Science

Venn diagrammed

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Venn diagrammes often convey important information in quite straightforward, easy to understand ways. Take this one from TR for example, it illustrates clearly some of the issues and benefits of a mixed work-life pattern that involves working from home and in the office. They call it hybrid working:

Hybrid working

As may easily be understood from the diagramme, when you are in the office you should spend your time planning your social activities, and when you are at home you should eat well. In both places you should set practical goals and manage your time in order to achieve these goals, whilst presumably at the same time, though it is not said, doing enough to satisfy your reviewer that some work has been done.

That was the view in August 2021. A quite different view was given just a year earlier in September 2020 by the Salo organisation in this diagramme:

Worklife balance

There is clearly no overlap between work and giving to the community. All those so-called community and charitable activities of an organisation are therefore ruled out and can only, on the basis of this understanding, be understood as self-congratulatory tools of the organisation.

In a similar vein we have a contrast between home and family and well-being. There is no overlap, with the suggestion that if you wish to have a home and family you must accept the consequences of poor health.

Both of these different expressions of the overlap between the home and the office, which some call the work-life balance, but here seems more like the worklife balance, arose as a result of the consequences of the coronavirus infection which had consequences across the globe. Coco rather thinks that the designers of the diagrammes somehow fell short of their target and missed the point. The prize surely however for one of the best Venn diagrammes however must go to the designer of this one:

Misplaced values

which was published seven years earlier in August 2014, and quickly reported both (sic!) by The Baron, The Poke, BMO to Coco (on the 22nd), and several other organisations.

It shows quite clearly that, as every reporter knows, the facts must not get in the way of a good story.

It also perhaps helps one to understand why in 2018 (13 July) there were ten reasons, [the video appears to fail on the webpage, but may be found here on Youtube]

Ten reasons

but by August 2023 there were only five reasons to join the business, none of which actually relate to the business itself.

Five reasons

The images used above may be copyright, so please be careful with them. They have all been used in the public space, so Coco considers that their reproduction here is fair use, and is in any event for educational purposes only to help the reader understand how things can go wrong with Venn diagrammes. Of course in saying this Coco assumes that the designers of the diagrammes did not intend to convey the message that they do in fact convey. In the manner of a Hitchcock movie, Coco may be mistaken.

Could any more be said?

Only a reporter truly knows.

Whilst not many disabilities disqualify, dysanagnosic dyslexia must surely of the proof-reader a disqualifier be.

Debate and dogma

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Debate is valuable. Debate and disagreement are necessary in science. Debate is dangerous.

Three statements and it may surprise you, or else it may not, that these statements are not incontrovertible; indeed, they provoke as much controversy as these:

Dogmatism is valuable. Dogmatism is necessary. Dogmatism is dangerous.

Why should this, that debate is dangerous, be?

Often it may arise because reputations or careers are at stake. If the foundation of your life is that science which says A is true and another comes along and asks the question: How do you know A is true? Have you considered this set of data? Does it not suggest that A may not be true in all circumstances? then from your perspective the very asking of the question is a personal challenge not a scientific one.

So in a very simple case, you may notice that if you pump 1 kilocalorie of energy into 1 kilogram of water its temperature rises by 1°C (A is true). If therefore you conclude that when you pump 110 kilocalories in its temperature will rise by 110°C, you may be disappointed unless you also increased the pressure under which you heated the water to at least one and half atmospheres. Change of state effects would disrupt the thermal elevation – you may even lose enough water in trying to do so for the espresso that you would have had in order to recover from the falsification of your paradigm had you not the change of state occurred. A is not always true, or if it is true it is true only in specific well-defined circumstances, and so your understanding must be improved. You may want to hold onto your idea that A is true, but the data is against you, or is it? Look again. You may think that you must now say A is not true, but the actual position may be that A is not true only under certain, perhaps clearly defined but perhaps not, conditions.

We should note here, though it is not our main point that it is folly to base our paradigm of life upon our own transient scientific understanding of the way the world works. We are here speaking of derived paradigms, not underlying paradigms which we shall address shortly.

Scientific methods and historical analysis

Now our understanding of the relationships between heat, temperature, pressure and water is quite well understood. We are dealing with a simple (but it is a three body problem) molecule with well (is that really so?) understood properties. Experiments may be easily defined and conducted in well controlled ways, and repeated indefinitely by unrelated individuals who will, within the limits of observable experimental measurement, always obtain the same results, but our understandings elsewhere are not quite so clear. Experiments may not be possible or, if they are, controls may be difficult to impose. We may not know or even understand all of the factors which may influence the outcome. When Rutherford fired his artillery at a sheet of little more than tissue paper he expected nothing other than to punch holes in it. The data obtained however required a rethink. Some of the artillery shells, alpha particles, bounced back off the thin film of gold leaf.  Whilst Rutherford was able to describe what was happening, a proper theoretical understanding of what was taking place would not be available until several years later.

We not only require then data, which Rutherford had, but we need a robust framework within which that data may be interpreted. The old ideas of phlogiston and æther were abandoned when it was found that they could no longer explain the data that became available. Now however in the presence of the hypotheses concerning the warping of space one may wonder: how can something which is the lack of existence of anything, ie emptiness, be warped. Does not this suggest the presence of a substance, an æther, which is presently yet undetected, in that emptiness which is the thing that is being warped? That however is not a discussion for this article.

When we being to look at things rather more complex than water, though they are structures in which water is a major component, and indeed the symptom if not the cause of the problem, such as a biological machine, driven itself by smaller complex biological components, with its own messaging, delivery and disposal systems some of whose functions overlap and which are mutually dependent upon each other as well as upon the other components of the machine whose efficient function is also required for the maintenance of the systems of communication, we may have to acknowledge that our understanding of the behaviours of this system is somewhat less than our understanding of the behaviour of water. We are also faced with the fact that we cannot design experiments to perform on these machines, for that would be unethical, which would allow only one part to function whilst holding the others in stasis. We are therefore left with only the possibility of RCT (randomised controll(ed) trials) and clinical observation. These may result in significant quantities of data, from which tentative conclusions may be drawn until we have a robust theoretical framework from which explanations may be drawn and predictions may be made.

