Bad Science in the Developing World

Lets face it, I'm a crap blogger. I haven't posted anything in ages due to never completing my posts or being interrupted by exams etc. etc. but enough of the excuses! I'm gona start writing as a habit even if it kills me (see you at the funeral).

Earlier this year I attended a talk entitled "Bad Science in the Developing World" presented at the newly dubbed Leeds Atheist & Humanist Society by Martin Robins (researcher and science writer). It was pretty good and if i may, I shall provide a quick and somewhat terse summary/response. Here goes:

There aren't adequate medical supplies, education, staff or money in developing countries for them to have real healthcare (shocking news i know).

In these countries, witch doctors, homeopaths and (increasingly) Chinese medicine pretty much are the health service.

Obviously these methods are bogus (except for giving a placebo effect) and the practitioners don't exactly make a killing, despite treatments costing a week's worth of pay to these people.


Some of the homeopaths etc. do some good work such as running orphanages etc. But they are also spreading pseudoscientific bullshit and, as these people claim to be able to cure AIDS, they sometimes tell the few patients lucky enough to receive real medication from real doctors that this medication will counteract their "superior" treatment.

Martin Robbins

So, here's the big question;

As there is unfortunatly no (immedicate) alternative for these people, what would you do?

If there was a button to press which made all the homeopaths etc. go away, would you push it?

What should we (First world countries) be doing?

Leave them to it. It's giving them hope?
Fight against their bullshit teachings?
Or
Try and subtly make their practises better by influencing them to do more good and less harm over time. Even though what they are doing isn't what they claim it to be?

The exact same question can apply to religion...


You can view Martin Robbins' column at the Guardian here.

Atheist/Theist - Are they so different?

OK. So apart from the obvious lack of a belief in a god, are religious theists and atheists always that different?

Atheists see no such thing as 'sin' in the concept of it being against a god. They do however accept a concept of “sin” against humanity, therefore a kind of objective morality still exists. 

We (atheists) can accept that we can always be better and we want and do work to improve ourselves (similar to acknowledgement of being sinful or falling short of a god’s standard).

We believe there is no “holy spirit” to help us improve, but still recognise that we do still need help! We find it again, in humanity. There is also no real concept of “perfection” as there is (nor has been) a being completely “without sin”.

Another difference is the way the world is viewed perhaps? A theist may see the world as being less than it was meant to be; God’s perfect creation ruined by sin. An atheist however views the world in what could be seen as a more positive light; The world was never meant to be perfect! Even though there’s defiantly plenty of crap, it is amazing and inspiring to realise how much goodness there is in this world, without a god needing to make it.

A third major part is the concept of an afterlife. An atheist finds little comfort in the thought of everlasting life or paradise if it comes with the understanding that other human beings could be going to hell. Surely it is a much nicer thought that all humans simply rot after this lifetime and are never to exist again than it is to think that even one individual, no matter how “evil”, would exist in eternal torment.

Of course what we want or like the sound of doesn’t dictate what is true! Neither do the things we may be afraid of, but it is confusing to me when the idea of heaven is presented as a positive part of religion.

All that I am describing here cannot be simply attributed to “atheism” as a whole, each individual differs. Add the title “Humanist” however and you cover it quite well. 

Humanists love humanity as a whole in the same way theists may love a god. By doing this they happen to also be doing what most god’s apparently want anyway, “love thy neighbour” etc.

Prayer is another key difference I can think of. No words are spoken to a personified god but the idea (at least in christianity) of “praying continuously” still applies in a way. This sort of prayer is continually asking/wanting to do what God would want and hoping for the ability/opportunity to carry it out. Of course the “god” of the Humanistic atheist doesn't really exist, but the same thoughts that would have been directed at him are still there.

A big question may be; OK so if there is no God then why? Why be “good”? Why do these things? - Well if there is no God then love still exists! Love is a choice. You don’t “fall in love” with your God, you choose to love him, and continue to choose to love and follow him every day. In the same way you can choose to love humanity.


It is easy to love a god that is "perfect". Humans however are not. Also if there is a god then you apparently have to love him or else! With humanity it is entirely optional with no heavenly reward or punishment. Surely this could be seen as a greater love?

The English language slaughters the word "love". A four letter word that can be attributed to a thousand different scenarios with important differences! But that is a rant for another time...

So what are the rewards for loving your fellow human if there is no god? - Well, happiness! 

