. Occam’s Razor and all that. Faith asks us to accept the say-so of others instead of evidence and forms no part of a rational society. It is the rationality of science and technology that has given us an understanding of maths, evolution, genetics, engineering, chemistry, earth history, astronomy and electronics. It is the rigorous application of evidence-based knowledge that has enabled the discoveries and inventions which allow so many of the world’s seven billion inhabitants to live comfortable, healthy and fulfilling lives. What, then, if anything, remains for Jesus of Nazareth and Christianity?

Religious people generally insist on a moral code of behaviour as an integral part of their religion, but often fail to understand that morality is independent of religion. Indeed, conflicting religious doctrines throw up conflicting moral codes, which have always led to disputes, too often involving atrocities and bloodshed. Make your own list of mutually intolerant religious groups, past and present.

Thoughtful and objective people now understand that morality depends on universally applicable human rights, not on arbitrary rules of behaviour that dictate what people may or may not eat, wear  or do. Nevertheless, the seeds of universal human rights exist in many religions. Thus the ‘Golden Rule’ (‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’) is to be found in the Gospels — but it existed long before the birth of Jesus, in Egypt and in Confucianism. Similarly we can all recognise universal values in the Parable of the Good Samaritan and in some of the Ten Commandments (no murdering, stealing or bearing of false witness).

So morality has nothing uniquely to do with Judaism, Christianity, Islam or any other religion. It forms part of the bedrock of successful social cooperation in much the same way that the theories of evolution or gravity form part of the bedrock of science. Identifying these fundamental facts enables the type of society in which technological progress can happen, but in which social wellbeing and happiness also have the best chance to prosper.

The Jesus of Nazareth that I found on re-reading the Gospels appears to have been a gifted thinker and charismatic orator with some valuable moral insights and a profound contempt for hypocrisy, corruption, abuse of power and the ill-treatment of the lower ranks of society. In other words he was an exceptional and interesting man of his time. His refusal to accept the hypocrisy, wealth and privilege of the Jewish hierarchy of his day, their extravagance, cronyism and the exploitation of simple folk, show that he was, in modern parlance, a dissident and a protestor. Surely many of today’s political leaders would have found him as bothersome as the Jewish authorities found him two thousand years ago.

I think Jesus’ legacy was worth preserving even if one discounts the supernatural events related by his followers. Theirs was a primitive society with poor communication and a natural tendency to exaggerate and jump to invalid conclusions when faced with the inexplicable. A Christian community of morality, not faith, might have made valuable contributions to social wellbeing and could have avoided the egregious excesses of the Church of Rome, and many other churches. Jesus would have been just as upset by what the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Protestant Churches became as he was by the Jewish Church in his own day.

Many other people have done what Jesus of Nazareth did, fought and suffered for what they believe in - recent examples might include Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, or the Tiananmen Square students, but brave protestors who fought injustice can be found throughout history. It does not matter that Martin Luther King was killed - what he taught remains a valid guide for us today, and for similar reasons it seems to me that it does not matter if Jesus of Nazareth did not ‘rise from the dead’. We can still learn from his insights on hypocrisy, corruption and his respect for the less well-off - something that might well go under the name of love.

There is much in the Gospels that seems bizarre by today’s standards, but the benign tenets of the Anglican Church in which both my parents and I were brought up are a not-unreasonable basis for a civilised society. Nevertheless faith-based morality will always lead to disagreement and/or conflict and that is why I feel sad when David Cameron, Nicky Morgan and Eric Pickles of the Conservative Party promote Christianity in what is a country of many faiths and none. It is wrong that the Anglican Church enjoys political privilege as the Established church of the UK, that the Head of State is the head of that church, that Anglican Bishops sit by right in the upper legislative chamber and that the country’s national anthem has us singing ‘God save our gracious Queen’ three times in each verse!

Everyone should be free to practice a religion of choice, or to practice no religion at all. The only basis that allows such freedom is a secular polity in which no religion is granted any legal privilege or access to public money. I feel that if Jesus were alive today he would think so too.

Footnote: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus The 'Annals' were written about 116 CE / AD. Note, though, that the earliest surviving material comprising the ‘Annals’ dates to a manuscript said to have been written in 850 CE / AD - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#cite_note-3 )

The Lesser of Two Evils?

