The lottery and the British film industry

The government are planning to put approximately £300 million pounds of British lottery money into film in the upcoming years. As a film lover, I should be happy about this. But I'm not. This is being done simply to produce more money and boost the economy. 'Art' is being produced for the economy. Art is supposed to be done for Art's sake. It should not be exploited. The result of this will most likely be various releases of cliché British films, with no significant message or ideology to project onto film.

the illogical concept of nationalism

National pride- priding yourself on something which requires no talent or skill, inherited by accident...your nationality.

Physicists and funerals

I saw this and thought it was beautiful. So, obviously, I had to share it.

“You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy, so they will understand that your energy has not died. You want the physicist to remind your sobbing mother about the first law of thermodynamics; that no energy gets created in the universe, and none is destroyed. You want your mother to know that all your energy, every vibration, every Btu of heat, every wave of every particle that was her beloved child remains with her in this world. You want the physicist to tell your weeping father that amid energies of the cosmos, you gave as good as you got. And at one point you’d hope that the physicist would step down from the pulpit and walk to your brokenhearted spouse there in the pew and tell him that all the photons that ever bounced off your face, all the particles whose paths were interrupted by your smile, by the touch of your hair, hundreds of trillions of particles, have raced off like children, their ways forever changed by you. And as your widow rocks in the arms of a loving family, may the physicist let her know that all the photons that bounced from you were gathered in the particle detectors that are her eyes, that those photons created within her constellations of electromagnetically charged neurons whose energy will go on forever.

And the physicist will remind the congregation of how much of all our energy is given off as heat. There may be a few fanning themselves with their programs as he says it. And he will tell them that the warmth that flowed through you in life is still here, still part of all that we are, even as we who mourn continue the heat of our own lives.

And you’ll want the physicist to explain to those who loved you that they need not have faith; indeed, they should not have faith. Let them know that they can measure, that scientists have measured precisely the conservation of energy and found it accurate, verifiable and consistent across space and time. You can hope your family will examine the evidence and satisfy themselves that the science is sound and that they’ll be comforted to know your energy’s still around. According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you’re just less orderly. Amen.”

— Aaron Freeman, “You Want a Physicist to Speak at Your Funeral”

Morality does not come from the Bible

There are many bible passages I'd consider as immoral. The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). Surely, morality is not from religion? To be able to 'cherry pick' certain quotations and passages, one must have an underlying sense of morality?

Science vs. Religion

It may appear that the relationship between science and religion is in the form of a never-ending battle. The scientific method relies on reason and empiricism, whereas religion acknowledges revelation, faith and sacredness. However, can they coincide and slot together harmoniously?

One of the strongest challenges to religious belief is Darwin's unveiling of twenty years of work in the 'origin of species' and his theory of evolution. It displays that different species evolved from one common ancestor: contradicting the Church's teachings. Darwin proposes that those with stronger characteristics survived as they lived for longer and therefore produced more offspring; many would suggest that this is certainly a more plausible explanation than God. Evolution shows that nature follows no set pattern: highlighting the question- is God required within the equation?

The Big Bang theory states that the current Universe came into existence approximately 13.7 billion years ago. Matter was tightly packed together in a zone of infinite density or singularity, which exploded. This theory is supported by empirical evidence such as the red shift: displaying that our Universe is expanding. This is called red shift. It is a change in frequency of the position of the lines. Astronomers have found that the further from us a star is the more its light is red shifted. From this, we can infer that distant galaxies are moving away from us, and that the further a galaxy is the faster it is moving away. Since we cannot assume that we have a special place in the universe this is evidence for a generally expanding universe: supporting the Big Bang theory's claims of expansion. Furthermore, Scientists claim that the possibility that matter is eternal is highly likely. The first rule of thermodynamics is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed: showing that there is no need for a higher deity's contribution for its existence.

On the contrary, we must acknowledge Science's distinctive flaws. American biochemist and author, Michael Behe, puts forward his idea of irreducible complexity: stating that modern biology casts doubt upon Darwinism. He uses the analogy of the mousetrap to communicate his essential concept. If we observe a mousetrap, it can be acknowledged that all of the parts are required for the mechanism to function and if one were to be taken away it cease to do so. In other words, it is either 'all or nothing'. Similarly, when a blood clot forms in the human body, it does not clot throughout the entire system; the proteins we own permit this. Behe asks: what is the evolutionary advantage of possessing just one protein which is required for this? If evolution is correct, why was a single protein passed down to younger generations if it had no survival enhancement? There are many variations of Creationism, mainly across America, including: flat earth creationists, young Earth and progressive. It is believed by many creationists that biblical accounts should be deemed as literal truth as they are the 'word of God'. A mainstream creationist would hold the belief that planet Earth is a mere 6000 years old; the Omphalos argument, proposed by Philip Gosse, argues that the appearance of age was put into the Universe by God. Fossil evidence is often perceived as supporting the idea that evolution in one abrupt moment, such as the biblical flood which begins in Genesis 6:6. However, progressive creationists accept that species have changed but it is due to God creating a new 'wave' of plants and animals in different time periods.

Piere Teilhard de Chardin was particularly in favour for Science and Religion to co-exist; he believed that Science permits us to see God and is similar to a mirror in which we see the creator. Chardin also argues that evolution is purposeful, species gradually become more complex: suggesting they are working towards a goal, known as the Omega point.

The Bible

Despite being a non-theist, I have observed that the Bible, in some parts, has wonderful pieces of Literature which I find beautiful. Some lovely metaphors and symbolism also. For example, in Exodus in the covenant with Moses, the intimacy of 'God' is depicted through: "I carried you on eagle's wings, and brought you to me". I find this absolutely enchanting. I sound rather silly, but there's just someone about it. Okay I know I'm just being weird. Oh well.