Why does this way of life bring happiness? Does it come from God? - Perhaps. Although I would argue that evolutionary psychology has a role to play there, but that is also an extended topic for another time.

"Evolutionary psychology tells us that we have instinctual prejudices against people different from us. One of the tasks of a civilizing culture, then, is to educate and work against this inherent tribalism – to look beyond the differences in order to identify the similarities; to recognize, share, and rejoice in those things that unite us rather than divide us." - Michael Werner

Perhaps the most important part of our beliefs, whatever they may be, is why we hold them.

Fear is not a good reason to hold a belief, at least not on it's own. Although many atheists may accuse theists of holding their beliefs purely due to this motivating force (theists may even accuse atheists of the same), it is however unlikely that this is the case.

Love is an excellent reason to hold a belief. Ask any religious individual why they follow Jesus or Islam or any other religious teachings and 'fear' is unlikely to be amongst their vocabulary. Human nature is generally to want to be good, to be better. It isn't hard to recognise that we aren't perfect! Whether we are meant to be or not may be open for debate, but the simple fact is that the majority of us want to love. And to be loved.

Though not a christian, I like Dawkins and other atheists still hold up the "Golden rule", "Do to others as you would have done to you". (Just because the bible may contain a similar message does not make it true)

Some readers may be thinking, "Hang on! - Evidence! Reason! Logic! - THESE are excellent reasons to believe something! Why have they not been mentioned?"

Of course science is a beautiful and creative tool we humans use to understand the world as it really is! But we are not all "scientists". We do however all feel emotion.

Emotions are powerful. Emotions inspire change. Emotions make us human (though animals also feel emotion). Love may be a choice, but it can also be an emotion. The desire for it certainly is! True love connects us, it transverses divides, overcomes fear, crosses cultures and brings us together.

"Remember your humanity and forget the rest"

My name is not Harvey Milk but I am here to recruit you!

A review and response to the film ‘Milk’ – Shown by the BSC (Mon 13^th Feb.) as part of the UBUAI’s “Right to Love” film festival.

Gus Van Sant’s moving film ‘Milk’ (2008) is about the life, death and struggles of a gay American activist to become California's first openly gay elected official.

Harvey Milk, played by the award wining Sean Penn, is a man we should all get to know. A man who did not sit back and wait expectantly for someone else to come along and fight his battles, but took it upon himself to stand up and confront the issue of bigotry and prejudice with passion and devotion.

Though unsuccessfully running for office three times, facing many obstacles and death threats, he did not loose hope and finally achieved his goal in 1977. Only at the age of 40 did he become an activist and managed to achieve all that he did in the short 8 years before his tragic assassination.

“To be successful you must decide exactly what you want to accomplish, then resolve to pay the price to get it” – Burker Hunt. 

When the human rights of the gay community were being attacked by the Briggs initiative (proposition 6) which aimed to remove all openly gay school employees and their supporters from their jobs, he fought back with a message; The message was a calling to urge all homosexuals to stand up and come out so that all could see they existed, that everyone would realize they knew a homosexual, that they were amongst the sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of the nation – That they were real human beings! Harvey believed this would do more to end prejudice overnight than anybody could imagine.

Throughout his career he never considered himself a candidate. He considered himself part of a movement - a candidacy whose values he stood for. He saw a distinction between those who use a movement and those who are part of a movement. Whatever your opinion of homosexuals may be, this kind of politician is one we can all greatly admire!

Unfortunately it is impossible to avoid the topic of religion when discussing homophobia. Within Harvey’s campaign he quoted the Declaration of Independence, “All men are created Equal, and you can never erase those words!” This was in response to the abuse of the Christian religion being employed by opposing politicians. It is a reminder for the importance of secularism in government to help prevent any religious prejudice being used to oppress the rights of the individual human.

A brief summary of my personal opinion is this; if there is a God then he alone knows the true heart of each individual, only he can judge with authority whether any act is “sinful”. No matter how much stock you may put the interpretation of any holy text; you do not have the authority to accurately condemn another human being of “sinning against God”. That is purely between the individual (whose “soul” is in their keeping alone) and God. And if a God does not exist then homosexuality cannot be a “sin”, nor is it wrong because it does no harm (Things like pedophilia would be different as it does harm in case anyone was thinking along that argument).

Prejudice is natural in humans; it comes as undesirable evolutionary baggage that we must educate ourselves to overcome. Homosexuality is also natural (though not as common), it can even be observed in other species. The difference is that unlike prejudice, homosexuality is not harmful, nor can it be “cured” by education. There is no reason for it to be an undesirable attribute of any individual.

