WillWybrow.com

Dog owners always claim that their animals aren’t stupid.

I look at the behaviours of people’s dogs and fail to see how they could possibly be personified or considered anything other than dully running around and satisfying basic needs.

For example, take a look at this quick contradiction: the intelligence of pet dogs is “exhibited” by a dog’s ability to learn how to do ‘tricks’ – that’s the ability to recognise an event and respond accordingly. The ability to learn that certain effects follow certain causes is pretty much a vital natural trait. The dog is commanded to sit. It sits. It gets praised.

Then how about this one: the dog fetches a ball, it brings the ball back, it loses its catch, only to have to chase it again.

If a wild dog brought its kill and dropped it at the feet of anyone, it’d starve to death. A friend’s dog keeps a ball and hoards it, growling if anyone approaches. I think this is more intelligent behaviour than if it dropped it into an outstretched hand. But that’s what owners will strive to train a dog to do.

In that respect, a dog’s “intelligence” is measured in its ability and willingness to defy common sense. In light of this, I’d reconsider the use of the word “intelligent” to describe a well-trained dog…

Try “faithful” instead?

Oh man, Bob Catley is a fucking rockstar. He’s basically a superhero. I met him, and shook his hand, and was all “yo AHS, check out Bob Catley,” and they were all “woah, his music is awesome!!”

We went to Tamworth for Jenna’s generic-winter-festival party and saw her dad and sister and town. We had a great party.

Then I went back to Leeds (again) to share Liz’s birthday party with Chris and Norman at their four-fifths atheist domicile…

Then I came home. I got back to Leamington and almost kissed the ground with happiness. But not because I’d been away, but because of what happened while I was away. Basically, I was glad to be home without regretting being gone. Let’s leave it at that.

That’s the summary of all the decent things that happened this weekend. Not at much detail as last time, I guess I’m just not in the mood.

Oxford

So began the first of my holiday outings last Wednesday, when I went to visit the wonderful Jenna at her Oxford University college: Linacre.

We decided to try and cram as many awesome things into the day as possible, which is why we set off to Modern Art Oxford and the Natural History Museum (which were great) and also swung past the “castle,” or the mound-where-a-castle-once-used-to-be (which was not so great - not only was it a lame attraction, but Jenna confessed that she hated me so much that she was skipping the country to avoid spending new year’s eve at my house).

Modern Art Oxford was a very pleasant experience. They had a few exhibitions on (including one which was disappointingly closed), ranging from boring to plain weird. It was all loosely connected by sharing common binaural techniques to create the sense of sounds coming from positions they weren’t, which was interesting and entertaining. We stopped by the gift shop and I was bought a 25mm badge.

The Museum of Natural History, where I had previously had the pleasurable experience of watching Richard Dawkins face off the imposing John Lennox in debate, was another fascinating experience, made even more so in the light of the remnants of the memories of my last visit; atheism and evolution tend to go hand-in-hand these days.

I got to spend some time in Linacre college, which my friend Tom Etheridge tells me is “not a real college, [because it's] full of grads.” But what if I’m visiting a “grad”, Tom? The college was nice and modern (but still with that Oxford University class pretension about it). The student rooms were cosy and nice and the dining area was homely.

The most important thing that I can say about Linacre, however, was that when I got a shot at using one of their computer rooms, I got a nice surprise. Some of the new motherfuckingly huge iMacs were there, but what did their screens have plastered all over them? It wasn’t Leopard… it was XP! That was quite an unexpected highlight that appealed to my technological nature.

In the evening, we stayed in the college’s common room, and I met some people. We had fun playing darts and Pictionary and watching some Channel 4.

Leeds

The first thing to note about Leeds is how fucking far away it is! Regardless, hitching the train up there was alright; I do like getting trains. While I was there to see and hang out with all of Leeds’ remaining A-Soc, strictly speaking I was Liz’s guest.

When I arrived at the station, I moved into the shopping centres, passing through all sorts of different bits, including “Victoria Quarter,” which had an interior made of gold and had shops whose very names were too expensive to pronounce. Liz and her housemate Michelle intercepted me (despite the terrible description I gave them of my location) and we wandered around the city centre for a little while. I spotted four Caffé Nero coffee shops, and visited two of them (Stuart, have pride). After some guilty confessions from Liz that she didn’t actually know her way around Leeds’ centre, we decided to try and find the restaurant that we were meeting A-Soc at later. We did find it, and spent the waiting time in Wetherspoon’s (where else?).

The restaurant served fairly standard food but I’d say it was overpriced as well. Nice atmosphere, though, and the glass panel in the middle of the landing of the first floor was just terrifying. Afterwards, we didn’t return to Spoons, as was my initial inclination, but headed off to somewhere a little quieter, which was a better idea now that I think about it. I heard about the London antics of Leeds Atheist Society and met and spoke to some cool people.

i think a-soc is a pretty cool guy. eh debates god and doesn’t afraid of anything

After things wound down (meaning: they closed at 11pm and didn’t give me the required time to finish my bottle of wine), Chris gave me a lift back to his house, stopping at Tesco to pick up the classic Southern Comfort and Pepsi Max party drink. Back at “Atheist House” (which is not as good as the name “Fort Atheist”), we stayed up most of the night watching various animated shows (American Dad prominent amongst them).