In some circumstances we have to resort to forensic analysis of the data which has many useful, indeed valuable, techniques associated with it, where there is no possibility of repetition of a single one time event, in order to understand it. Now I need say no more here than that forensic examination is simply another word for guess work in which the actual solution after all the possible explanations have been considered and shown to be wanting is the ‘impossible’ explanation. Darwin left this teasingly in his hypothesis concerning origins laying down clearly the grounds on which his hypothesis must be tested and leaving later generations to show the wantonness of his hypothesis.  Mendel began this work and it has continued in many guises to the present day with perhaps greater and greater skill being shown than of which Darwin ever dreamed in the elaboration of the hypothesis in the vain hope that somehow it may be possible to avoid the consequences of a failure at the quite simple test that he proposed. The resultant edifice is not even built on sand, it is built upon the impossibility of two mutually exclusive requirements existing at the same time, not to mention the uncountable (though not in the mathematical sense of the word) number of violations of the principle that change must only take place in simple single steps.

The possibility then must be left open that whatever conclusions we draw may be falsified by another set of data drawn from a different RCT or set of observations in other circumstances.

Contemporary events

In recent days we have heard many say that you must follow the science, but the science has been inconclusive and contradictory. At times the message drawn from this has been inappropriate and non sequitur. For example to say that acquiring immunity from a particular disease will protect others is patently untrue . If I have immunity from say TB then I am more likely to carry the disease unknowingly and therefore become a greater danger to those whom I meet who have no immunity. We only need to think of the case of Mary Mallon to understand this. I am being more socially responsible by not acquiring immunity, for then I would know when I were ill and could take appropriate steps to protect others. There are many other things that could be said both about the messages drawn in respect of the recent global infection and the quality of the data on which they are based, again however this article is not the place for that discussion.

Underlying paradigm

A second reason perhaps for debate being seen as dangerous is that it not only challenges the conclusions drawn from the data but undermines the paradigm which lies behind the specific interpretations of the data. The paradigm is held dearly by those who hold it, for they have an abhorrence, which some are not afraid to display, towards alternative paradigms within which alternative understandings of the data may be held, and which each can yield contrastingly different conclusions than the opinions generally held.

The hostility to any alternative view, even if it can be supported by rigorous mathematical calculations using the same data and mathematics that the majority view use, leads to a stifling of debate and ultimately to a stagnation of science. The silencing of those whom you see as your opponents in science is detrimental to progress.

It is exceedingly important in science that you recognise those who disagree with you as being honest scientists. None of us are infallible, and none of us have a perfect understanding. Archimedes was wrong. Pythagoras was wrong. Galileo and Copernicus were wrong. Einstein and Bohr were wrong. Only two of us were right, and I cannot remember who the other one is.  Of course I jest, but you, dear reader, know what I mean.

It is not, at least from a scientific perspective, wrong to hold different underlying paradigms for to hold a paradigm is necessary in order to offer interpretations of data, but we cross the line when we say that our interpretation is the only valid one.

The correct position – to encourage debate

Every true scientist lays down a challenge for every other scientist: This is my hypothesis A is true, disprove it if you will, please. His delight is, and if not is, it should be, that you take up that challenge. If every other scientist does not rise to the challenge then no progress will be made and we shall do nothing more than promulgate the same false ideas with which Galileo agonised. It is not until we have demonstrated that A cannot be false that we have any real certainty that A might be true. The scientist must live dangerously, expecting that every one else will wish to prove him wrong and in failing to do so demonstrate that he might be right.

Conclusion

Debate is valuable for it is the life blood of progress. Debate and disagreement are necessary in science for we do not have a complete and perfect understanding. Debate is dangerous for it challenges our well beloved but imperfect understandings of how things are and may require us to change.

The corollary ‘Dogmatism is valuable. Dogmatism is necessary. Dogmatism is dangerous.’  has also been demonstrated in this short article. It is left as an exercise to the reader to deconstruct and reconstruct the article appropriately.

International Lymphoedema Framework

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

I have just returned from the International Lymphoedema Conference 2023  #ILF which was held in Nottingham. It was a wonderful scientific, medical and therapeutic conference for any who would have any interest at all in lymphoedema in its many and varied forms. Much of the science went over my head, especially when presented by the Dutch, but it was still possible to detect some conflicting hypotheses and the robust debate among and between the participants. Such debate demonstrates a very healthy environment for the development of sound science based upon real-world evidence. Among the participants were the #theila the International Lipoedema Association whose stall was well worth the visit. What has lipoedema to do with lymphoedema? You may well ask, but I shall offer no explanation here for fear of misleading you, save to say that those who know know. Do visit their websites:
International Lymphoedema Framework
International Lipoedema Association

ILA Stall

More pictures from the conference – password required – here

More may be read about the involvement of ILA in the conference here. Note especially the engaging discussions: Thought-provoking discussions led to a deeper awareness of the challenges faced by the lipoedema community. It is a well thought out understatement indeed.

Total energy consumption

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

One cannot but be impressed with the work of Greene and his students, not just at winning the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering, but for the 40% improvement in the efficiency of solar cells that resulted from the application of their work. The report may be read here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64553915 (Queen Elizabeth Prize: Solar team wins prestigious engineering award)

We are also provided with an impressive graph which appears to show that in 2021 solar production of electricity was nearly 50% of that provided by coal. Closer inspection reveals that not all is well with this graph. The percentages do not add up to 100. Something is missing, and most of the missingness can be filled by oil and nuclear, nearly 14% in 2010 falling to 10% in 2021. I am aware that the graph runs to 2022, but I have to restrict my comments to 2021 not having additional data for 2022.