Don’t fool yourself into thinking the war has been won by people like Harvey already. An infamous example of continuing bigotry is the Westboro baptist church and it’s “God Hates Fags” campaign in America. Whether supported by the abuse of religious text or not, homophobia is still in existence at it’s most horrific level around the world. Whether it be the hanging of the teenagers Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni in Iran (2005), or the torture and murder of Matthew Wayne Shepard in America (1998) - It is more than an issue; it is people’s lives we’re fighting for.

So what can you do? - Be the change you wish to see! In our everyday lives something we can all do to remove the negativity attached to the word "gay" is stop using it to describe things we see as bad! Another is to overcome any feeling of insult if being called “gay”. OK, so you may not want the person you fancy thinking you're homosexual (if they're not of the same gender anyway), but there is no need for anyone to protest his or her innocence, even when it is implied in jest.

‘Milk’ is a must see movie with great purpose, passion, humor and emotion which I would give a 4.5 star rating. The acting is convincing, the message powerful and it works to achieve what Harvey Milk called for himself; “You’ve got to give them hope.”

Written by Oliver Harris (opinions given are my own and do not necessarily reflect the collective views of the UBUAI society).

Accompanying playlist (youtube.com/apostaticaloli)
Another playlist on the topic of LGBT Human Rights:
I also strongly recommend this film!

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek" - Barack Obama

Argumentation I - Needless conflicts.

Once upon a time, I was sitting at my desk making chemistry notes with, as always, Facebook open in front of me, I noticed a status update from a friend displaying a Youtube link entitled “Racism and Islam”, struggling to fight the urge to study chemistry (NOT!), I almost immediately distracted myself by giving the video my full attention. At 1:07:47 it was longer than I first realised and soon found my colourful highlighted pages of stereochemistry forgotten and busied myself taking note of the videos content.

Bilal Phillips was the name of the muslim teacher. He stood upon a stage, which could have easily been the backdrop to a 90’s game show, before a large room of capped (Taqiyah) men (but no women?). After an extensive introduction from another individual, giving a good idea of his islamic-academic history, Dr Phillips began to speak. “All praise is due to Allah and may peace and blessing be on Allah’s messenger, Allah”. The tone of this sentence echoed that of one who has regurgitated any religious phrase a thousand times to the point where it has simply become punctuation within verbal communication of a certain topic, as if it were a written capital letter or full stop. But to be honest, I really shouldn’t judge too harshly.

Swiftly, Dr Phillips moved onto the subject of the lecture. “On the subject of peace, one of the issues humanity must address is that of racism...” Fine so far i thought, I can get down with that. “...Being one of the major problems that humanity faces...” Yeah OK i can see how an argument for that can work. “...Racism as a term is relatively modern...”  At this point I’m much more interested and he continues, “It wasn’t known in the English language until a few hundred years ago. It comes from the word race, and that word in itself is a new word. It refers to the major divisions of humanity based on particular physical characteristics. This is according to the oxford dictionary”. At this point I’m beginning to like quite like the guy, but, there’s more.

For the rest of the lecture that I wish to repeat, I shall present it as a solid, and fairly long, paragraph;


“...Now  the oxford goes on to define racism as the belief that each race has certain qualities or abilities, giving rise to the belief that certain races are better than others. If we look into human history, among the ancients, racism was not really existent, you wouldn’t find it it the hieroglyphic writings of ancient Egypt, or in ancient china, or in ancient India. Instead what you found was family, tribal or national superiority promoted. A nation or a tribe having defeated other nations and tribes, considered themselves to be superior. They looked down on those people whom they defeated, and they would set up legal systems where the defeated peoples would be at the bottom levels of the society. In India where the Aryans came into India and the Dravidians that were here ended up on the bottom level of the class system. A religious, political, economic system. They ended up on the bottom because they were the deafeted people. It so happens that the Aryans were of light complexion and the Dravidians were of dark complexion, so this were there is an apparent link between what may be called the class system and racism. In China for example, the Chinese people, those tribes or races which they defeated and subjugated, they were held on lower levels of their society. They may have inducted them into the army, and used them as a part of their workforce but they didn’t have a specific concept of colour, for example as being a distinguishing characteristic of race. Similarly Egypt, the ancient record shows that the Egyptian people were a mixture of blends of colours of people, and those people who became the slaves and the lower levels of the society were the defeated people, whether they may have been light complexion or dark complexion...”