In the morning, I got up and sped off to Leeds station to catch a ride back home, but not before having my half-can of Relentless thrown off the First travel bus. They got their comeuppance, however, because I scrawled “FGW Are[sic] cunts” on the First Great Western train that was my final connection to Basingstoke (and last public transportation vessel for the day). That will teach them not to allow cans of drink on their Leeds buses.

The next person I hear say “but the universe is fine-tuned for life” is going to get kicked in the balls. We don’t know (and I wouldn’t say that we’re reasonably certain, either) that under different universal constraints that something that has apparent ‘life’ (growth, replication, reaction and so on) would not begin, so fuck anyone who says that. Just because it’s not carbon-based… or just because its atoms aren’t composed in exactly the same way; hell, even if there were no such things as protons and electrons and neutrons, if we’re talking about the universe kicking off with a different palette of universal constants to work from, who would even dare predict the kinds of fundamental particles that might exist?

We’re obviously not looking at the correct use of the cosmological anthropic principle, which is to say that the universe must be such as it is to accommodate human life as we know it. That could even extend to other, less complex forms of life. But to say that present universal conditions are necessary for any form of life as it’s defined is something I’d expect, frankly, from a creationist.

And I’m not convinced by the ‘multiverse,’ either, but that’s another thing entirely.

Wow! Jesus action webcomic!

IN THE NAME OF THE GUN

Coming soon, I’m starting a section of the site that deals primarily with Humanism.

Humanist Will

Look forward to it; it’s going to have some gems.

I was reading this Christian propaganda newsletter booklet once, back in my days of going to church. It was pretty annoying, it went on to list the ‘dangers’ of women, yes - not even men, taking it up the bum. Things like tearing up your insides and infections and stuff. What the fuck is their problem? I know it seems like not a lot of girls are into it, so maybe it’s not a really relevant point to make, but come on? If people want to buttfuck, they should. I don’t recall it being supported by Bible verses either, so it might have just been the recommendation of the magazine… Who are they to say what dangers there might be? Anyway, my point is, these were the same people who were trying to use the Cambrian explosion as evidence for intelligent design, so they’re obviously a bunch of stupid wankers.

Why do they do it? I want to get the feeling that Christianity is some kind of big scam run by the people at the top. I envision people like Pastor Ted Haggard who stand around preaching against drugs and homosexuality whilst enjoying them behind the flock’s back. But it’s probably not like that. A big hoax would have someone speaking out eventually. I guess these people really do believe the things they’re spouting…

What else? What else? Oh, I’ve got else. You haven’t even seen “else” until you’ve seen MY “else”.

One More Gripe

As far as content management systems (CMSs) go, different applications need to match different purposes. While I am a self-confessed WordPress fanboy, I will freely admit that it’s not ideal for use in every situation*. I wouldn’t use WordPress for anything other than blogging, really; it wouldn’t be good for getting a lot of information across when the information doesn’t benefit from the context of being in chronological order.

Where this is going

And, I wouldn’t use a wiki in a situation where one organisation is meant to be an authority on a subject. I think it undermines the credibility of that organisation when their advice and support is actually community advice and support.

The AHS’s use of a wiki comes under this category, I think. I don’t like it very much as a public front. As a private working ground, I love it. But as the end product of our thinking? It’s just a bad idea.

End.

*Does this still make me a fanboy? I feel like one, with the hoody…

£5

The thing that has always bugged me a bit about the AHS is that the ‘S’ stands for ’secular’.

I would like to point out that the word ’secular’ means non-religious. What I think the ‘S’ should stand for is secularist. Why?

A secularist is someone who advocates secularism - that’s the idea of having a secular state. But having a secular society… well, lots of societies are secular. Warwick’s “Wine and Whiskey” society is secular. Warwick Snow is secular. Now do you see what I mean?

A secularist society would be, I think, one that could dabble in the things that other AHS-affiliated societies do; atheism and humanism and rationalism all thrown in together, because these are natural precursors to promoting a secular state. There’s a difference between ’secular’ and ’secularist’, and being secular doesn’t necessarily imply the latter. What’s more, being secular doesn’t justify irreligious events; it just means the society holds no religious viewpoint. In fact, boasting being a secular society should mean that the society has nothing to do with religion at all, even being critical of it…

A secular state is one that gives no benefit to the religious. In that sense, it’s what could be described as “religion-neutral”. Now, if it can give no benefit to the religious, it can’t really disadvantage the religious on the grounds of religion either. It can’t speak out against religion or criticise it, because we’re secular, not atheist.

Secularists, on the other hand, are justified in speaking out against religion as long as religion still enjoys unwarranted benefits. Secularists can be anti-religious as a matter of persuading and campaigning for a secular state.