It looks good, but is it?

The second problem we have is that it does not take into account the increase in consumption of electricity since 2010. In 2010 total production was roughly 21TWh, increasing by 25% to 28TWh in 2021. The graph shows nice falling lines for coal and natural gas, which are of course big carbon dioxide producers, as if we are reducing our dependence upon them. If we apply the 25% increase in consumption to the graph however all of the lines tend upwards.

The real problem however is that we appear to be looking solely at electricity consumption. This rather distorts the issues, giving a false impression of how well we are doing in our progress towards the combat of the factors that influence unwanted climate change. A different analysis can be seen if we look not only at electricity consumption, but at the energy costs of electricity production. Coal then comes in at 36%, solar at only 4%. For coal you get out in electricity about one third of what you put in. When you factor in other uses of power, such as transport (shipping, petrol and diesel vehicles, etc) then the picture yet quite different as you may see in the graph below.

Quite a different picture when total energy costs are factored in

Given that the figures behind this have been compiled by BP if there is any bias in them at all it is likely to be in favour of fossil fuels, rather than the other way round, but I have assumed there is no bias. Solar costs are about 3TWh for 2021. Coal is about 44TWh. There is quite a good discussion on https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix explaining why we need to look at the production costs of the power we use not just at the power we consume.

The good news is that renewables, which consisted of only 14% of total energy use in 2010 in 2021 consisted of 17%, and increase of 45%.  This mitigated the increase in fossil fuel use, but we still managed to increase out consumption of fossil fuels by 12%.

Let me add in closing that the BBC graph is accurate. It describes precisely what it claims to describe. It could make a nice marketing tool for an electricity supply company that wanted its customers to feel good about buying from them, but it does not provide the information we need to assess where we are in our efforts to decarbonise energy production.

Summary figures:TWhTWh
World20102021
Fossil fuels121480136018112%
Other sources1901927691146%
Total140500163709117%
Fossil fuels86%83%
Other sources14%17%
Detailed figures may be obtained from the data set available at https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix

Abyssal

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

I came across a new word today and thought to look it up. Well, it is not exactly a new word, but it was used in quite an unexpected context. The abyss is what we expect it to be, a deep, unfathomable hole, pit, mine labyrinth or whatever else may have the physical quality of depth, such as the sea. We speak of the abyss for depths beyond the fathoms we can count on two hands. So what is abyssal?

We also speak of the unfathomable wisdom of God. Paul declared: ‘O the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable are his ways.’ His thinking is unfathomable, and therefore we could say abyssal. We speak of quiet rivers that run deep, in the context of men of few words but who think deeply, and when they speak, speak wisely. We could say of them that they are abyssal thinkers. They have abyssal thoughts. Just in case it needs to be said, but I hope the next few words are wasted, abyssal (deep) is not abysmal (out of the deep). Abysmal has a similar meaning, but it is, perhaps we could say, the negative form of the word. Abysmal thinking does not bear the fruit of wisdom but rather of folly.

So, when I heard the word used of thinking in a sociological context my understanding was quite straightforward. We need abyssal thinking in order to evaluate, analyse and understand the particular set of data that was being presented to us. I could hardly disagree. Deep thinking is indeed required to understand a complex data-set. Sometimes I wonder why we use jargon like that – data-set – a list of facts. We have to marshal our facts, place some on the right, and some on the left, and between them, the abyss. Woe to you who place the facts on the wrong side, your conclusions will be as defective as your placements.

But no, so it seems, we do not need abyssal thinking. We have to abandon it. At that point I understood that perhaps there is a meaning hidden somewhere in the abyssal depths of language to the word which I had failed to grasp. A quick read of a Wikipedia article might be a good place to start before reading the academic paper, so I looked up ‘abyssal – sociology’. Yes, Wikipedia has an article. What happened next may have been an artefact of the bug within my browser, but this is the article as you may see (or otherwise) in the picture below.

Abyssal – sociology

Yes, I have edited the screen shot. I have removed the endless (following an example and to use the word incorrectly) list of other open tabs, cut out my favourite icons, and removed some of the white space at the bottom of the screen, nevertheless what you see in this picture is what I see in the browser. I took it to be a message about the true meaning of abyssal. Just as it means unfathomable, it is itself unfathomable, as I was about to discover.

The article does exist. Refreshing the page brought it back out of the albanic abyss. Now recently I found myself in agreement with a sociologist, but today perhaps not. The opening words of the paper seem innocuous enough: Modern Western thinking is an abyssal thinking. I think (sic!) that that statement would even be true firstly without the first word and then also without the second. When we think we do it in order to reach a conclusion. We have to work something out, and that working out requires that we separate one side of the arguments from the other. There is an abyss between the arguments for (pros) and the arguments against (cons). Our thinking must identify that abyss and correctly position the evidence around it. (My quantumly minded friends may leave aside any notion they may have of the possibility of tunnelling through the abyss, and fans of Star Trek should for the time being refrain from using their warp drives). This is the way that logic works.

The paper then goes on however to present quite a different understanding of abyssal thinking. The abstract gives the game away by telling us that in the context of a particular struggle that a new kind of thinking is required, a post-abyssal thinking. I have misunderstood the use of the word abyssal. Indeed, if I have any kind of correct understanding at all of what is being said, it would not matter what word was used, as it is simply being used as a peg on to which to hang his argument that the ‘West’ (whatever that may mean) has a lot for which to answer if it is going to redeem its ‘colonial’ past, suggesting indeed that what is actually required is the overthrow of ‘Western’ thought.

We could have easily as said ‘Modern Western thinking is Tweedledeedum thinking‘. The paper does identify some parts of some Western thinking that is flawed, and clearly where thinking is flawed (Tweedledeedum) then it should be abandoned. A little careful abyssal thinking will help us find out those flaws.

