The book is called “The Three Illusions” and it looks at science and philosophy. It’s my guide for living with what I call “permanent peace” and the philosophy in it has been the basis of how I’ve lived my life for the last 20 or so years.
Thanks for the folks who have proof read it for me over the last six months and given me notes, including Chrissy, Tony Kynaston and Russell Buckley.
Show notes for this episode:
A Different Perspective on Fukushima from Atomic Insights by @atomicrod
Atomtronics, Or Atoms Spun By Laser Beams, Could Replace Electronics
Glenn Greenwald: WH forces P.J. Crowley to resign for condemning abuse of Manning
The liberal game of silencing the messenger by John Pilger
Ross Garnaut says science on climate change is stronger
As we sleep, speedy brain waves boost our ability to learn
Melvyn Bragg & The Philosophers on Free Will
The Feds Poisoned Alcohol during Prohibition and Murdered at Least 10,000 People
Some interesting points Christopher Hitchens makes in this video that are worth considering. He actually highlights aspects of the New Testament that suggest there was, in fact, a man at the basis of the Jesus myth. It’s certainly an interesting argument and one I haven’t considered before. While there is absolutely no hard evidence to support the existence of Jesus, you might infer from the poor attempt at fabrication that the authors of the NT attempted that there might have been someone at the center of it. Otherwise, the fabrication might have been better composed.
As the Australian parliament begins a long-overdue debate about our involvement in Afghanistan, expect to hear a lot of hot air about what a nasty piece of work the Taliban are and how we are there to put an end to their nastiness. You’ll hear about their theocracy, their imprisonment of women in burqas and nose-slitting for the disobedient.
Expect to hear statements, such as the one Foreign Minister Stephen Smith recently made, about Afghanistan being “current hotbeds or danger points” for international terrorism.
I have several issues with these arguments.
1. They Cut Both Ways
To begin with – as much as I dislike theocracies and religion in any form, from a diplomatic perspective, we have to realise that if disliking a country’s politics or religion gives us moral grounds to invade that country, then we are acknowledging that that country also has moral grounds to invade OUR country if they dislike OUR politics or religion. The USA didn’t like it very much the last time a handful of Saudis decided they didn’t like American politics. In fact, they used the attack that stemmed from that dislike as an excuse for invading a couple of countries. We have to be extremely careful what precedents we set interceding in international affairs.
2. They Are Hypocritical
The second issue, about being a “hotbed” for terrorism, is troubling for the same reason. It is a record of fact that the CIA has been a supporter of terrorists and dictators for many decades. Terrorists and dictators with names such as Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, Suharto, Mobutu and “Papa Doc” Duvalier all received either direct or indirect support from the CIA. (Australia also was a direct supporter of at least one of these men – General Suharto.)
Of course it is also a matter of record that the CIA has been and is currently involved in supporting other terrorist organisations such as Israel’s MOSSAD and Pakistan’s ISI. If we argue that supporting terrorists makes a country open to invasion, we have to then acknowledge that it is equally acceptable for other people to invade our countries with the same justification.
So keep an eye out for any such hypocritical justifications during the government debates.
Of course, the typical politician will claim that our country (and our friends such as the USA) are justified in our/their support of terrorism or our politics. It’s one of the accepted truths of domestic politics that our position is right because it is our position. Capitalism is right and communism is wrong because we are capitalists. Christianity is right and Islam is wrong because the majority of our population is Christian.
We are right because it is unthinkable that we could possibly be wrong.
An excellent speech from Richard Dawkins. He explains that the Hitler was a Catholic and a Christian, NOT an atheist as the Pope is trying to claim, and then delves into some of the other stupid ideas this Ratzinger Pope has.
If you consider yourself a Catholic, you should think hard about these issues and ask yourself if you want to be associated with a man and a church with this history behind them.
Fred Nile has been a very naughty boy. I sent him an email to rub it in.