Hang on, it was just stated that the concept of race didn't really exist in ancient times but then goes on to explain how it did? (although could've just been going on for a while on how "racism" as a word is fairly recent in the english laguage as an identifying term). But is he talking about the issue of race or the class system? They are different issues?

To avoid typing out the whole video transcript i’ll sum up the gist of some of the rest of Dr Bilal’s talk; He believes that European’s justified colonisation with the “evolution” theory, with his understanding of this being that men came from chimps and whites from blacks.

At this point I found myself almost angry. First of all Darwin came up with the theory of evolution late in the 18th century, the origin of the species was not published until 24/11/1859. And even then it was hardly widely accepted as fact! Conquering Europeans were sending missionaries out to convert those they had defeated to Christianity, how the hell can they also use evolution as a justification for doing this? If people actually stopped to think rather that just swallow whatever (shit) a religious authority figure hands them...

The first European colonisation wave took place in the early 15th century! That’s at least 300 years before the theory of evolution and even then it wasn’t used publicly as a “scientific” reason to invade other countries until the likes of Hitler. Bit of a leap from the ancient egyptians etc. (3050 - 332 BC).

Now I come on to the warped and misunderstood idea of evolution Dr Bilal Philips presents. What bothers me most about this whole issue is that unnecessary confrontations can occur simply from assuming that someone else holds the same definition of something as you. According to the video I am a racist for believing in Evolution because i apparently think ‘whites’ evolved from ‘blacks’. Well I don’t, that is NOT how evolution works.

'Atheism' - A Brief Introduction

As most my posts are inspired by observations on Facebook and the wider internet, I shall continue the trend:

There seems to be a lot of confusion between different religions/'belief groups' when understanding what each other actually believes. This includes atheists. I see far too many people arguing over beliefs when they don’t even realise that their 'opposition' has a completely differ
ent definition of the issue!

The negative side of this can be seen coming from both 'believer' AND 'non-believer' camps.
A couple of random examples;

• “Atheists refuse to acknowledge that god exists to escape moral accountability”
•  “Religious people are stupid because they can’t use logic”

Both statements are pretty weak and I fail to see how either is beneficial in
any way.

On the side of Atheism and for the benefit of ‘believers’ / the religious etc:

• No (or extremely few) atheists believe that there can absolutely be no god.
• The self-identifying term ‘atheist’ can include; deists, agnostics etc.
• Atheists live as though there is no god as they see no logical reason for there to be one, they especially see no logical reason to consider any of the known religions/supernatural beliefs as correct.
• Individuals have very different reasons and paths to how they came to identify themselves as atheists.
• Technically the more accurate term for atheists could be “agnostic”, however this term seems to be adopted by those who do not care about the issue or have done little research on it.
• “De facto atheist” is perhaps the most accurate way to describe the 'common' atheist. It means they do not believe there is a god but accept that there is a possibility one could exist.

- Similar ideas can go for ‘Christians’ or ‘Muslims’. One Christian can have very different beliefs and/or reasons to believe from another ‘Christian’. However, they often seem to deny that there is any possibility that there might not be a god, which differs from the atheistic point of view.

Alain de Botton and Religion for Atheists?

Browsing the number of atheist discussion forums that I do has lead me to believe that many atheists are misunderstanding Alain de Botton and his ideas including two sensitive words, “Atheist” and “Religion”.


I shall keep this brief and simply state that I do not believe he is showing any intention of making atheism a ‘religion’! He is saying that there are positives we can take from it that can be used to benefit atheists.

For example; We (atheists) DON'T need guidance on how to get to heaven etc. but we all need help and guidance on how to live our lives happily (or at the very least have to admit it’s helpful!).

Having scheduled time in which to meet people of similar beliefs to share in a positive life lesson once a week seems very attractive to me. We all need little reminders in our lives, religion uses schedules to promote itself and offers a sense of community which atheism largely can fall short of.

Are atheists reacting to the word "religion" the same way some religious people react to the word "atheist"- FILTH!


This apparent (and potentially hypocritical?) prejudice is misleading atheists when it comes to understanding Alain?

It is of course extremely sensible to be skeptical of his ideas! But this blog post is my personal call to atheists to try and avoid being cynical and to consider the positives in Alain’s argument.

The video below is simply the shortest one I could find but is however not very informative! For those with an interest in this area, I would advise you to visit the following link: http://vimeo.com/35701336