Secondly, the paper does not appear to be about active thinking, that is what we do when we work with our minds to solve a problem, but rather about passive established opinions, which may be held thoughtlessly, and which may drive our actions and our views of other people.

I expect to be told that an overthrow is not what is meant. I disagree. The modern solution to many problems has involved an overthrow. The French revolution fell into the trap. Marx clearly propounded it, and we see the consequences in the countless deaths both in the Soviet Union and China as a consequence of the ruthless application of his doctrine. It is not true to say if we destroy everything we shall have a better world, but it suits those who want power in their own hands and not the hands of somebody else.

Thirdly, the paper appears only to be destructive in its intent. It characterises all modern Western thinking as abyssal (actually, I think it really intends to say abysmal), but there is much in Western thinking that is quite different to the straw man that it sets out.

Where is honour, respect, personality and individuality given to women if not in Western thought? Where is equal honour given to all men and women before the law without distinction as to class, caste, or religion if not in Western thought? Where is the rule of law respected above the rule of the despot if not in Western thought? And what is the invisible hand beneath this, if not the hand of God in his Word, which shows what he in his providence has established for the good of mankind? Without the influence of the Word of God in our society, we would be as bleak as those that are characterised here as on the other side of the line. I am not suggesting that all is as it should be, but certainly it is the case that not all is not as it should be.

I would like to take some words from the paper and apply them in a different context.

“To give an example based on [events in the past twenty years, Cathay’s] modernity may be characterised as a socio−political paradigm founded on the tension between social regulation and social emancipation. This is the visible distinction that founds all [eastern] conflicts, both in terms of substantive issues and in terms of procedures. But underneath this distinction there is another, invisible one, upon which the visible one is founded. This invisible one is the distinction between metropolitan societies (Peking) and colonial territories (Hong Kong). Indeed, the regulation/emancipation dichotomy only applies to metropolitan societies. It would be unthinkable to apply it to colonial territories. The regulation/emancipation dichotomy has no conceivable place in such territories. There, another dichotomy would apply, the dichotomy between appropriation/violence, which, in turn, would be inconceivable if applied on this side of the line. Because the colonial territories were unthinkable as sites for the unfolding of the paradigm of regulation/emancipation, the fact that the latter did not apply to them did not compromise the paradigm’s universality. “

Perhaps a Marxist would disagree with the suggested emendations.

As for abyssal thinking, I suggested at the start that this word does indeed characterise our thinking, whether we are Western, Eastern or Southern, but let us be careful that it does not also characterise the outcome of our thinking. Our words to others should not be abyssal, lest they be unfathomable, incomprehensible and abysmal.

It is only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit who is unfathomable, unsearchable, inscrutable, abyssal, which we may sum up in but one word, ineffable, but revealed to us in Jesus Christ. Glory to his Name!

The paper by the way may be found here: https://www.eurozine.com/beyond-abyssal-thinking/

And a refutation of abyssal thinking in the context of racialised bilinguality here: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10134372/1/Rejecting%20abyssal%20thinking%20in%20the%20language%20and%20education%20of%20racialized%20bilinguals%20A%20manifesto.pdf

Health Care or Profit

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

I am astonished. I find myself in agreement with a sociologist. ‘The market in health care is not a means of achieving competitive efficiency but a pseudo-market for creating private value at public expense.’

But I suppose agreement comes in that he is speaking to the least favourite part of my education in accounting, economics. Now when a sociologist speaks to economics one would wonder whether you need to find a pinch of salt, but then you already know that you need more than a pinch when you read any of my comments on economics, so my agreement with the man does not lend any support to what he wrote.

However little I understand economics, the use of words like competitive efficiency and pseudo-market, or even market on its own let alone any pseudosity about it, are warning signs of the first degree.  As an aside, if you know what a warning side of the second degree is you are at least one step ahead of me; please share your thoughts. The conclusion however stands up to all the scrutiny of the much less glamourous side of accountancy. If a service is provided by a non-profit organisation then it will, all other things being equal, cost less than an organisation that is set up for profit. This is an obvious conclusion for there is one significant cost within the organisation set up for profit which is not in the non-profit organisation. That additional cost is not taxation it is the return to the owners of the organisation. That return may be in the way of dividends or the super-profit of the owner being the amount in excess of the wages he would have been paid had he been employed by the organisation.  

Of course not all other things are equal, and the inequalities in the other things will drive the cost up or down. The costs of raw materials are likely to be different for the greater purchasing power of the National Health Care System (NHCS) should be capable of procuring raw materials more cheaply than the other organisations. Staff costs may be different in the other organisations for several reasons:

  1. The other organisations will not be bound by the national agreements of the NHCS;
  1. rates may be higher as a consequence of the expectation of staff that working for a private organisation should be remunerated at a higher rate then working for the NHCS
  2. rates may be lower as a consequence of the transfer of the pension costs away from the NHCS
  3. Base staffing levels within the NHCS may be kept lower if an other organisation is providing staff. The risk of having more staff than can be usefully employed is passed over to the other organisation.
  4. The other organisation will wish to be compensated for taking on the staff level risk.
  5. Where base staff levels are inadequate, the NHCS becomes dependent upon the provision of staff by the other organisation who are then able to charge a premium for the staff they provide.

On balance I would consider that it is likely that staff costs will be greater when taking into account a value for each of these factors, notwithstanding that in some local cases the costs may be lower. I am sure there are economists out there who will point out that I have missed many other factors which influence the cost as not all things are equal.

I cannot but then agree, though I say it with a heavy heart being on the purer side of the spectrum of scientists, with the sociologist that the market in health care is a means of creating private value at public expense.