My parents wanted me to be responsible for myself, to do my best and to respect other people — it’s the way they tried to live their lives and it’s the way I still try to live my own life. Their ethics was rooted in Anglican Christianity (‘do unto others’ and the parable of the Good Samaritan), policed by an all-seeing God who pricked your conscience when you strayed from the straight and narrow. Although I share their moral code — completely — I have learned that it springs from a consideration of human rights, not from any religious doctrine.

So, I would like, I would like passionately, everyone to enjoy better and more fulfilling lives. I would like everyone to be able to enjoy improving standards of living, better healthcare and education, better access to the arts and to technology. I am a humanist and I believe the world will be a better place if we work for the great principles of the Enlightenment - ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. Achieving these goals requires resources, so the great moral question is: What is the best way to produce the resources required to eliminate poverty? Looking for the answer to this question cuts through all the political hype and gives me a pointer about how to vote in May 7th’s General Election. See what you think.

Using the metaphor that resources are a cake, everyone would like more. There are two fundamentally different approaches - either get a larger slice of the cake as it is, or make a bigger cake. Some people think everyone should have the same sized slice of cake, so they work for ‘redistribution’. Those who understand where the cake came from in the first place think that a larger cake would mean more to go round, so they set out to make a bigger cake.

In practice ‘redistribution’ is always done by someone and when deciding on ‘fair shares’ someone has to decide what ‘fair’ means. That requires a ‘top-down’ approach — someone in charge dictating who gets what. The ‘larger cake’ approach means individual creative people having the freedom to follow up their ideas, establish viable businesses and produce the profits that are the metaphorical cake. That is a ‘bottom-up’ approach; it recognises that talented individuals are the creative element of society and only when such people are allowed the freedom to work will resources be produced that allow the enhancement of individual and social wellbeing.

Left of Centre politics is the politics of redistribution; it sounds like a nice idea but in practice always runs into the problem that there is only so much cake to go round. Right of Centre politics is the politics of greater productivity; it may appear harsh but it produces a bigger cake. I conclude therefore, because I try to follow humanitarian principles, that I must vote for a party that believes in individual freedom, acceptance of responsibility for one’s own actions and equality of opportunity.

In practice only either Ed Miliband or David Cameron is likely to be the next Prime Minister. In my opinion David Cameron is massively mistaken in many of his policies, some of which are more socialist than entrepreneurial, but he is less mistaken than Ed Miliband. Miliband is on the side of redistribution, Cameron on the side of wanting a bigger cake. Although I would like a right of centre government I may not support Cameron (because, as explained elsewhere on this blog, my vote will make no practical difference). But my sense of fairness means I cannot support Miliband.

Now all I want is the media to have a sensible discussion about the issues. Sadly, it isn't likely to happen!

"What is faith?"

Responding to Gini Dellow's post on Facebook on “What is faith?”, I wrote:

Faith, as I see it, is believing in something although you can find no tangible evidence for it, believing in something because someone tells you "that's how it is - trust me". As there is no tangible evidence it often leads to disagreement - conflict: "I am right and you are, therefore, wrong" - Sunni v Shia, etc . 

Avoiding conflict is important. How to do it? The best way is, I believe, by basing actions on facts not fancies, and a consideration of human rights. Faith often does not leave room to do this. Like you, I had religion inculcated into me by loving parents, and it took me more than 60 years to see beyond it. 

As described in the Gospels, Jesus of Nazareth was a heretic, railing against the religious authorities of his time (he called the Chief Priest, the Pharisees and the Sadducees 'hypocrites' and 'you viper's brood'), and preached to the downtrodden, attracting crowds and becoming widely talked about. That threatened the authorities and they had him framed so he could be put to death by the Roman secular power (Pilate - who didn't believe a word of the charges and therefore washed his hands  of all responsibility).

That was an end of Jesus - except that as a remarkable man of his time he lived on in memory, as do Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and a multitude of others. The idea of a resurrection is fanciful and unnecessary. Happy Easter - the time of rebirth of the Earth, a welcoming of spring, evidence of which is all around us. No faith needed there then!