Or, as the man on the Clapham omnibus might say: Those who wish to make a pretty penny out of health care will relish the thought of its privatisation. If we wish to retain our NHS then efforts to privatise any part of it should be resisted.

The sociologist is Robert Dingwall. In https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2022/11/the-covid-pandemic-in-france-a-review/ he is reviewing two books which analyse the response in France to the presence of Covid-19 in the population, and draws interesting comparisons with the UK’s response.  I commend it to you.

Evil: the problem of it

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

You will have heard it said: I cannot believe in God. Look at the evil in the world! Or perhaps more personally: I saw how they treated each other even though they believed in God. I cannot believe in that.

I should like to show that the very reason that is given for not believing in God, is the very reason that says you must believe in him. Now this is a short article and will not necessarily answer all the questions you may have, and certainly will not be an exhaustive description of all the possible understandings of the problem.

We do not shy away from the fact that there is evil in the world. We acknowledge it. It exists. Nor do we shy away from the fact that evil must be redressed. There is within each one of us a sense of justice. That is wrong, we say, it must be put right. The perpetrator must be punished! We want justice. At times we want revenge, but that is a desire for justice coupled with an evil intention on our part. The one who does wrong must pay. Recompense for wrong must be made. Compensation is required. All of these thoughts and the feelings associated with them arise because evil exists and we know it is wrong.

So, there is a problem of evil which we must face. There is also its corollary, the problem of justice. If there is a problem of evil, then there is also the problem of justice: how shall evil be dealt with fairly and rightly?

In a world where gravity rules, and objects without support fall inexorably to the ground, it is no use pretending that we as human beings can fly. We shall learn quickly, but only briefly, that we cannot. Of course it is possible to mitigate the effects of a fall. It is also possible to design machines that will support us in the air, and allow us to fly, no, rather fly for us. In order to do this we must have both a correct understanding of gravity, and its operation, even if we do not understand, and as yet we do not, how it operates and a correct understanding of the materials used and their interactions, for example aerodynamically, for the construction of the machines.

In the same way in this world where evil is, it is no use pretending that evil does not exist, though of course we wish it did not. As with gravity we must try to understand it, in order to mitigate its effects and potentially overcome it. It is when we commence this journey of understanding that we discover how difficult it is.

So we might ask: who opened Pandora’s box? This is an old, but the not oldest explanation, of the problem. There was a time when evil was safely locked away in a box, but the box was then opened. The solution then is to put everything back into the box. That is more easily said than done. I shall not describe the failure of the process of repacking the box, it is really self-evident. In any event, this explanation ignores the obvious. It sets evil apart as if it were distinct from men and our actions.  We know however that it is men who commit acts of evil against other men. The problem is one in our own hearts, as each of us knows. We find it in ourselves, though we say that we are not as bad as Mrs Neredogood or Mr Al Waysbad.

The atheist, building upon the nineteenth century works of uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolution*, has come up with the novel explanation that our evil acts are in fact good acts. Nature is red in tooth and claw for the benefit of the species. The arms race which we see in nature is necessary for the progress of the species. The rule of law is non-existent, unless the survival of the fittest is regarded as law. Death is non-existent; it is merely a rearrangement of the cells and chemical machines which make up the cells. Disease is simply a mal-functioning of the machines, or evidence of a potentially lost battle in the war between the species. There is no problem of evil, it is simply the way we describe the important and necessary tools which brought the human species out on top and will pave the way for the emergence of superior races in the future.

This atheistic hope, or religion, however fails on its own grounds. It believes that the war must continue. It believes that the individual has no intrinsic value apart from being a type of the species, but it is unwilling to reach, or is that articulate, the obvious conclusion that it is right, as we see in nature, that the weak, the sick, the lame, the blind, the deaf, the deprived are entirely disposable. It is the fit that must propagate, not the weak. Just as nature promotes the survival of the fittest not of the weak, so then should we. But the atheist does not go around disposing of the weak, rather he shows humanity and care for them. He promotes their rights. But what rights are they? On the basis of his doctrine, no man has any rights, he is just a chemical machine. The atheist cannot suppress his humanity, the doctrine of which rests upon an entirely different foundation than that on which he rests his faith. The atheist also wants to defeat the very forces (of evil) which brought us into (in his understanding) existence.

The atheist offers no answer, only contradictions.

Many religions recognising the problem in this world lay before us a separation of good and evil. In this system of apartheid, there is the prospect of another place in which there shall be no evil, and a system of rites is set out which may enable the devotee to gain access to that other place. On the other side, set apart, there is the place where evil continues to be perpetrated by beings which are wholly evil on those who fail to acquire the right to enter the better place. There is a way to escape they say. Do this!

Others recognising the problem of evil is actually in our hearts look forward to a dissolution of our whole being into a cosmic enlightenment. More properly this could be regarded as the dissolving of our identity and personality in the eternal being. What ’being’ means in that context is a disputed concept, and I suppose if true, cannot be properly understood until you are there, but the generally considered view is that when you are there you are no longer you. You have not ceased to exist, but rather you have been completed. In being completed the things that made you you have been taken away. I found it helpful to think of an extension being added to a house. Whilst it is being built (life on earth) it has a separate existence to the house, but the day arrives when it is assimilated into the house. It does not cease to exist, but has no existence apart from the house. It has no personal identity, it shares the identity of the house, and before long no-body knows that it was ever not there.

Both of these positions address the problem of evil, and face up to it, but both do not deal adequately with the problem of justice. The way they face up to the problem of evil is however only to offer an escape from it.

In the first case they say if you do right you may go into this good place. That does not deal with evil. The one who goes into the good place takes with him his own nature which has within it all the elements of evil that were present in this world. How soon then will it be, and it matters not whether it is a short time or an eternity, before the evil in that heart is manifest in the good place? The problem of evil has not been taken away.

Secondly, it does not address the problem of justice. There is an acknowledgement that all do evil, but the good that is done may at the end outweigh the evil and allow entrance to the good place. What about the evil that has been done by these, and which has not been dealt with justly? What if that evil had been done against one who had not been admitted to the good place, will that one not have a valid complaint that justice has not been done on his behalf? The solution offered is one that appeals to the wicked heart: I am alright Jack.

In the second case evil in the heart has to be dealt with before the dissolution or completion can take place. Various rites are proposed for the dealing with this evil heart, which can lead to an almost endless cycle of being. The rites however only deal with the appearance of evil, not its internal roots. The washing of the flesh; the discipline of the body concerning food or sleep; the provision of alms; these are all external matters, and do not deal with the desires of the heart, soul, mind or eyes.

And again the problem of justice is not addressed. We sometimes say: he escaped justice. We mean the man died before he could be brought to court to be punished. A man may reach the completion stage before those whom he previously wronged have been given justice.

Religions in their many forms merely offer an escape. The escape is both from the evil of this world, and from the justice which they justly face.

If there really is an answer to the problem of evil, it must also answer the problem of justice. I have shown so far that men only offer two answers. One says there is no problem. The other offers an escape from one and no answer for the other. So is there no hope? Is there really no answer?

No, there is an answer which satisfies both the problem of evil and the problem of justice, but it is not an answer of men’s devising. It runs contrary to our ways of thinking, turning on their heads our ideas of success, wealth, health, prosperity, goodness, love, wisdom, leadership and many others, most of which we have no space to consider here.

There is only one teaching which addresses completely the two problems. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, everything in them and man in his own image. The man failed to be obedient to God and brought sin into the world. On that day God placed a curse upon the world, and gave a promise that one day he would lift that curse through a child born of a woman. We have a saying: like father like son. Some we know escape from that, but in general terms it is true. We read that Adam had a son in his own image. That image contained the same rebellion and disobedience that Adam had admitted into his own heart, and the heart of every man since has been tainted with the same disobedience, so that we cry out: we shall not have this man to rule over us. It is as true today as when it was first said. We hear it often – only recently in both of the United States the supporters of the loser have raised the same cry against the winner. The cry may be against men, or against our Maker.

This is the problem of evil which we clearly recognise. It is both external, in the curse upon the world, and internal, in the state of our hearts. The external evil is both punishment (eg in toil you shall eat bread) and reminder (eg thorns and thistles the ground shall bring forth). The whole of creation is pictured as groaning under the curse longing for the day that it shall be lifted. And we are the cause of it. The state of our hearts results in all manner of evil in our lives. Some exhibit these things more than others, and some in different ways than others. They may be described in this way: Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like (Galations 5:19-21). Now you may not agree with all of the items on the list – the adulterer may not like the first item, but the one who is wronged who is his partner is unlikely to want to remove it – but you will agree with at least some of them. These are the things that are in our hearts and which cause evil in this world in the mistreatment of others.  The problem of evil is not ignored and not downplayed.

The problem of justice is also addressed: Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. (Romans 13:3-4) Provision has been made for justice to be done in this world. Of course there are always those who escape this justice, but cannot escape justice itself. Given that God has made provision for justice we are told (Romans 12:19) do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; and then to show that no-one shall escape justice for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Men may escape the justice of the underlords of this world, but cannot escape from the overlord.

So Christian doctrine then clearly recognises the problems of both evil and justice; is a solution also provided? Christian teaching does indeed provide a solution, again not based on the ideas of men, but revealed to us from God.

Firstly we note what God has said: (Deuteronomy 11:26-28) Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you today; and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known. This is echoed back in the New Testament (Galatians 3:10): Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.

The religions of men set before men rites, rules and regulations to follow, but fail to make it clear that it is not a matter of measuring how many times you keep them against how many times you fail. It is made very clear you must continue in all things, not just some of the time but all of the time. Any failure, no matter how slight, breaks the law (James 2:10) For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. Many say: Oh, it is but a peccadillo. But if it is such a little thing, why do it? The law says drive at 20mph, but you drive at 21. It does not matter you say, it is only a little thing. If it is only a little think why is it such a difficulty to you to obey the law? To stumble in one point, however small, reveals the attitude of the heart towards the law, and the readiness of the heart to break it. Christian teaching places everyone guilty under the law. The problem of evil is not ignored.  

Furthermore, the manner of cleansing from the guilt of this evil is not downplayed. Religions often have regulations concerning washings, food and drink, but what do we read? (Matthew 15: 17-20) The Lord Jesus said: Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man. Again, we see that it is not external things that can assist or defile us. They do no good, but are merely (Hebrews 9:9-10) symbolic for the present time. In [the Tabernacle] both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience –  [they were] concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

The washing with water, whether in a baptism or a river; the sacrifice of food or drink, whether on an altar or by denial; these things do not change our hearts though they may discipline our bodies.

The solution is not in a system of rites, regulations and rules, but that system does provide a symbol of what is required. In the system gifts and sacrifices were offered which could not make perfect, clean or complete, but each one was symbolic of a sacrifice that would achieve that.

For the solution we go back to the first promise, that a man would come to deal with the curse. That man, Jesus, came born of a virgin as foretold. He is the seed of the woman, not of Adam. Here we have a real man, born of a woman but not of the will of man. This man came into the world to be born. We came into the world when we were born. This one was in the beginning with God, by nature was God, and is a real man, who could be touched and handled.

This man is the one who would deal with the problem of evil in both its internal and external forms and the problem of justice.

There is no solution unless it addresses with both of these problems.

Jesus in his ministry demonstrated his ability to do just this. He showed his power over external evil by healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, casting out demons, feeding the hungry, crushing the power of the storm and in many other things. He taught that the heart had to be changed, and that we could not do that of ourselves a man had to be born again of the Spirit. It was not a making better of the old that was required, but a new heart altogether. He would be the provider of that new heart. The old would be taken away. Paul expressed it in this way: (2 Corinthians 5:17) Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

He demonstrated an approach to justice which took some aback. A lame man was brought to him. Jesus pronounced his sins forgiven. An adulteress was brought to him for stoning, and he refusing to condemn her told her to sin no more. When asked by his disciples how often they should forgive their brother he replied: (Matthew 18:22) I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. He then told them a story about a lack of forgiveness at the end of which he intimates that if we wish to be forgiven, and we may be, then we must also forgive others. The servant who refused to forgive another was required to pay his debt in full for justice is required: so my heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother.

But on what basis could forgiveness be offered? Justice does not provide for forgiveness and cannot require that a man forgive another for the wrong that has been done. Justice requires a penalty which exactly fits the wrong. It is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. Justice may require a pound of flesh, but it cannot in the process also exact even a millilitre of blood. Our attempts to measure the penalties for any wrong doing are flawed and inadequate, but in some measure in our societies we try to achieve a balance between the demands of the wronged and the rights of the wrong doer in order to fulfil the requirements of justice. There is one who has no difficulty, and whose judgement is never flawed or misdirected. David recognised this when offered a choice of penalties for his sin: (2 Samuel 24:13) Please let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for His mercies are great; but do not let me fall into the hand of man. Only if justice is done can we think about forgiveness.

So then, we have found that Christian doctrine takes seriously the problem of evil and the problem of justice. Justice requires a penalty for evil, all men have in some way contributed to evil, and none is able to make any change to the situation. We are condemned, and any right minded person must understand this. Men’s religions recognise this, but in seeking to minimise the implications can only offer failing solutions.

The solution is found in that justice is done.  Jesus himself declares that it was for this very purpose that he came into the world. Whilst teaching his disciples about leadership he said of himself Mark 10:45: For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many. If men are condemned by the law, then a penalty must be paid. This penalty is the ransom price. The price is high; it is a life for a life.

And so Jesus in due time was taken by his enemies and handed over by them to be crucified as a ransom for many. He did not deserve to die. Even the man who condemned him asked: Mark 15:14 What wrong has he done? And on more than one occasions stated John 18:38 19:4 and 6: I find no fault in him. The Lord gave his enemies an opportunity to present their case: John 8:46 Which of you convicts me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? They did not answer him but rather suggested, as they knew well he was not, that he was a demon possessed Samaritan.

The real man Jesus then was crucified, becoming a curse for everyone who hangs on a tree is cursed (Galatians 3:13). In becoming a curse he becomes able to lift the curse that is on creation. He had already demonstrated his power over creation, in his death he acquired the legal right to give effect to the necessary transformation. In his death he also paid the ransom price, by paying the penalty that was due to us for our sin. The penalty was paid not for himself, and as the penalty he paid was far greater, for though he suffered death as a man, it was God who hung on the cross. The price he paid then is a ransom price not for one but for many.

On the basis of having fulfilled the law’s demands therefore he acquired the legal right to forgive sins. We have already mentioned that the Lord had said: Vengeance is mine, I will repay. On the cross he did that. He exacted vengeance and paid the debt. Now he may offer and give forgiveness to men. And we who receive that forgiveness learn to forgive those who do evil against us. Justice is satisfied.

The Christian doctrine then takes seriously the problem of evil and the corollary problem of justice. It does not play down any aspect of either but faces squarely up to both. It also holds that God in his Son Jesus has dealt with both of these problems by an act in our history and the history of this world.

No other religion, ethic or philosophy faces up to the problems adequately, leaving either one or the other unfulfilled.

Another aspect of the Christian doctrine of evil is that it is intrinsic in the heart of man, as we have shown above – out of the heart of man proceed… – but that God deals with this by giving men new hearts. Again we made reference to this above – a man must be born again. This is a radical change in the nature of a man. It is not completed in this life, for the new heart is born into the old body. This life for a believer in Christ become a place of conflict. It is not an external conflict, but an internal one in which the new heart struggles to overcome the old. The Christian is encourage not to be conformed to the [oldway] but to be transformed and become like Christ. The transformation is guaranteed to be completed on the basis of the promise and the power of God in Jesus Christ and his faithfulness to his own word.

Christian doctrine thus address both the problem of evil and the problem of justice. Forgiveness is obtained by ensuring that justice is done, thus satisfying the problem of justice, and the evil heart of the forgiven man is removed and a new heart given thus removing the root of evil in men.

Concerning the future, there are rightly identified two outcomes for men, but neither are the outcomes posited by men’s religions. Neither outcome would adequately address the twin problems of evil and justice if any aspect of Christian doctrine were removed.

If we may refer to these as the good and the bad outcome in order to avoid prejudgements, the good outcome is that the curse shall be lifted from the present creation, and believers shall live on a renewed earth, which shall be the same as, but utterly different than the present earth, in bodies which shall be the same as, but utterly different than our present bodies. There is not another place for us. The characteristics of this place may be described in the following terms which Paul uses immediately after describing the characteristic actions of evil: the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). The detail is left for another day for (1 Corinthians 2:9) eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love him. If we enjoy the blessing of God in this world, alloyed as it is with evil and sin, what joy will it be when sin has been removed from the world and your hearts!

The bad outcome is not as posited by some a place of torment by demons and other evil creatures. It is a place of justice. Vengeance is mine, I shall repay says the Lord. The Lord described it as a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. It is a fearful description and the physical reality of it is beyond our imagination, but it is not a place where demons have a free reign of terror over men. They too are consigned in chains so that they cannot torment men ever again. The weeping and gnashing of teeth hint at what is going on. One of the Psalms references the place also, in a description that is perhaps more fearful than we find here: Psalm 129:8 Let not those who pass by them say, ‘The blessing of the Lord be upon you; We bless you in the name of the Lord!’ I have only quoted one verse, it is enough. That place is a place where the blessing of God is absent. All of the good things we enjoy here shall be gone. The love of family and friends, the sound of singing, the sound of gladness of heart, the sight of dancing will all be gone. Men will grieve over what has been lost never having given God thanks for it, and now having lost it curse God for their loss. The punishment will not be anything more or less than is deserved, and men will know that. As one thief cried out to the other: (Luke 23:40-41) Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong, they will know that they are there justly. And this worm shall not die.

Conclusion

You will have heard it said: I cannot believe in God. Look at the evil in the world! Or perhaps more personally: I saw how they treated each other even though they believed in God. I cannot believe in that. But no, I can only reply: Look at all the evil in the world! Look at how they treat one another even though they believe in God! I must believe in him for he is the only one who has, and has provided, the answer to all of this.

* This article is not the place to discuss the failure of both uniformitarianism and Darwinism. Suffice it to say that whilst they fail as a consequence of external evidences, they actually fail on their own terms and internal structures.

Editors

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

There is increasing evidence that the editor no longer reads the articles placed in the newspaper critically. Sometimes the most obvious mistakes are made, up with which the later Sir Winston would not have put but which featured often in the Grauniad. Take this as a recent example:

“Up to half of people died when the Black Death swept through Europe in the mid-1300s.”

I wondered whether the editor had read the title, saw who wrote it and concluded that having obtained his own degree at the LSE he would not have a hope of understanding what the gentleman scientist had said so simply signed it off. Perhaps the words following ‘A pioneering study analysing the DNA…’ confirmed him in his misconception.

However, such mistakes are evident even to the man on the Clapham omnibus to whom the learned judge appealed, and are just as likely to appear in the work of this uneditored writer as in that which has passed the mis-scrutiny of the most eagle-eyed editor when presented with academic superiority. ‘Trust the science’ we have often been told of what was heralded as a new Black Death, but as the ASA has noted recently in relation to the green-washing of a bank without borders, it is possible to present the science without disclosing all of the relevant and material facts.

Now I am sure you have seen the obvious mistake that the editor missed, but did you see the second? The context of the article is Europe, so we do not need to consider death rates outside Europe, which may have been more or, it is thought perhaps, less than that among Europeans. There is a missing article in the sentence; possibly also a qualifier, and adjective or adjectival phrase, for the word people which would be helpful towards the understanding of what is said.

But the second mistake is perhaps even more clear: that there are no survivors today of the Black Death that swept through Europe in the 14th century, tells us quite clearly that all of the people of Europe have died who lived in the time of the Black Death. It was not simply half of them, and in the manner of counting deaths from the recent plague, all of them having had contact with the Black Death and were therefore Black Death deaths.

Science is useful, but when you hear the words ‘Trust the science’, ask: Which science? The science of yesterday, of today or of tomorrow? Let the scientist remember that the science of today is often overturned by that of tomorrow. Is the certainty of what science says 5%, 70% or 95% ? But as every man who goes into a betting shop knows, even a cert (100%) does not win every race.

But there is one who is the same yesterday, today and forever. Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines). He may be trusted when he speaks, so when you hear his voice do not harden your hearts against him. Jesus cries out: Come to me all who labour and are heavy laden, and I shall give you rest. We of today must all die as those of the 14th century did, but he has overcome death by giving his own life on a cross, and as he rose from the dead, he shall raise us from the dead when he comes again.

Trust the science, but know its limits, and do not be carried about with various and strange ideas that are like shifting sands. But better trust Jesus who said: Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away.

Unvaccinated?

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

The BBC have run an analysis ‘Unvaccinated’. It is available for eleven months.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0019g27/unvaccinated

‘Covid-19 is on the rise again in the UK. After multiple lockdowns and more than 197,000 deaths, experts are warning we’re now entering a fifth wave of the pandemic. So why are around four million adults in the UK still yet to receive a single dose of the vaccine? In this timely, eye-opening investigation Professor Hannah Fry seeks to understand why so many remain unvaccinated against Covid-19.

To fully explore this complex and deeply divisive debate, Hannah brings seven unvaccinated participants together under one roof to unpack long-held opinions, beliefs and fears that have prevented them from getting the vaccine. Together, they meet leading experts, confront the latest science and statistics to emerge in the field, and dissect how misinformation spreads on social media. At the end of the experiment, each contributor is asked if what they have learned has changed their mind, and whether they will now take up the vaccine.‘

If this is the same Professor Hannah Fry as in the Mathematics of Cities at the UCL Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, then it seems to Coco that she brings the regimen of mathematics into disrepute. The study, which is designed to fully explore the complex and deeply divisive debate over whether to submit to vaccination or not, is hardly a scientific study, even by the standards of the least rigorous of the psycho-social , so-called, scientific disciplines. There is no parallel study to explore the opinions, beliefs and fears of those who have submitted to vaccination; no meeting of the vaccinated to discuss the contrary evidence and no question put to each of them whether with their greater knowledge they now understand the issues better and in the light of that would have refused the vaccination.

Whilst the setting, if the headline picture is of the location for the event, is quite pleasant, and certainly appears to be less ‘clinical’ than other centres used for similar, but quite different and putatively malicious, purposes, the description provided above suggests that this is nothing less than an attempt at re-education. It is an entirely one-sided, one-way effort to persuade individuals to change their views.

Coco is disappointed, but not astonished nor surprised by the BBC but disappointed, and astonished at UCL.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, this is not in itself a discussion of the reasons for and against vaccination. As mentioned above, the issues are complex; the science, such as it is, behind the modern vaccines is young; the language used to code biological systems is only partly and inadequately understood. There are many uncertainties. There are also complex social issues around our responses to threats, especially where there is a mixture of real, only perceived, and illusory threats some of which are propagated by those with special interests which are not fully aligned with the interests of the actual or potential patients.

E&OE